http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

ptown_trojans_1;1118710 wrote:True, but what are the R's going to do about it if it is not fixed? How would they address it? I haven't heard a peep from them about it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577293330650534266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

ANOTHER budget proposal from the R's ........ already being slammed by the leftists. What has the left done: spent $6 trillion on new debt / offered not one senate budget / absolutely ZERO leadership from the White House.

GIVE ME A G D break!!!!

Willard successfully took on and defeated the base of the Republican party. He is going to be the nominee while largely being swept out of the south. It is certainly a return to the Rockefeller type Republicans that haven't been seen in almost 40 years.

I do wonder though how Willard will handle being in a campaign where he doesn't have a 10-1 money advantage to play whackamole against BHO.

He has struggled to vanquish Newt and Santorum (hardly world beaters) with a 10-1 spending advantage and a barrage of negative ads. How does that translate to the general when he won't be able to use that strategy, and will actually have to campaign on ideas/values he doesn't have. He has no core personal beliefs, but just hasn't been exposed yet.

Santorum wins big in Louisiana...picking up a grand total of 4 delegates on Romney. Of Louisiana's delegates... Santorum will get 9, Romney 5, and 5 delegates will go to the convention uncommitted.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/politics/120325/louisiana-primary-big-win-small-race

IggyPride00;1123260 wrote:He has no core personal beliefs, but just hasn't been exposed yet.

The MSM will insure his exposure after he wins the nomination.

Had the media had exposed their Chosen One four years ago, we wouldn't be faced with choosing between the Community Agitator from leftist Chicago and the Flip Flopping Guv from the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Paul Ryan said today that he'd "have to consider" a VP nod. While not actually "seeking" the job, keeping the possibility open is noteworthy because he has flatly denied an interest in the VP slot in the past. Ryan would be an excellent choice, giving the conservative base of the Republican Party something to get excited about, and as a counterbalance on the ticket to Romney the moderate.

HitsRus;1127619 wrote:Paul Ryan said today that he'd "have to consider" a VP nod. While not actually "seeking" the job, keeping the possibility open is noteworthy because he has flatly denied an interest in the VP slot in the past. Ryan would be an excellent choice, giving the conservative base of the Republican Party something to get excited about, and as a counterbalance on the ticket to Romney the moderate.

Yes.... This worked well for McCain.....

Ryan is presidential material. He'd be stupid to attach himself to a loser like Romney and ruin his chances in '16.

BGFalcons82;1122185 wrote:More ignorance. Does the Left practice your "gotcha" lines above in focus groups, then trot them out to the public to see how many salute the idiocy?

Quaker already noted the historic ass-pounding the Left received in November, 2010 signifying the strength of the Tea Party. Here's today's strength, a/k/a Paul Ryan's budget blueprint - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/20/house-republicans-to-unveil-budget-blueprint/ Without the Tea Party...would the budget discussions focus on cutting deficits? Would there be a conservative-leaning House of Representatives? Would there be a daily assault on people that just want their government to live within its means and budgets?

I hope the haters, such as yourself, stay on their drumbeat. Y'all didn't see the giant broom 15 months ago and based on your post, y'all won't see it again in 8 months.

That's all fine and good but what has actually been accomplished by the Republicans and the tea party since that ass pounding in 2010?

Other than going right back into re-election mode, I'd have to say "nothing". Heck, two of those newbies actually missed the swearing-in because they were attending fundraisers. Pretty obvious where their priorities were, wouldn't you say?

stlouiedipalma;1129279 wrote:That's all fine and good but what has actually been accomplished by the Republicans and the tea party since that ass pounding in 2010?

Other than going right back into re-election mode, I'd have to say "nothing". Heck, two of those newbies actually missed the swearing-in because they were attending fundraisers. Pretty obvious where their priorities were, wouldn't you say?

Well, they've passed three budgets out of the HOR in that time. The other 2 branches have done zero on that front.

In addition, they've brought down unemployment by a half point and are helping create jobs to the tune of 150-200K per month.

fish82;1129322 wrote:Well, they've passed three budgets out of the HOR in that time. The other 2 branches have done zero on that front.

That's just it isn't it? The Tea Party swept in historic changes to the House during the mid-term elections. The House presents genuine budget proposals yet the Senate and the White House ignored and/or squelched them to leave the federal government operating without a budget. Complete insanity and irresponsibility.

In the meantime where is the MSM on this issue? Why isn't this absurdity front and center in the daily news? Don't answer that. We all know the reason.

Then the socialists - I mean liberals - sorry I mean "progressives" have the audacity of wagging their fingers at the House and saying, "See, you got elected and haven't done a damned thing."

Friggin' amazes me.

But do you think that symbolic votes can get you re-elected? I'd rather have my representatives work together with the other side of the aisle and get things done than to hold some symbolic vote on a bill which has zero chance of becoming law. Both sides do this, by the way. I think that both parties have forgotten the meaning of the word "compromise".

stlouiedipalma;1130155 wrote:But do you think that symbolic votes can get you re-elected? I'd rather have my representatives work together with the other side of the aisle and get things done than to hold some symbolic vote on a bill which has zero chance of becoming law. Both sides do this, by the way. I think that both parties have forgotten the meaning of the word "compromise".

There was nothing "symbolic" about them. They were actual budgets, which Harry refused both times to even bring into committee for discussion. There was no chance given to even start the process of "compromise," and it's 100% Harry Reid's fault.

President Obama is in so much trouble he has a double digit lead over Romney nationally

Damn I thought you died...

Oh, this is good at the end. The last portion, where they ask Romney to outline his strategies are great.
Mittens needs to outline his policies in more detail before casting stones at the President's.
And these aren't just light weights-Flournoy was third in charge at DOD under Gates, before that, head of the powerful military Think Tank CNAS.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/28/an_open_letter_to_mitt_romney_explain_your_national_security_ideas?page=full

bases_loaded;1130530 wrote:Damn I thought you died...

Well that wasn't very nice

"Mittens needs to outline his policies in more detail before casting stones at the President's. "

Mittens?

I think at this point anyone can cast stones at this late-term abortion of an administration. The only people benefiting are beltway insiders. Where do you live? How is Portsmouth doing (I'll be there in a month driving down from CMH)? Its a third world craphole like most of America in the Obamaconomy.

ptown_trojans_1;1130576 wrote:Oh, this is good at the end. The last portion, where they ask Romney to outline his strategies are great.
Mittens needs to outline his policies in more detail before casting stones at the President's.
And these aren't just light weights-Flournoy was third in charge at DOD under Gates, before that, head of the powerful military Think Tank CNAS.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/28/an_open_letter_to_mitt_romney_explain_your_national_security_ideas?page=full

Historically Republican presidents are viewed to have stronger foreign and defense policies than Dems. You would think that a person in your line of work would tend to lean that direction, but it's becoming increasingly clear that Big Government Barry is your choice over "Mittens".

Oh yeah, by the way, screw that economy thingy. As long as you Beltway Boys are directly or indirectly collecting a healthy Fed paycheck and cushy bennies, all is good.

Ty Webb;1130292 wrote:President Obama is in so much trouble he has a double digit lead over Romney nationally

Yeah, that CNN poll is in no way an outlier. :rolleyes:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

fish82;1130646 wrote:Yeah, that CNN poll is in no way an outlier. :rolleyes:

Some people live for biased polls. Webby constantly showed us similar polls a couple of years ago supposedly demonstrating how the Dems would easily retain the House. We all see what happened there.

The only poll I need to understand is the real one come this November.

You guys do know that CNN poll is the 2ND poll in less than a week to show President Obama with a double digit lead over Romney right?


Here is the other:
http://suffolk.edu/images/content/FINAL_National_Marginals_March_26_2012.pdf

Here's what a real pollster has to report - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The take-home:

In a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup, it’s Mitt Romney 46% and President Obama 44%. If Rick Santorum is the GOP nominee, the president leads 45% to 43%. Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern

Now, aks yourself...how in the hell does CNN report Barry is up double digits when the firm that has historically shown to be the best in the business over the past decade shows him losing?

Let's fast forward to late June 2012. The Supreme Court has just ruled Obamacare to be unconstitutional and throws the whole bill out. Doesn't that make a lot of Mitt's campaign rhetoric a bit of a moot point? Let's face it, a big part of his stump speech is about repealing it. And doesn't that put the spotlight right back on Romneycare, where he'll have to defend the only health care system in America that has an individual mandate?

Without Obamacare to rail against, Mitt might be forced to provide real details on his economic plans and his foreign policy agenda.