Romney PLEASE! and NOT Santorum!

please please please please please have the nominee be Romney.

he seems to actually be wanting to FIX things. understanding all sides and getting things done.

Santorum is the same old "family value" bs that uses gays getting married as a red herring to everything else that matters. why is gay, which is like 10 percent of the population, the big issue?

c'mon, jobs, economy, healthcare, wars, those are the issues.

i can handle romney. he seems normal.

i can't handle another bush type social issues president.

ugh.

Man, I AGREE!!! I'm independent and if Romney gets the Republican nomination, I would watch the elections and then decide Romney/Obama by election day.

If by some fluke, Santorum gets the nomination, I'm buyin' those Obama 2012 bumper stickers the next day.

“One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It’s not OK because it’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” - Santorum, father of eight.

I agree Heydude. Whether or not I agree with the morality of these issues, it just doesn't belong among the duties of a president. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? I have to say that I respect Romney for keeping religion out of his campaign.

The fact that some people in this country regard Santorum as a serious candidate makes me sad.

If he somehow were to get the Republican nomination, and somehow get into the White House, I'd say to anyone of reproductive age (or gay, or Muslim, or female.....):
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puglogic

If he somehow were to get the Republican nomination, and somehow get into the White House, I'd say to anyone of reproductive age (or gay, or Muslim, or female.....):
Be afraid. Be very afraid.

---

Methinks this would assure a Congressional D sweep.

an interesting part of his campaign is Reverend O'Neal Dozier who he has named as an honorary chairman for the Florida Santorum campaign

"Dozier holds several controversial views, including that homosexuality is “something so nasty and disgusting that it makes God want to vomit.” from cnn


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/0...iref=allsearch

Really? are you serious? I live in a gay marriage state and since legalization there has not been one peep on the news of any negative effect on anyone. Leave people alone as long as they are law abiding citizens of age what they do consensually behind closed doors is not the governments business.
And it is a crime this day and age to withhold birth control from women. If you don't want to take it don't. Next thing you know we'll have to give up bluejeans and have to wear dresses that go below our knees. And walk ten paces behind the men. Women have fought long and hard for the right to vote, hold public office, get equal education and wages and still have a lot of catching up to do. Access to reliable birth control has given many women the control over their lives they would never have without it.

Yes! Definitely! Romney is the preferable Republican candidate for Prez!

of those on the list - those top three guys - i have to say i like romney best.

would i vote for him? probably not. but of those three, i like him best.

well, sadly, bae, for some reason, a majority of Republicans at the moment, being polled, prefer Santorum. One hopes that many of them are just "low information voters", because I'd hate to think that most conservatives would hold the views that Santorum does. Honestly, no snark at all, I can see where it would be truly embarassing at present to be a conservative/Republican and have to choose among the candidates that have been put forward.

One would have to hate President Obama a LOT (and/or be really misinformed about what he has actually done or not done, since he's far closer to an Eisenhower type Republican than any kind of "socialist"), to be willing to actually go into a voting booth and vote for Rick Santorum. My heart goes out to thinking conservatives and Republicans, truly.

Santorum really does represent the "new American Taliban" wing of the party, for sure.

I do think when the Romney attack machine turns its big guns onto Santorum, there will be plenty of material to blast him with, but even if that is successful, so many Republicans seem to be left cold by Romney, that it's hard to see that "hatred of Obama" will send more than a minority of them to the polls through rain, snow, sleet and hail to vote against him, if Romney is their eventual candidate. Voters really need more than dislike of the oppostition to get them working for, volunteering for and going out to vote for a candidate. And Romney is just seen as a "cold fish", by many, I'm afraid, however competent and qualified he might be. Just does not connect with people, most of whom vote more with their emotions than with their rational minds, no matter what party they are.

It's a huge mess. There have to be far better candidates on the Republican side than you are getting to choose from. Lots of them.

I'm planning to vote for President Obama. But if Romney were to be the candidate and somehow won, I wouldn't be desperately afraid for the country. But with Santorum, very, very scary.

Romney kind of reminds me of Kerry, though. Not the guy that everyone is fired up about, but kind of the best of a spread of not-so-exciting, or even weirdo, choices.

Now I hope I won't regret ever piping up on the politics thread. :)

honestly, the comparison with Kerry is not that far off, although they hold different views on issues, I'm sure. Both seemed to be ultrawealthy people with little actual connection with ordinary people, somehow living in a bubble of privilege to the point where they just could not do anything other than try to "appear" like they understood.

perhaps it's not fair, and most people running for President are wealthy people, it's just that SOME of them seem able to connect with and have empathy for and understanding of ordinary people. Kerry just could not connect, and neither can Romney.

Romney TRIES, and the harder he tries, the more phony he looks. Honestly, I think he'd do better if he just was who he is, and didn't try to reflect what he THINKS people think he should be, because he's incapable of hitting the right notes, and just comes off looking like a higher class aluminum siding salesman. And people react to that phony "regular guy" stuff, and not well.

I know what the polls say, but still don't quite have a handle on who is really supporting Mr. Santorum. The information I hear just doesn't quite jibe with what I see going on around me. Very curious.

Santorum surprised me at the last debate I watched, surprised me in the positive. He spoke out strongly against the North American Defense act while Mitt Romney spoke in its favor; Santorum also supported something else--can't remember what--and it was good. I've always said Not Santorum but now I'm not so sure. But I still voted for Romney in our state's primary. Santorum wasn't on the ballot anyway.

I like Paul for obvious reasons, not because I'm an unqualified libertarian, but because I'm a civil libertarian (and against the wars). This election was the Republicans to lose (Obama is not that popular) and somehow they will manage to.

I'm not going to be scared. I can't in a million years imagine voting for Santorum. But I've been through fear, fear is NDAA, that's the bottom falling out for me. I can't possibly summon up much more fear than I already have for my country and the world (and I'm scared - that's the price you pay for being high information). There are pleny of reasons to lose sleep at night, but Santorum, he's more laughable and pathetic than anything. I do consider this whole election a symptom of deep decay. But I think there are many others who recognize the same.

Quote:

---

Santorum surprised me at the last debate I watched, surprised me in the positive. He spoke out strongly against the North American Defense act while Mitt Romney spoke in its favor; Santorum also supported something else--can't remember what--and it was good. I've always said Not Santorum but now I'm not so sure. But I still voted for Romney in our state's primary. Santorum wasn't on the ballot anyway

---

I want to be surprised, I really do. It's just that how trustable would being positively surprised by Santorum be, when the guy is so ....

It matters not a whit what I think anyway, not just because I hate anyone who can win, and not just because few seem to share my outlook. But also because I'm in California. It really really doesn't matter how this state votes on primaries when we finally get to vote in um .... JUNE!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

I know what the polls say, but still don't quite have a handle on who is really supporting Mr. Santorum. The information I hear just doesn't quite jibe with what I see going on around me. Very curious.

---

Just like "anyone but Obama", there's a huge "anyone but Romney" contingent. Santorum's rise, I think, are a lot of voters who thought Newt might fill that role.

You may be right about the 'anybody but Romney' folks, creaker. Newt, Inc. certainly isn't done yet. Who knows, they might be the ones giving Santorum a push right now so Romney has to fight a two front war. It's not as outlandish as it sounds and hey, who doesn't love a good political conspiracy theory?

Rick "man on dog" Santorum vs. Mitt "dog on roof" Romney, as some wag characterized it.

"Senator Sanctimonius," as I like to think of him, has been named the dumbest man in Congress and one of the three least ethical senators two years in a row.

If I were a Republican, I'd be longing for a brokered convention, Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. If pushed to the wall, I'd go with Ron Paul, only for his anti-war stance. But I'm an Independent who--for the most part--is satisfied with President Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loosechickens

I'm planning to vote for President Obama. But if Romney were to be the candidate and somehow won, I wouldn't be desperately afraid for the country. But with Santorum, very, very scary.

---

I'm registered republican, something I'm actually embarrassed about and keep meaning to change but keep putting it off because I don't want to go down to the courthouse (lazy, I know).

I fully intend on voting for Obama again.....but when my state's primary comes around I will use my still-republican status to vote for Romney, or Paul if he's on the ballot, for the sole purpose of taking a vote away from Santorum.

I don't actually believe Santorum has a snowball's chance in hell in really being elected president, but just the thought of it makes me cringe. A Santorum presidency would set the country, along with civil and equal rights, backwards 100 years.

My mother was a registered Republican for years before Ronald Reagan pushed her over the edge. She loved to vote in primaries. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

But I'm an Independent who--for the most part--is satisfied with President Obama.

---

Me, too. Except for that last part.

Oh I'm independent too, I'm not registered with any party. I'm saying I'm considering doing so to vote for Paul, although I know ultimately it will make little difference (in any sense probably, but even less so with the primary so late in this state). Why? Because I'm not satisfied with Obama.

People talk about being afraid if Santorum wins but what does that even mean? What concretely should I fear? Wars? Oh my, I'm not safe from them with any candidate (except Paul perhaps - why I support him). Environmental catastrophe? That's the whole GOP that doesn't take those issues seriously (including Paul) and Obama while at least giving lip service and being as usual on the right side rhetorically, hasn't exactly been great on these issues either. Birth control being outlawed? Well possibly, but again the probability of that .... The further cultural and intellectual degradation of the nation with worse and worse candidates in charge? Well yes. But Obama and his propaganda is in some ways leading to that as well though by less direct routes.

I've been a registered Independent ever since I moved here 25 years ago. Before that, I voted for (a few) Republicans on a regular basis. Since I've been here, I can only remember voting for one. As others have pointed out, today's GOP is nothing like yesterday's.

As far as Mitt Romney is concerned, Rachel Maddow showed an interesting chart last night illustrating that the more voters see of him, the lower his poll numbers sink. I find that interesting because my initial response to him was instant and visceral revulsion. The dog story just bore out my instincts.

Maybe I've had a little too much exposure to David Icke or V http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists.../connie_10.gif , but I half expect him to reach up some day and reveal the reptilian beneath his cleverly crafted person costume. Or maybe he just brings me instantly back to all the smug mid-level managers who liked to look down their noses at us corporate serfs when they deigned to stroll through our workplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

Oh I'm independent too, I'm not registered with any party. I'm saying I'm considering doing so to vote for Paul, although I know ultimately it will make little difference (in any sense probably, but even less so with the primary so late in this state). Why? Because I'm not satisfied with Obama.

People talk about being afraid if Santorum wins but what does that even mean? What concretely should I fear? Wars? Oh my, I'm not safe from them with any candidate (except Paul perhaps - why I support him). Environmental catastrophe? That's the whole GOP that doesn't take those issues seriously (including Paul) and Obama while at least giving lip service and being as usual on the right side rhetorically, hasn't exactly been great on these issues either. Birth control being outlawed? Well possibly, but again the probability of that .... The further cultural and intellectual degradation of the nation with worse and worse candidates in charge? Well yes. But Obama and his propaganda is in some ways leading to that as well though by less direct routes.

---

Emphasis mine. The Supreme Court is very nearly a perfect arm of conservative Republicanism now. Can you imagine the judges Santorum would nominate?

I'm also independent, voted for Obama, and overall happy with the elements that have come out of his administration. I'm more frustrated that people won't negotiate with him (or democrats). Yes, this is my opinion of what has happened over the last several years.

I also voted for Bush back when, because I felt he would be a better candidate than Gore and Kerry. But, I was not happy with many elements of the bush administration not the least of which includes: Gitmo, the Bush Doctrine, the Patriot Act, the Bush Tax Cuts (does anyone realize that we actually had a balanced budget before he came into office? and the tax cuts were not that great, really, and partly lead to the deficit), the war in Iraq, and several other things.

But, hey, there it is. We all make mistakes. lol

I guess you could say that for all of this chatter about "smaller government" and "efficient government" and "less federal involvement!" we actually got the opposite from the Bush administration. which is why I'm not buying "the party line" anymore.

I do not believe that Republicans want these things. I believe that they want big government, lots of war, and a theocracy to be developed in regards to rule of law. This is what I see and hear in most of their arguments.

I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.

Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.

So I vote for that. because that's what i believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.

Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.

---

Those are pretty much, verbatim, the basic principles of the Tea Party, a movement which most Democrats hold in contempt, oddly enough.

Yes, except that The Tea Party has been co-opted by the GOP, and particularly theocons, and without them has little power.

And yes, I liked the Tea Party before it was co-opted by the GOP, when it was an independent, libertarian movement.

Unless the GOP completely turns around on it's neocon/theocon agenda and back to the original conservative values of the party (which the tea party identifies), then the Tea Party within the GOP is effectively meaningless.

In my experience, Tea Partiers don't feel co-opted. They're more like Jessica Rabbit, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

I guess you could say that for all of this chatter about "smaller government" and "efficient government" and "less federal involvement!" we actually got the opposite from the Bush administration. which is why I'm not buying "the party line" anymore.

I do not believe that Republicans want these things. I believe that they want big government, lots of war, and a theocracy to be developed in regards to rule of law. This is what I see and hear in most of their arguments.

I do not see and hear political/governmental conservative values of fiscal responsibility, a balanced budget, a small/efficient federal government, essentially "isolationist" ideologies in regards to conflicts, wars, and democracy or lack thereof in other nations, diplomacy, etc.

Oddly enough, democrats seem way more interested in these things these days.

So I vote for that. because that's what i believe in.

---

I wasn't thrilled with the Republican's under Bush (Medicare increase and expanding Federal govt). Having said that, the President's recent budget proposal (which will go nowhere), calls for increased govt, taxes and little if any deficit reduction. I don't think the President is in any way for smaller govt.

I know that many do feel that way, btu I also know many libertarians from the original movement who DO feel that way. Many people coming to the tea party are late comers, to be honest. My family, for example, who are die-hard neocons. No, they are not traditional conservatives. They are neocons.

The neocon agenda is not the same as the Tea Party. The Tea Party was a mix of the traditional GOP (or values of the GOP in the 1960s) and libertarians. Now, it is a mix of old-school GOPers, Neocons who fancy themselves old-school, and Theocons, who -- in my opinion -- have no concept of the constitution.

So, some people are glad for the party affiliation, but a lot of people are not at all glad for it. A lot of people are feeling that they are no longer being heard -- because the Neocon and Theocon agendas have been foisted up as Tea Party agendas in the GOP rhetoric.

Also, it's no surprise that Democrats don't like the Tea Party. They didn't like -- and never have liked -- that particular agenda. They also didn't like the GOP of the 1960s, so why would they suddenly like them now?

The reality is this. If i'm looking at results, and not rhetoric, here is what I see:

1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget (Clinton accomplished this prior to the Bush Tax Cuts; Obama has tried to do this throughout his term) -- this is fiscally responsible;
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.

This is just to give a few examples. You know the phrase, right? "Actions speak louder than words."

If there is a party that is doing what I want -- i.e., going for a balanced budget -- then heck, that sounds fiscally responsible. If there is a party looking for diplomacy over bush doctrine, then that sounds like a good party to go with.

I'm just saying that I don't feel that Republicans are living up to the values of the Tea Party that they keep espousing -- and I have no evidence of that from Regan onward. Really and truly.

Now, if the actual Tea Party agenda becomes the ACTUAL values of the GOP and then the ACTUAL GOP administration acts in accordance to those values, I'm game.

But I just don't see it happening.

(Gould; Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How Neocons and Theocons have Ruined the GOP -- I think that's the full title anyway).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.

---

You're not from around here, are you? ;)

I lived in CA, AR, and PA. I'm from "around here" the US.

My parents are life-long republicans whose parents were also republicans. My sister and BIL are republicans. My parents and sister/BIL are Neocons. Neocons are open about their war machine/empire dreams, the entitlements that they value as "compassionate conservatives," but are seem to be in denial about the big government that goes along with it. And of course, all without raising taxes, and cutting taxes on wealthier people -- which of course creates a deficit because they want to earn less for the government and spend more on their two primary policies (empire/compassion).

Simply, I look at the information available to me and evaluate that information. How I evaluate it and how another does is going to be different. There are multiple ways of valuing certain elements, and through that valuing, inferring in certain ways that creates multiple logical outcomes.

This is simply what I see.

And, my whole family swears that they are "all about the Tea Party" and that I am "diametrically opposed" to their ideology.

If only they would get their heads out of their own sand. They are obviously Neocons, and not at all interested in the actual Tea-Party stances. This is my experience of many neo-Tea Partiers. They THINK that they agree, but when you bring up Ron Paul -- for example -- or ANY of his ideas, they disavow them as not at all in alignment with the Tea Party.

It makes me want to hit my head against the wall. the Neocon agenda is not the Tea Party, and it can't be. They are what is "diametrically opposed."

Anyway, enough ranting. LOL

The latest Obama budget calls for increased taxes and spending as well as a $1 trillion plus deficit. I'm not sure how that jives with points 1 & 2.

IMO, spending needs to shrink before we start talking about increasing taxes. Once we get spending under control (ie no longer borrowing to fund current spending), then we can talk about increasing taxes.

It's the height of fiscal irresponsibility to cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes until we are left with the lowest rates in decades and wage war after war to deplete the revenues we have left--and then to bleat about deficit spending? All hail Grover Norquist ("I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."). I think all of us want fiscally responsible governance; we just have different views of what that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

1. Democrats look to make the government more efficient;
2. Democrats look to balance the budget (Clinton accomplished this prior to the Bush Tax Cuts; Obama has tried to do this throughout his term) -- this is fiscally responsible;
3. Democrats have been working on diplomacy, attempting to end wars and transition away form conflicts and occupations, and as far as I can tell, are attempting to avoid war in Iran (I can't quite fathom what Libya was about) -- the antithesis of the Bush doctrine, btw, something that modern Republicans still support.

---

I'm also having a hard time with #1 & 2. I don't exactly view President Bush as a war monger and don't support entering into new conflicts myself, but will grant you that there are a lot of Dems working on diplomacy. As for the other two points, I just don't see it. It is debatable what measures would make government run efficiently, but usually that comes to mean shrinking it and that is not part of the Democratic agenda I hear about. Regarding fiscal responsibility, actions really do speak louder than words and the budget that hit the table a couple days ago speaks volumes. It's quite a ways from being balanced. To be fair I don't think its logical to try to tame the beast in one year, but I was hoping for something a little more proactive and a little less based on political posturing from our President.

My vote goes to Jane v2.0 for best use of the word "bleat" I've read in a long time.

And I always enjoy the peculiar "blind spot" conservatives have for the fact that it's a combination of the Bush-era tax cuts, massive increases in military spending, two fresh new wars, and gutting of financial regulatory agencies that were largely responsible for dumping us into this cesspool we're in. Spend a trillion on jobs or on developing a domestic renewable energy program and they'd have apoplexy. Spending a trillion on a pair of useless wars is apparently okay, and never gets mentioned.

But what's a trillion dollars between friends?

Like the man says, "Pack your chutes, people. No one's flying this ****ing plane."

Please, look up what the Bush doctrine is. It is part of the party's platform.

And, of course it *is* debatable to determine 1 and 2. When I look at the weight of evidence, what I see is that -- in general, this is the situation. BUT, I can see how others would not, because at the nitty-gritty, it gets to be about how we are valuing certain elements -- whether or not those elements are more or less relevant, what those elements mean in the "big picture" and how relevant they are in that picture. This is often what leads to debate, anyway.

I'm just calling it as I see it.