Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Quit Mitt

Eliminate the middleman...vote for BHO. Samething.

And you call Palin stupid�at least she knows when election day is this year and what it means.

At least Palin looks at the real world and understands that if your unprecedented primary spending, vote buying, negative TV messages can only produce a close win in your home state�the GOP has a problem.

And after McCain dropped the ball, Sarah knows better than anybody how "tone deafness" will kill a campaign.

Thank the Good Lord that we are finding out now and not this fall the lack of voter enthusiasm for Romney is as bad or worse than in 2008.

Every Rmoney victory shows huge drops in voter turnout�disaster looms.


Turnout 'pretty light' in state's GOP primary
By Steve Pardo
The Detroit News 2/28
The hotly contested Republican presidential primary sparked only lukewarm turnout at Michigan's polls.
Voter turnout was described as light or low through Tuesday afternoon in communities across the state.
Turnout was expected to be between 15 percent and 20 percent of registered voters, said Fred Woodhams, spokesman for the secretary of state.




Reason No.12 Mitt holding a 1,200-person speech in a near-empty 65,000-seat football stadium.

Compared to�
�No wonder CPAC saved Sarah for last. And adjourned the conference during her applause.
No one in their right mind would go on-stage after Palin�s political palaver.
People who dislike or fear her are incapable of seeing or admitting it.
But that doesn�t diminish the reality that Palin is a rare political celebrity and, therefore, an unharnessed power to be reckoned with within the GOP for the foreseeable future.
We�re not talking about her running for any office. We�re talking about her influence, her enduring proven ability to attract and then ignite a crowd � even before anyone sees her. The CPAC buzz was electric all-day. Impatient �Sar-ah! Sar-ah!� chants broke out during preceding speakers.�

Bows---This is getting boring are you still of the opinion that Perky will be the nominee? Say it ain't so.

If Romney wins it will be in spite of Libertarians, not because of them. What you fail to realize is that originally the Tea Party movement included many conservative, moderate and even social liberals who are financial conservatives. Many of those folks have been alienated and driven out of the Tea Party by the Libertarian types. Santorum has publicly accused Libertarians of hijacking the Tea Party, and in doing so, greatly reduced its numbers and influence. Without the Libertarian hijacking, the Tea Party would be much larger and Obama would be a goner.

The Libertarian Party has been around for a long time, yet they have so far failed to win a single election for a federal office running a candidate as a Libertarian. When the Tea Party came along they thought they could take it over and use it as a vehicle to gain the success they have never been able to attain on their own.



People are learning that "Smaller, less obtrusive government" are just code words of the lack of reasonable regulation of business and for public safety. If you study the platforms and literature of the Libertarian Party you'll find they oppose nearly all preemptive laws including things like traffic laws, fire codes, licensing of professions such as doctors, lawyers, and commercial pilots. I doubt the college kids supporting Ron Paul know that the Libertarian Party opposes things like Pell grants and government guaranteed student loans, and even State colleges and universities.

The Libertarian Party has been arguing its positions for decades and has been soundly defeated at the voting booth because the vast majority of voters don't want to turn the United States into Afghanistan, where the wealthy, the religious leaders, and the warlords have maximum freedom to screw the average person. What did you think you would get with a weak central government?

Quit changing the subject and for once in your life address the issues I raised.

This time I was talking about Rmoney and how voters are falling all over themselves, trampling their smaller children, causing street riots to get in line to vote for Milton.

As for your own tone-deaf, complete lack of understanding Palin Power; I refer you to the Northwestalaska Rehabilitation Program I am running daily over on the Palin Email thread.

That is where a bunch of people drive around in a circle to show how good they can drive. Unless it rains and then they wait for good weather. miles

Not true. Bill Clinton was not wealthy until after he became President. He sold enough crap to the Chinese that he is a Multimillionaire now. When he became President he had never even owned a house. miles

I stand corrected.

A redneck chaseing a hillbilly

dave

Palin is more irrelevant than the Crazy Doctor.

=============

It's easy. Drive fast,turn left.

Who is Milton?

You mentioned the smaller government in your other post. There are no "Code" words. It means what it means. Less than now, not a complete lack of. Is there an acceptable amount of limits that do not create the liberterian anarchy you are using as a straw man? What you're saying is that less equals none. That is as absurd as anyone who would entertain that anarchy is somehow good, but it is pretty much expected from the current state of the GOP.

Is the current level of government ok with you, just as long as your guy is in charge of it, or is there some level it should be pared back to? If so, how far could it be pared back and still be legitimate in your eyes? I hate to even ask.

Coming from a conservative "smaller government" means something different than coming from a Libertarian. It's only a straw man if you admit the Libertarian Party's published literature and platforms are fake. Maybe you don't know what they are and you've been duped yourself.



No and neither is it ok with Romney. For one I would repeal Obamacare and modify environmental law so that once a person or business has won approval from the federal or state government for a project then no more challenges could be place in the way of development by self-appointed environmental groups.

I could go on and on, but unlike the Libertarian Party, I wouldn't repeal preemptive laws just for the sake of the mindless mantra of maximum freedom. History proves that in the absence of government, money, misused religion, and violence become the sources of power.

The card caring Libertarians I know argue that the U.S. was "libertarian" initially and became less and less so over time. In a democratic society laws are not created for no reason, but in response to needs and conditions created by commercial and scientific development. For example, there was no need to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum before radio was invented.

When charlatans and quacks were the norm for medical treatment, laws were passed so that sick people could find safe and effective treatments and drugs. You only need to visit a museum of quack medicine to see how unregulated private business took advantage of sick people.

I'm not arguing the merit of any of these regulations, only pointing out that any democratic government strong enough to protect the rights of individuals from such concentrations of private power eventually evolves into something similar to what we have in the U.S. today. Conversely, any government too weak to protect the rights of individuals from such concentrations of private power eventually evolves into something similar to Afghanistan.

We are living in a libertarian nation that has evolved at the direction of the voters to deal with real-world human nature, commercial and technological advancements. Yes, some people want to go back to their youth, the old west, to cowboy action shooting and meals served from chuck wagons. Most of us know that's a fantasy and the ones who don't are misguided, ignorant or nut cases.

You seem to be arguing with a liberterian somewhere. I'm not certain who that is, but please continue.

Willard Milton Romney �was named after hotel magnate J. Willard Marriott, his father's best friend, and his father's cousin Milton "Mitt" Romney, 1925�1929 quarterback for the Chicago Bears.�

Political Hay
Shooting a RINO
By George Neumayr on 2.29.12 @ 6:10AM
Romney survives Santorum's bullets but the "frontrunner" is bleeding.

Despite his wins on Tuesday in Arizona and Michigan, Mitt Romney remains the convictionless centrist who simply can't inspire the right, or even the center for that matter.
Analysts across the ideological spectrum deem him a dud candidate -- a flawed and wounded frontrunner who pays for his demoralizing squeakers and empty victories on his debit card.
Even a paltry win in Michigan is a loss, said a few pundits, noting the erosion of support Romney saw in his home state since winning it easily in 2008 over John McCain.

Romney's success in the primaries, to the extent that it exists, appears largely artificial -- a function not so much of his personality and political philosophy but his fat wallet, SuperPac assassination team, and the sheer luck of finding himself in a field of wan and cashless candidates.

"Thank you, Kid Rock," said Ann Romney not long before surrendering the floor to Mitt at his Michigan "celebration." Some celebration.
Is this really the best that the GOP can do? If so, may God help us all.

Obama vs. Obama lite -- this is the race ahead unless conservatives derail Romney's candidacy in the Deep South.

Newt Gingrich is quietly biding his time in Georgia. Santorum's loss may make the former Speaker of the House relevant again.

Where is the outrage, conservatives?

Why would they, almost two years after the Tea Party restored the GOP to Congressional power, want to nominate as their head a Northeast RINO who embodies the antithesis of the Tea Party movement?

This makes no sense, either philosophically or politically. I repeat: a party that chooses "power" over principle will lose both.
Romney's "electability" argument, which already sounded ludicrous, looks even weaker this morning in light of his struggles to win Democrats in his home state's open primary. "Santorum Democrats" is a phrase I heard from pundits.
I didn't hear any of them refer to "Romney Democrats." Some pundits said that Santorum, despite losing, could end up winning more counties in Michigan than Romney, owing to the latter's weak showing.

When will the GOP ever learn? Centrists never win the center. They lose it and demoralize the right.

Perhaps a charismatic RINO could win a slice of the center.
But Romney suffers from a lackluster personality for a candidate who aspires to unseat Obama. At times, Romney almost seems like an acharismatic robot, so fundamentally boring and plastic even his supporters strain to show enthusiasm for him. Some pols lack style but boast substance.
Others lack substance but sparkle with style. Romney displays neither.

On top of all these problems lies the most troubling one: he is not and never will be a conservative and can't even learn how to play one on TV.

To see him trot off to the Daytona 500 as a "NASCAR Republican" is laughable -- yet another phony moment in the campaign which he managed to make worse by citing his rich pals who own some of the cars in the race and by jesting at the expense of the pancho-wearing hoi polloi.

Liberals pundits, who normally rejoice at the sight of a RINO reclaiming the GOP from the Tea Party, have had to admit that Romney is a lousy candidate.
Romney isn't improving on the campaign trail and is even getting worse, says Howard Fineman of the Huffington Post.
Other members of the liberal chattering class called his wooden campaigning -- in which he praised the height of Michigan's trees and enumerated his wife's Cadillac collection -- farcical.
It is never a good sign when your "frontrunner" generates belly laughs from your opponents.
Campaign correspondents on Fox News delicately describe Romney's frontrunner status as "fragile."

Like Jon Huntsman -- the Obama diplomat who pledged to campaign against Obama diplomatically (at the start of his nothing campaign, he promised to run a wholly "positive" race and avert his gaze from the president's disgraces and failures) --
Romney leaves the rank and file cold.
In fact, he sounds more and more like Huntsman, particularly in moments of fatigue when the real Romney -- the Bay State liberal who voted for Paul Tsongas, gave money to Planned Parenthood, and forefathered Obamacare -- comes back out to play.
Romney had one such moment the other day when he disparaged his opponents for "incendiary" remarks lobbed at Obama.
Apparently that offends Romney's ingrained moderate sensibilities.

Santorum shot at him and missed in Michigan.
But conservatives better keep firing or they will find themselves stomped by this RINO

Using the duck test you're the Libertarian, but apparently not a well informed one.

Willard Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney's full name is Willard Mitt Romney. Willard is for his father's friend, hotel magnate J. Willard Marriot. Middle name Mitt is for Milton Romney, his father's cousin and a former Chicago Bears quarterback.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Mitt_Romney%27s_real_name#ixzz1nnYgeJRx


From wikipedia:

Personal details
Born Willard Mitt Romney
March 12, 1947 (age 64)
Detroit, Michigan

Mitt is short for Milton, but Mitt Romney's name is not Milton.

Nope. Just wanting a bit of a roll back of the bloated piggy that you guys have built. It's kinda funny how you guys keep pressing for guys like Romney, though. The former GOP is what quite a few folks long for, rather than the one you guys have pretty much wrecked. Define it however you like, it doesn't make it so, though you will likely spawn something new when the GOP finally dies from the like of y'all..

You sound a lot like the Dems."There will be blood in the streets, kill old people, starve children, hate the poor, etc." The middle is being eaten from both ends. You and the progressives.