from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[BigJulie]

The way to bring people to you is to take a moral stand!

Thats how you get people motivated to get out to vote for you....[B]You frame the debate as being good against evil....


But this is hard, when it can be so easily proved that Rick is not necessarily a moral person when it comes to politics--or Newt for that matter. It appears that both have ethics problems.

It is hard to say you stand for good when people can turn to the evil you have done in regards to their position as politicians.

If you want a president who is a moral president and also not a Mormon, it appears your last hope is Ron Paul.

I liked Rick---it is sad to realize this stuff about him. Who knows---Obama pulled the same type of stuff and people over-looked it....but I don't think the media will let people overlook this stuff about Santorum if his wins the nomination. It makes him look too much like a hypocrate.

[alanmolstad]

But this is hard, when it can be so easily proved that Rick is not necessarily a moral person .........

.

If you want a president who is a moral president and also not a Mormon,


once again, I dont consider the personal issues as being important.

Im not going into vote for the person who i consider the best "Christian"....
or the most "Moral"...
or the best "Husband"...
or the best "roofer"...
or the best Plumber"


When I go into vote for a person for President I only consider questions that have to deal with doing that ***.

Does the person give strong voice to the ideas I support?



as for the idea that I only want a non-Mormon?.....
I think by now you have caught that i dont care squat that Mitt is a Mormon.

Mitt's personal stuff, as well as Newt's and Rick's is not an issue with me in the voting booth at all, and I have nothing for or against a person being a good Christian like myself, or a Lost member of a Cult and running for office.

[alanmolstad]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/gingrich-michigan-do-or-die-romney/


Clearly Newt has been listening to what the Party Leadership was talking about in the link I posted yesterday.....LOL

Just think how far Mitt has fallen in the last month!
He was all set to be all alone in this race after his Florida victory,,,I was not sure how Newt and Rick could keep going....

Now we come to the point where people are suggesting that Mitt has to win before Super Tuesday or it's all over for him.

That type of hype is not just from the media, but rather its being drummed up by Republican Leaders who now are looking for Mitt to either come on strong and win BIG on Super Tuesday, or to get ready to be told that the Convention is about to be "Opened"...

Conisder a month ago noone was saying that Mitt had to win anything before Super tuesday?
Now suddenly MI is a do-or-die State for Mitt...
And it's his own HOME STATE!

The idea that a guy cant win in his own home state where he has strong family ties and where his dad is very well known is unheard of.

This is the reason the Party Leadership is all upset with how things a turning out with Mitt leading the ticket.

Clearly the Party leadership now believes that if Mitt leads the ticket we are then going to be "playing defense", and that Mitt cant help anyone, not even it his own home state get elected.



Newt is dreaming if a loss in MI will cause Mitt to drop out, but Newt is correct and is listening to the Party Leadership who must be telling everyone in this race that Mitt has to have a big victory on Super Tuesday, or the move of the Party Leaders to get rid of Mitt will be on.

Remember, any talk we may hear of a future "Brokered convention / Open Convention" is all just code words for - "Get rid of Mitt"

[BigJulie]

once again, I dont consider the personal issues as being important.

Im not going into vote for the person who i consider the best "Christian"....
or the most "Moral"...
or the best "Husband"...
or the best "roofer"...
or the best Plumber"


When I go into vote for a person for President I only consider questions that have to deal with doing that ***.

Does the person give strong voice to the ideas I support?



as for the idea that I only want a non-Mormon?.....
I think by now you have caught that i dont care squat that Mitt is a Mormon.

Mitt's personal stuff, as well as Newt's and Rick's is not an issue with me in the voting booth at all, and I have nothing for or against a person being a good Christian like myself, or a Lost member of a Cult and running for office.

This does seem very consistent with evangelical values that seem to care about what people profess to believe and do not look at all at their behavior.

To me, though, the old adage is true---actions speak louder than words.

[BigJulie]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/gingrich-michigan-do-or-die-romney/


Clearly Newt has been listening to what the Party Leadership was talking about in the link I posted yesterday.....LOL

Just think how far Mitt has fallen in the last month!


Yes, the month AFTER the pastors all got together an voted to support Rick and vow to try to use their influence via radio, etc. to manipulate their congregations. Yes---very dissappointing that a group of men could be so cult-like or do the very same behavior that they seem to fear/hate with Mormons. *sigh*

To bad it doesn't appear that they did their homework on Rick Santorum who, I don't think will win the presidency, as too many people are sick of the very behavior he (and Newt for that matter) have shown while in congress.

[alanmolstad]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/romney-shows-trouble-keeping-supporters-from-2008/

This year is different...


I think that is the lesson I have learned this year.
I started off this topic with the view that because Mitt came in 2nd place in the last election against McCain, that this would mean he would be in the correct spot to simply have the nomination handed to him this time around.

Up to this year, this has always been the way it went.
You always get the lead spot on the Ticket when you come in 2nd the time before..

It's like that party feels it owes you the lead spot this time.



well...not this year!....:eek:

This year it clearly is setting a new trend, in that Mitt has managed to do worse this election in the very States he did better in in 08.

This has never really happened before.
We are in uncharted territory here as for as predicting the future goes.

We Republicans always used to look for the SC primary to show us who would lead the ticket.
Up until this election, the person who won the SC primary always would lead the ticket.....it was a given...

But this year Newt won big in SC.....
Newt actually spanked Mitt in SC, and then turned around and faded fast after that primary was over.

This leads me to believe that none of the normal means to guess who will lead the ticket are going to work this year...

Mitt is in big trouble now according to all reports.

He is dropping in the polls, and at each primary the people that voted for him last time in 2008, just dont seem to feel the need to vote for him this time...


Most of the time when a person votes for a guy once, you dont have to convince him to vote for him again later.

But Mitt clearly has lost many even of his core supporters from 08....

Im sure that when this election is over and everyone runs out to wrote their books , that we are going to be learning things that will shock us at times, about this election.


My guess is, that if Mitt were to come in 2nd in Michigan that this would become a case study in schools for the next decade on how and why Mitt lost in his own home state?

[alanmolstad]

[
But Mitt clearly has lost many even of his core supporters from 08....



if this report is correct -
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/in-ohio-romney-slams-santorum-in-front-of-tepid-audience/

Im thinking that Mitt has seen the handwriting on the wall....and today seemed to be just going though the motions..

Newt was saying today that unless Mitt wins MI he should get out of the race...Mitt seemed today to act like he knew it was over...

Who knows?...perhaps Newt might know that Mitt has just simply run out of things to try, nothing worked, Mitt knows its pointless and is just going to phone it in until after the next Primary?

[BigJulie]

I guess you like to repeat yourself. Interesting that Newt, who has made comebacks and is so far behind in the race seems to think he knows when others should call it quits.

[alanmolstad]

I guess you like to repeat yourself. Interesting that Newt, who has made comebacks and is so far behind in the race seems to think he knows when others should call it quits.Newt is dreaming to think Mitt will drop out if he suffers a loss in MI..

But there is no way around the fact that Newt does correctly understand that if the party leadership sees Mitt lose in his home State, that this will unite everyone in calling for a Open Convention.

A loss in your own home State is a big deal to the Party Leadership, as well as to the money guys who will be cutting the checks.

No one wants to have to spend a dime on TV ads in the home state your candidate is from!!!!!



A loss would mean that if Mitt were to later win the nomination that the whole Party would have to switch to "defense"...and just try hard to hang onto the States we got in the last election under McCain.

That is not the place we wanted this party to end up in, more so when you consider a few months ago when people were talking about the Republicans getting control of a lot bigger piece of the pie.


So Newt is not all that off base here...
Newt is exaggerating a bit....but he is actually saying some things out loud that clearly a lot of media people are hearing from party Leaders too...

The word on the street is that Mitt has to win his home State.

[alanmolstad]

I think what is going to happen in the next few days is that Mitt will tell his staff to break open the piggy bank, and start spending the money that they were planning to spend in the fall against Obama.

I believe that Mitt is going to come to the conclusion that there will be no point in having a lot of money in the bank if he has to drop out.....and he knows that not winning big on Super Tuesday will drive the Leadership to hold an "Open Convention"

and Mitt knows that "Open Convention " would mean the end of any chance he had at all to lead the ticket so he might as well drop out if after all this time the party decides to hold an Open Convention.

and he knows that the voters on Super Tuesday will be watching the results of his home state primary before they go vote....

so that means that I think Mitt is going to toss a huge amount of cash for TV spots in the next few days......and that means i expect a lot more dirt tossed at Rick and Newt to happen real soon.....


and all this gets us to this one final point....Mitt has to win in Michigan or it might be all over...

[alanmolstad]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michigan-poll-santorum-37-romney-33-paul-15-gingrich-10_630099.html


signs that Mitt has told his staff to open up the bank account and spend....Im hearing that number of Mitt's TV ads have shot up in the last 48 hrs...

I think this supports the idea being p***ed around in Party leadership comments and blogs that Mitt has to win his own home State....

He has to win it....
and he knows it....

[alanmolstad]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/100866/caucuses-primary-election-party-nomination


"A new marketing campaign or a clever slogan cannot save a dog food that the dogs don’t like.
So too is it with the Romney campaign."

[alanmolstad]

Because everyone is getting ready for the next debate there is no much news out to report or talk about.....

I do believe that mitt really has to hit a home run in everything he does right now until Super Tuesday if he expects to still be relevant at the convention.

As for this next debate, mitt has to not only do better than Newt and Rick, he also has to try to show there is some point to conservatives supporting him.

Newt in this next debate has to come out swinging.
Newt did his best when he picked on the liberal media for diging up personal stuff.

Right now the only personal stuff being talked about is all about Rick, so that has to be where Newt steps in.

I think Newt should attack the media and do so looking like he is defending Rick.
I think Newt really needs to try to portray himself as the "older brother' sticking up for the younger Rick.


Now as for Rick?
They are really going to come after him on the social issues in the next debate.
Rick has to try to stay above this, and just keep pointing out the true conservative point of view...

Rick should not allow himself to get sucked into church/state issues....but should just quote the Cons***ution and let that be his answer.


The goals?
Mitt needs to look like a president, and Mitt also needs Rick to self-distruct.

Rick needs to position himself as a true voice of conservatives.
Rick needs Mitt to appear to be losing.

Newt needs to come off looking like the true fighter, ready to take on the liberals.

[BigJulie]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/100866/caucuses-primary-election-party-nomination


"A new marketing campaign or a clever slogan cannot save a dog food that the dogs don’t like.
So too is it with the Romney campaign."

So, read today that Obama's super pacs are putting up ads against Romney.

It is well known that Newt is out of after Romney.

And it is reported that Santorum is uping his attacks against Romney.

What do Dems and the Republicans have in common? They don't want Romney.

What are the stats for government satisfaction with Washington? 8% or so satisfaction rate??

What do Obama, Newt, and Santorum have in common as well? They have all made their money in politics. Enough said.

[alanmolstad]

So, read today that Obama's super pacs are putting up ads against Romney.
.
YES,as i have been saying.
Michigan is in play!

Not only do the Republicans now understand that Mitt can not carry his own home state (as i have been saying) , the Dems have also been paying attention to Mitt's sinking polling numbers over the last 2 weeks.

The dems now see that they are going to be on full OFFENSE in this election, and that Mitt will not have any coat tails for other republicans up for election this year.

Trust me, the Dems would not be spending good money in MI this far out from the fall election unless they have a very good reason to believe that Michigan is going to be for grabs.....

remember just 2 months ago Mitt had a lock on carrying Michigan in both the primary and in the general Election.....But now people are thinking that MI is up for grabs....

[alanmolstad]

What do Dems and the Republicans have in common? They don't want Romney.

.

The dems clearly dont want Mitt to beat Obama....But they would LOVE the chance to go up against him....more so if they can help weaken him and make him look like he cant even carry his home State.....


The Republican leadership Loves Mitt.
Mitt was always theur guy....and they are stumped at how poorly Mitt has turned out to do in the primarys.

The Republican Conservative base hates Mitt.
Mitt was never even close to the type of person the conservatives wanted to lead the ticket..

The feelings of distrust that the conservatives have concerning Mitt have caused the conservatives in States like SC to make a very clear statement in the Primary that they would prefer a lump of coal to lead the ticket rather than have Mitt lead.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116274]YES,as i have been saying.
Michigan is in play!

Not only do the Republicans now understand that Mitt can not carry his own home state (as i have been saying) , the Dems have also been paying attention to Mitt's sinking polling numbers over the last 2 weeks.

The dems now see that they are going to be on full OFFENSE in this election, and that Mitt will not have any coat tails for other republicans up for election this year.

Trust me, the Dems would not be spending good money in MI this far out from the fall election unless they have a very good reason to believe that Michigan is going to be for grabs..... Yup---and it is clear, the Dems don't want Mitt Romney who, I think, will be the only one who can give Obama a run for his money. I have liked Rick Santorum---but, he is a fiscal liberal which is the complaint that many have with Obama. So, if Obama does not have to run against that, then he will be a stronger candidate.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116275]The dems clearly dont want Mitt to beat Obama....But they would LOVE the chance to go up against him....more so if they can help weaken him and make him look like he cant even carry his home State..... Your reasoning here is illogical---if they would love to go up against him, then they would sit back and let him win. I think the writing is on the wall---the don't want to go up against him. The only thing that I have seen come out against Mitt is that he "flip-flops"---okay, so he has changed his mind in the past (who hasn't.)

But Rick, they have the whole religious fanatic issue and fiscal liberalism issue (both will help Obama to win) and with Newt they have the corruption issue and the unable to control his mouth issue.

To me, the dems have to be loving the "evangelical right' for shooting themselves in the foot right now.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE] Your reasoning here is illogical---if they would love to go up against him, then they would sit back and let him win. .
The Dems dont control if Mitt will win or lose...

But they do know how to weaken Mitt and when to do that ...

Right now Mitt is low in the polls, and might not even carry his home state.
The idea that the Liberal have is to weaken Mitt as much as they can right now, so that he cant count on winning his home state.

The Dems also know that if Mitt is weakened enough that this will cause the Republicans to have to spend money on Red States they had planed to count on but now are up for grabs.


In other words....The dems expect that Mitt is going to lead the ticket, and they plan to make Mitt to be on defence....forcing Mitt to spend money even on his home State just to keep the red states red......

This would mean that the Dems can play Offense!
The dems can save their money and not have to worry about a loss of a Blue State, and then can take the battle to Mitt in the red states only.......

This could allow Obama's coat tails to take control of the full Congress.

and THAT, is the reason the Dems are spending money now in Michigan



They smell blood in the water.....

[BigJulie]

The Dems dont control if Mitt will win or lose...

But they do know how to weaken Mitt and when to do that ...

Right now Mitt is low in the polls, and might not even carry his home state.
The idea that the Liberal have is to weaken Mitt as much as they can right now, so that he cant count on winning his home state.

The Dems also know that if Mitt is weakened enough that this will cause the Republicans to have to spend money on Red States they had planed to count on but now are up for grabs.


In other words....The dems expect that Mitt is going to lead the ticket, and they plan to make Mitt to be on defence....forcing Mitt to spend money even on his home State just to keep the red states red......

This would mean that the Dems can play Offense!
The dems can save their money and not have to worry about a loss of a Blue State, and then can take the battle to Mitt in the red states only.......

This could allow Obama's coat tails to take control of the full Congress.

and THAT, is the reason the Dems are spending money now in Michigan



They smell blood in the water.....

So, in either case you logic is unreasonable---either Mitt is the strongest candidate and the Dems need to weaken him for when he wins the GOP or he is not the strongest candidate and then they are wasting their money. You said they would love to face Mitt---well, if that is the case--then why waste their money and let someone else win---let them spend their money taking down Mitt and then the dems can spend their money taking down who ever took down Mitt. If they want to face Mitt---then why get in the game?

Yes, you are right, they smell blood in the water---but I have listened to enough talk shows where the dems are just short up jumping up and down for joy---they never would have dreamed the GOP cons***uents would rise up against their strongest possibility all based on something he said years and years ago and ignore his record while defending candidates that are big government spenders, lobbyists, religious fanatics, and ethic violators.

[alanmolstad]

Mitt is the strongest candidate .

Mitt has always been the stronger candidate.
The Dems have always planned on running against Mitt from the beginning.

Yes, the Dems have had ads attacking both Newt and Rick too, so this is nothing new for them.

The idea that the Dems have is to make sure that Mitt is as weak as they can help make him.

Now this has come up with the Michigan primary only because Mitt is doing so poorly in the latest polling.
Mitt shows every sign of not being able to carry even his home state....this is like a gift that has fallen from heaven for the Dems.

The dems know that there is such discontent among the conservatives when it comes to Mitt, that now is the time to toss into the mix a few TV spots attacking Mitt.

It will help weaken Mitt coming out of this and heading into Super Tuesday.....the weaker Mitt becomes the more likely the Republican Leadership will change to a "Open Convention"

and the idea of the Republicans needing to switch to an Open Convention is the greatest news for Obama he could hope for...

For even the talk in the media now of an Open Convention is the same as admitting that the Republicans dont have anyone to go up against Obama that they will all support.


its the same as handing Obama a victory.....

[alanmolstad]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/21/cracks_in_the_establishment_as_republicans_whisper _about_an_open_convention


Rush is now reporting on what I also have been reading about for a while on some of the Republican Blogs i follow....

it's like I have been saying, there is now more and more open discussion of an "Open Convention" from the Leadership.

and lets be clear here.....the term "Open Convention" is a code word for "Get rid of Mitt"


The fact that the Leadership is now clearly dropping the hint to Mitt like this is a sign that the Leadership wants Mitt to believe that he has "nothing to lose" at this point, and so has to put all the chips he has to play into the game right now...or it's all over.

Mitt has to win in his home state primary...AND Mitt has to win big on Super Tuesday or the Party Leadership will come up with "Plan -B"


That means that I expect a different Mitt to hit the stage tonight in the debate.
Mitt has to be at his best, and then some tonight in the debate.

Mitt has to handle with ease every question, Mitt has to take the attack to Rick, and Mitt has to win every point he makes.

Mitt also needs Rick to stumble baddy over a question....

And as for Newt?...Mitt needs Newt to appear crazy or sleepy....it depends on how hyped up Newt is tonight....


it should be the best debate to watch and go over tomorrow ever....

[alanmolstad]

Good news for Mitt appears.....

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/02/21/social-media-****ysis-predicts-big-romney-win-on-super-tuesday


it seems to be a result of tracking Facebook and twitter, but still it does show some welcome news for supporters of Mitt...

[alanmolstad]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/haley-barbour-tells-abc-news-somebody-else-might-get-in/


The leadership of the Republican Party is no longer just whispering.....they are telling us flat out.

make no misunderstanding about it, this is all aimed at Mitt.
Mitt is being told clearly now that he has to win in his home State and on Super Tuesday, or it's game over....

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116370]http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/02/21/cracks_in_the_establishment_as_republicans_whisper _about_an_open_convention


Rush is now reporting on what I also have been reading about for a while on some of the Republican Blogs i follow....

Can I just tell you that I can't stomach listening to Rush anymore. I think it began when he was making excuses for Herman Cain.

So, a little background check---Rush went to college in Missouri but then flunked out. Well, the more and more I listen, the more I realize that he is good at spouting off at the mouth but his lack of education is becoming glaring. He seems more male chauvinistic then just about anything else. I keep trying to turn on the radio and listen to him while driving, but after a few minutes I just want to puck--so off the radio goes again.

[alanmolstad]

such anger....

It's not healthy kid....

And it's not only you,,,,,I have noticed that from a lot of Mitt supporters during this election.

Its not really a good idea to make people in your own Party out to be the devil you know....because down the road you always find that guys on your team are always better than guys on the other.

But what I have noticed lately is that on call-in shows the supporters of Mitt are so angry, so mad at the other people in the race,,,so willing to paint them as the devil, that it will be impossible for them to find a way to vote for them later even against Obama.


The other day I listened to a Mitt supporter attack Rush and he was just yelling and spitting mad that Rush was not also a supporter of Mitt.

Rush was trying to point out that as a Republican he would support and vote for anyone in the race against Obama, but the Mitt supporter would have none of that!

There was such hate of Rick in the other guy's voice that it was clear he would never vote for Rick ever......



I have noticed that myself on this topic...

Remember I have never once said i have officially indorsed anyone for president.

I have said from the beginning I would gladly vote for anyone in the race against Obama...

yet you would not believe the personal attacks and how angry some people get because Im not in Mitt's camp.




Mitt people just come off as too angry to sit down at the table of reason....




One of the things I hear is, that a lot of Mitt's supporters are all mad that the Party has turned it's back on the most electable candidate.

But I got to ask....."Who says Mitt is any more electable than someone else?"


We dont know that at the start of the Primary season...
We have to find out during the primarys who is the most electable.
Thats what the Primarys tell us!

I think that right now it's Rick that has the best claim to being the most electable because he so far has carried the most States.

The truth is that mitt has turned out to be a very weak candidate, getting far less votes this time in the very same State he ran in last time and got more votes!


The facts say that Mitt was NEVER all that electable in the first place!

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE]

Can I just tell you that I can't stomach listening to Rush anymore. I think it began when he was making excuses for Herman Cain.
.

Rush correctly pointed out something that the media totally missed about Cain.

Remember how for a while there the media reports were adding yet another number to the women who were just about to step up and change Cain with doing something wrong?

Every day i would check the morning news and they would say the list of women stepping forward has risen to 2....to 4....to 6....to 8....i think it went all the way up to 12 near the end.

Rush points out..."Where are these 12?"

Who was doing the counting?

How were the women 'checking in' to be counted?


Ever notice that this whole topic dropped right off the radar?

The reason is that if you try to do research on how the numbers went up and up you cant find out how this was done.

The media was reporting comments made on Facebook and twitter?

The media needed a story, so "Add another number to list"...and you had today's story for the top of the news....




Now Im not saying there were 12 or not.
Im not saying that at all...

But what I am saying is that no one knows why we use the number '12"?

No one knows how that number kept going up and up?

It's like 6 months later, and the story seems to have totally disappeared.
When some people have tried to go back and ask the news reporters where they kept getting higher and higher numbers, they would just point to the reports of other news reporters as their source.

[alanmolstad]

because I was at kendo during thie debate I have not had a chance yet to see any of it on the news.

I have checked a bunch of the political blogs and conservative websites and read the early reviews of the debate, and so far i see the following being talked about.


Mitt - did good....came out strong, and really took the fight to Rick.


Rick - did not stumble, and by some accounts did the best in the debate.


Ron - had some good moment, did no real harm to anyone or himself...


Newt got off the best line of the night...may have helped himself a lot because of it too.



It will be interesting to see how the TV news starts to sum up the debate...
Right now my gut feeling is that the debate might help Mitt the most even-up the polling numbers before the primary.

I will have to see if anyone in the race has to take most of today to fix any errors committed during the debate?....

[alanmolstad]

That means that I expect a different Mitt to hit the stage tonight in the debate.
Mitt has to be at his best, and then some tonight in the debate.

Mitt has to handle with ease every question, Mitt has to take the attack to Rick, and Mitt has to win every point he makes.

Mitt also needs Rick to stumble baddy over a question....
...

More reviews of this last debate are being posted on the political Blogs I follow, and it seems that all of the things I was talking about above were seen in how Mitt did in the debate.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;116397]

Rush correctly pointed out something that the media totally missed about Cain.

Remember how for a while there the media reports were adding yet another number to the women who were just about to step up and change Cain with doing something wrong?

Every day i would check the morning news and they would say the list of women stepping forward has risen to 2....to 4....to 6....to 8....i think it went all the way up to 12 near the end.

Rush points out..."Where are these 12?"

Who was doing the counting?

How were the women 'checking in' to be counted?


Ever notice that this whole topic dropped right off the radar?

The reason is that if you try to do research on how the numbers went up and up you cant find out how this was done.

The media was reporting comments made on Facebook and twitter?

The media needed a story, so "Add another number to list"...and you had today's story for the top of the news....




Now Im not saying there were 12 or not.
Im not saying that at all...

But what I am saying is that no one knows why we use the number '12"?

No one knows how that number kept going up and up?

It's like 6 months later, and the story seems to have totally disappeared.
When some people have tried to go back and ask the news reporters where they kept getting higher and higher numbers, they would just point to the reports of other news reporters as their source.

I only heard the number of 4. But, 4 is 4 too many. Rush got it wrong defending Cain---it made him look chauvinistic (which he is).

[BigJulie]

because I was at kendo during thie debate I have not had a chance yet to see any of it on the news.

I have checked a bunch of the political blogs and conservative websites and read the early reviews of the debate, and so far i see the following being talked about.


Mitt - did good....came out strong, and really took the fight to Rick.


Rick - did not stumble, and by some accounts did the best in the debate.


Ron - had some good moment, did no real harm to anyone or himself...


Newt got off the best line of the night...may have helped himself a lot because of it too.



It will be interesting to see how the TV news starts to sum up the debate...
Right now my gut feeling is that the debate might help Mitt the most even-up the polling numbers before the primary.

I will have to see if anyone in the race has to take most of today to fix any errors committed during the debate?....

I didn't watch the debate, but I think Mitt did well by one account---my son said he was listening to Rush today and Rush was touting Newt---if that is the case, Rick has shot himself in the foot with all of his Satan, birth control stuff. I personally agree with Rick on most religious issues, but when you are talking about politics, you need to speak in ways that ALL can understand, not just the religious. I guess we will watch and see if Rick can resurrect himself :)

[alanmolstad]

I didn't watch the debate, but I think Mitt did well by one account---my son said he was listening to Rush today and Rush was touting Newt---if that is the case, Rick has shot himself in the foot with all of his Satan, birth control stuff. :)

Rick had 2 bad parts.

The first is that rick did not have more or less any of his supporters in the audience, and it showed.

Mitt had packed the place, as did Paul and Newt.

The 2nd place where Rick got into trouble is over his voting record.

The truth is, the social issues did not seem to have played the role that I had expected.




And I have had a chance now to go over a few clips and it does seem clear that Newt actually had a good time during this debate.

I think what Rush was talking about is that when Newt was higher in the polls he was too tense during the debate.
This time Newt knows he is out of the running and he really enjoyed himself and of the 4 guys, he was the most interesting to watch.

[alanmolstad]

Rick and Mitt seemed to **** the whole debate fighting ..
They both were busy pointing out the flaws in each other.

There was never a real good statement about why the conservatives should support one guy over others.

it was more a debate to see who could make the other guy look the worst.

No one really looked that good by the end, except for Newt who did get off some good lines that are quoted today in the news.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116442]Rick had 2 bad parts.

The first is that rick did not have more or less any of his supporters in the audience, and it showed.

Mitt had packed the place, as did Paul and Newt. If you really believe this, then I am left to believe that Rick has no control over what happens while he is on the campaign trail. What will his excuse be for when he shows such lack of forsight if he should win the GOP.


The 2nd place where Rick got into trouble is over his voting record.

The truth is, the social issues did not seem to have played the role that I had expected. Because the economy is still having problems as much as Obama wants to pretend otherwise.





And I have had a chance now to go over a few clips and it does seem clear that Newt actually had a good time during this debate.

I think what Rush was talking about is that when Newt was higher in the polls he was too tense during the debate.
This time Newt knows he is out of the running and he really enjoyed himself and of the 4 guys, he was the most interesting to watch. Wait, isn't Newt the one who pronounced himself the GOP winner a couple of months back? The way that Rush backs Santorum, I think those 150 pastors have him in their back pocket.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE] If you really believe this, then I am left to believe that Rick has no control over what happens while he is on the campaign trail.

we shall have to see when they all write their books why Mitt was able to pack the seats as much as he did.

I think what we will find is that Mitt knows this is his last stand and so bussed in anyone who would care to go.

As i said on another post, I think the Party Leadership has let Mitt know very clearly that he has to carry his home State, and he has to end this on Super Tuesday, or its going to be hard not to open the convention and clear the current list of names off the stage.

Knowing this, Mitt has decided that there is no point is saving a lot of cash for later.

From what I understand, Mitt is out spending everyone combined in his home State......This is as I suggested .


I think from Rick's point of view, the debate was just one event on a road leading up to the convention.
At this point I believe Rick has to be thinking long-term, and saving his cash to carry the fight all the way to the convention floor.

[alanmolstad]

....
Because the economy is still having problems as much as Obama wants to pretend otherwise.


As I said, and as I have learned Rush now has also come around to.....By the time we go to the voting booth in the fall i believe the media will be presenting this economy as being the "Obama Recovery"


I believe there will be the results of polls in the news leading up to election day that will show that most Americans are happy with the way the President has fixed things, and that the issue is off the table.


I believe that a war-time President will always have a built in advantage in an election, and that this fact is not lost on Obama.

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE].....

Wait, isn't Newt the one who pronounced himself the GOP winner a couple of months back? .......


If you remember, 2 weeks before Iowa Newt seemed to take charge of the election and was sitting good.

Then this election changed , and the results of that change are still with us.

It was the willingness of Mitt's camp to go after newt in Iowa that so ticked-off Newt that changed.

before this year, the rule was the 11th Commandment.

The 11th Commandmentt so ruled the way people acted that while there were attacks ads, they were always seen as almost "offensive" in the eyes of the party.

This year attack ads are the rule....the party is still in a bit of shock at the way supports of one Republican are treating others in the same Party.

This came up the other day when on his show Rush received a call from a Mitt supporter that showed just how truly evil some Mitt supporters think that non-Mitt supporters are.

----------------------


Anyway, back to Iowa and Newt>

Because of the attack ads in Iowa we saw Newt fall right off the radar and that is when Newt decided that he would stay in this race to cause Mitt the most harm he could.

Now the way it has worked out, Newt by staying in actually caused more harm to Rick than to Mitt, but thats ok to Newt because Newt never considered Rick to be worth the worry.


Newt had a great night in this last debate because Newt could be Newt.

Newt knows he was never going to gain much in the debate, so he didnt have much to lose too.
Thus a more relaxed Newt was able to handle every question better and spoke from his heart.

[alanmolstad]

.....I think those 150 pastors have ......

You list the Texas evangelical endorsement a lot...it seems to be on your mind a lot...

Let us remember the context of what you are remembering.
The endorsement you speak of simply reflected the push of the pro-Life cause.

It came after the 4 major pro-life election forums that all the candidates attended..

Ummm...all except for One Guy, that is...

Yes, at each of the 4 major Pro-life election forums where all the candidates were invited to come and answer questions , we saw one candidate represented each time by an "Empty Chair"


Mitt never showed up.

Mitt has made his feeling very clear about the Pro-Life cause because of this .

Well under the rules of the way they were indorsing people , you had to also show up and be willing to talk to people about issues in-order to be considered.

Mitt never made it to Texas to be on the list to be considered.

This failure of Mitt to sit down and talk to the pro-Live cause at the beginning of this Primary season is very much reflected in how the conservatives in the Party have rejected Mitt now later.


If you want to know why this election has turned out to be a nightmare for Mitt?....it is simply the result of the way Mitt has acted in connection to the issue of ABORTION.

Thats why the election is in the mess it is.


If you look at the way Mitt has run his election, it is very clear that Mitt does not want to be ***ociated with the pro-Life cause, nor the Pro-Live movement.
Now the Pro-Life cause cuts across religions and Christian denominations...but it is very much connected to the Christian church.

When Mitt makes it very clear to the pro-Life cause that "He is not interested"...he is also addressing this lack of interest to a lot of Christians from all parts of the body of Christ.

This is yet another wall that Mitt has constructed between himself and the very conservative base that he needs to beat Obama later.
Mitt has in effect, pushed away the very people he would need to be elected president.





Let me explain one thing that I think a lot of "middle of the road" (economic) Republicans misunderstand.

A lot of them guys are under the idea that Mitt can beat Obama by appealing to the undecided voter.
This is the reason the Mitt / McCain / Bob Dole have all run elections that they aimed at appealing to the none-church going, middle of the road, independent voter.

Mitt thinks that if he attracts the independent voter, and gets the support of the conservative voter, that this will give him enough to beat Obama.

Mitt is wrong.

But then again, this same thinking was behind Bob Dole and Mccain too.
they all appeal to the independents by pushing away the conservatives, with the hope the conservatives will come back because "Who else can they vote for?"


Mitt just does not understand that Republicans win the White House by firing up the Conservative base of the party.....NOT by appealing to independents!

[BigJulie]

I don't agree with you....I think the main predictor of whether an incumbant will win lies in the economy. It didn't matter what Republican won last time, the economy was in the tubes and therefore, Obama was going to win, no question.

You seem to think that Obama can make this economy look like it is recovering from the stock market. There is a hole in his logic---inflation. Right now, the only reason that inflation looks okay is because the housing market is in the tubes. Why? Because of the Frank Dodd bill. The housing market will stay depressed until that bill gets changed. The other side of the coin is inflation which is occurring in the commodities market. Next you have gas prices---its a bad mix and people can feel it in their checkbooks. As always, the economy will be a huge predictor in who wins---which is why Obama is dumping in a much money as he can---going toward the middle on somem tax measures, why the s.s. tax (payroll tax) has been extended, and why Obama decided not to bring troops home this year, but will bring them home next year (personally it makes me sick that young mens lives are at stake so it makes the economy look better) and why the Obamacare taxes are not set to kick in until 2013. The biggest thing a candidate has to do is point to these things.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/politics/2012/02/23/jk-specter-gop-race.cnn

What do you think about this video. It looks like Santorum may have not been so honest in the debate.

[alanmolstad]

You seem to think that Obama can make this economy look like it is recovering from the stock market. There is a hole in his logic---inflation. Right now, ......


a typical post from people who don't read what i say...

have I ever said squat about the stock market?

Nope.




But then I guess because you got something to say about that topic you wanted to work it into the conversation somehow and so you made up a false idea that I give a rip about the stock market...

And then attack that straw man.....


Well good ***.....

I'll tell you what, if I ever say one word in the future that leads you to believe I give a rip about the stock market, , "then" feel free to all your little stuff about that ok?

[alanmolstad]

What do you think about this video. .....

I think the idea that Senators don't cut deals with each other is silly.


We all know they cut deals.

We all know that the basic way anything gets p***ed in Washington is that you have to agree to support things you would not want to support in-order to get things p***ed you do support.

If you want to know when Ricks deal was paid off.....

here it is -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrG4eMOryuA

this argument came after the Robert's hearing where the same two guys got into the same basic argument, and their working relationship was never the same.
This is a deal being paid off.
This is what it looks like.

Finally we find a guy like Rick who has told us what goes on that we always knew was happening but no one ever had the guts to admit until now....

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;116461]I think the idea that Senators don't cut deals with each other is silly.


We all know they cut deals.

We all know that the basic way anything gets p***ed in Washington is that you have to agree to support things you would not want to support in-order to get things p***ed you do support. But Spector makes a good logical point that why would he promise to give a blanket okay when he has no idea who is going to be appointed. And this looks bad for Santorum.



If you want to know when Ricks deal was paid off.....

here it is -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrG4eMOryuA

this argument came after the Robert's hearing where the same two guys got into the same basic argument, and their working relationship was never the same.
This is a deal being paid off.
This is what it looks like.

Finally we find a guy like Rick who has told us what goes on that we always knew was happening but no one ever had the guts to admit until now.... It makes Rick look bad when he gives the one word to describe himself as "courage" and then goes on to explain that he fell prey to politics as usual in Washington even when it went against his principles (as he described it.)

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE] But Spector ....
Spector chaired the committee that would decide Robert's fate.

Spector is pro-Abortion.

So the fate of any pro-Life judges would fall into Spector's hands...

Everyone knew this back in 2004.
You remember 2004 right, and Mitt actually supporting Abortion rights back then.

The fact that it actually did fall to Spector to get a pro-Life judge on the court was not lost on the pro-Life movement.

Spector got on the committee and became the chairman in order to control who would be named to the court.
Thats the reason he wanted that ***.
Spector was there to stop the very thing Rick and the pro-life movement were out to do.

So I am not surprised to see that some of the stronger Pro-Life voices in the Senate were thinking ahead and getting some ducks lined up..


As for what Spector is saying now?
Spector is clearly attempting to rewrite his own page in the history books...

You can see that Rick is telling the truth by the way things worked out, and how it all fit now.

Why else do you think a pro-Abortion Republican could year after year get so much support from a Pro-Life republican party?

We all knew that everyone was cutting deals.
now we have just heard about it out in the open for the first time from the lips of one of the guys who was cutting a deal with Spector to get a pro-Life judge on the court.


The results of Rick's deal was 2 more pro-Life judges on the court.

I know its a messy way to go about things in Washington, but this is the way the game is played if you want to get pro-Life men on the court....and clearly Rick did.


And Rick was successful.

So as a Pro-Life voter, I got to hand it to Rick for knowing how to get the *** done.

[alanmolstad]

......when it went against his principles (as he described it.)


I live in North Dakota.

There are way fewer people that live in my State than in any other State in the country.


And yet when you check on what State gets the most money from Washington per-person, North Dakota always leads the list!


Now ask yourself, "Why would little ND get so much more Washington money compared to the bigger more powerful States?"



The answer is found in the way your State hung on to that air base...how it paid for the new bridge....how it got that new housing grant program...

Your Senator had to find the votes to get your States requests p***ed.

and so they knocked on the doors of the Senators from ND, who were more than happy to support your senator's projects......"if"....




and that "if" is a game the two ND Senators play well.....

[alanmolstad]

fell prey to politics ....

"politicas is one word of it...

or, horse trading...

or Negotiating.

or finding a compromise.

This is how two people, be they a car salesman and a person with a trade-in,
or be they two senators who disagree on Abortion -
or be they a husband and wife who simply disagree on something important,
are able to work out an agreement they both can live with and move on.

It is the 'art of the deal'

[BigJulie]

"politicas is one word of it...

or, horse trading...

or Negotiating.

or finding a compromise.

This is how two people, be they a car salesman and a person with a trade-in,
or be they two senators who disagree on Abortion -
or be they a husband and wife who simply disagree on something important,
are able to work out an agreement they both can live with and move on.

It is the 'art of the deal'

That people are clearly sick of when it comes to Washington because the deal always means more debt and more taxes. It is what Santorum did when he dealt and what we don't any more of.

[alanmolstad]

Everyone always objects to the other guy's deal....

What I notice is that it all is a matter of point of view.
Had Rick not been able to get a deal with key Senators we would be looking at a totally Liberal court right now.

But some will say that Rick is guilty of being a hypocrite, and selling out for political gain.
And from their point of view perhaps thats what it looks like.

On the other hand, if all you care about it getting a Pro-Life judge on the court because it may lead to millions of saved lives?....Then the idea that you got to risk having ObamaCare to deal with looks like a fair trade.

[BigJulie]

Oh brother Alan---when the only way you can promote the person you like best is to give excuses for their bad behavior, you know things are not going to go well for you.

The more time Santorum has a chance to spout his views, the more fanatical he appears.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57384204-503544/santorum-obama-wants-to-indoctrinate-students-by-boosting-college-enrollment/

[alanmolstad]

Oh brother Alan---when the only way you can promote the person you like best is to give excuses l]
Its not an excuse, its what he did.

and it was not an error on his part, it was a judgement call he made...

and the result is that we got to pro-Life judges on the court, while at the same time guy's like Mitt were not even sure what position to take on abortion.

Rick knows what he believes, and he took action to save children.

I got to hand it to Rick for not being shy about making a deal to save children.

[alanmolstad]

currently Im reading the Mitt is out spending Rick and Newt and Paul about 4 or 5 to 1.

At this rate he better win his home State or there is going to be a lot of screaming at him by the Party Leadership before Super Tuesday....

[alanmolstad]

The more time Santorum has a chance to spout his views, .....
Rush seems to be saying that Rick is doing better now with the ladies than he was before people started trying to dig up dirt on him.

[BigJulie]

Rush seems to be saying that Rick is doing better now with the ladies than he was before people started trying to dig up dirt on him.

Rush seems to be in the pocket of those 150 pastors. He is making himself look s.tupid. This lady is not impressed.

[BigJulie]

Its not an excuse, its what he did.

and it was not an error on his part, it was a judgement call he made...

and the result is that we got to pro-Life judges on the court, while at the same time guy's like Mitt were not even sure what position to take on abortion.

Rick knows what he believes, and he took action to save children.

I got to hand it to Rick for not being shy about making a deal to save children.

Its an excuse. And you only mentioned one bill of the many big money bills he voted yes on.

[alanmolstad]

Its an excuse. And you only mentioned one bill of the many big money bills he voted yes on.
oh I think that looking at a guy's voting record is fine...

It is correct to go over the way congressmen vote and have them talk about why they voted the way they did.

That would be a correct means to judge their *** performance by.


Im just saying that Rick did what he felt was the right call to make to help put strong pro-life judges on the high court.
Rick made a judgement call to try to save lives of kids while in other parts of the country there were other people doing the old flip-flop not knowing what position to take on the issue.

Rick knew what he was aiming at ...he knew that he needed to try to convince a known Pro-Abortion Senator to help approve a Pro-Life judge.
I think that Rick made a hard call, but it was the right call too.

[BigJulie]

oh I think that looking at a guy's voting record is fine...

It is correct to go over the way congressmen vote and have them talk about why they voted the way they did.

That would be a correct means to judge their *** performance by.


Im just saying that Rick did what he felt was the right call to make to help put strong pro-life judges on the high court.
Rick made a judgement call to try to save lives of kids while in other parts of the country there were other people doing the old flip-flop not knowing what position to take on the issue.

Rick knew what he was aiming at ...he knew that he needed to try to convince a known Pro-Abortion Senator to help approve a Pro-Life judge.
I think that Rick made a hard call, but it was the right call too.

Did you miss in the debate where Rick said he went against his beliefs to be a team player (his words)?

[alanmolstad]

Did you miss in the debate where Rick said he went against his beliefs to be a team player (his words)?
yes...and it is fine to go over how a congreessman votes and have them tell you why they voted the way they did.


again, that it how we should judge the *** performance of congressman in office.

Not according to their marriage.
Not according to their religion
and not according to their personal life.

What Im saying is that I really find no fault in RicK supporting a Pro-Abortion senator if part of that deal is in return that Important Senator supports stongly Pro-Life judges to the high court.

Rick did support the guy.
The Guy did support the pro-Life judges.

Yes, this means that you may have to come out looking bad in some people's minds, but that it just part of the deal too....the being willing to suffer so that the cause you fight for gets an important victory..


As for the comment "Take one for the team" I believe that came up in the debate in connection with the vote to let a few schools off the hook with the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND requirements.
And i actually dont have a problem with that vote.
I know that this vote also was a part of a bigger deal that got the Republicans part of what they were seeking too.

and that the reason this all is in the news today is the problem poor States like North Dakota have at keeping good teachers in the very smaller towns that lack enough taxes to stay even with the larger metro areas of this country.

One of the things written-in to the NCLB rules is if a school under-performs that it should be closed and the students moved to better schools.

That is a great idea if the other school is just up the street,
but how do you do that if the next High School is a 2 or 3 hours bus ride away?
Who picks up that gas bill?
Who wants their kids out in that type of winter driving conditions?

and in some cases in western ND there simply are no means to bring all the students of a whole High school to other counties...simply no way to do it.
There is no sense talking about closing down poorer schools in North Dakota because they cant equal the same high standards of New York, if the ND High School is the only one in a 3 or 4 country area.

Thus I see the point of the Republican and Dem Parties working out a deal with Obama to allow some schools off the hook.

Yes, this means that to get the vote you have to do a bit of arm-twisting of members of your Party to make a vote that will look like it's going against this key Republican/President Bush plan to make schools better..

But sometimes you have to face the reality that not every good idea in Washington works out evenly all over.

[alanmolstad]

The cornerstone of President Bush's effort to help schools was the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND law.

The idea was to hold all kids to the same standard, and to pump money into schools that did not test even with others.

the problem is that in States where schools are far from each other you really cant say that if a school is constantly under-performing that the students should be transferred and the poor school closed.

There just are not other schools to bring kids to in vast sections of North Dakota.

The idea that if a school tests poorly out on the vast open sections of this country and cant equal the same test scores as in the highest taxed areas with the greatest populations would automatically cause the school to close?.....
That idea nuts.


Thus the reason that there has been a lot of arm-twisting and horse trading in order to allow some schools to not have to be held to standards that they simply will never be able to reach.

Yes, this means that for some congressmen, they are going to have to 'take one for the team" and vote to allow schools to not meet standards that 8 years ago seemed like it was the only way to make schools accountable.

Yes, it's likely handing an issue to members of the opposition.

All i can say about this issue is that:
Some times what appears to be a great idea in Washington DC, turns out not work all that well in real life.

[BigJulie]

Okay, you go ahead and support the guy that went against his convictions (politically, not religiously) to support the team (Santorum) and I will vote for the guy who, after learning more about an issue (abortion) changed his mind and voted with his convictions against his team (Romney).

You go with the guy who, when he lost his position, went on to lobby for millions of dollars (Santorum) and I'll go with the guy who charged his state one dollar for his services while in government (Romney).

You go with the guy who sees education as a way to brainwash people (Santorum) and I will go with the guy who sees education as a way to prosper (Romney).

You go with the guy that went along with the team so much that it threw our country into further debt and obligation (Santorum) and I will go with the guy who took his state's credit rating and improved it (Romney).

[alanmolstad]

I will go with the guy who I think gives the best voice to the views that I hold to.


(as I have always said I would...)

[BigJulie]

What do you think about Rick robo-calling democratics to get them to vote for him? What excuse do you think Rush will come up for this bad behavior?

[alanmolstad]

What do you think about Rick robo-calling

While I actually think that making an appeal to Dems is a very good idea, and is one of the means to bring new people into the Party by getting them used to voting Republican....

Yet, Im not really a guy who likes to get robo-calls myself, and I tend to vote against people interrupt my day with such things....


But appealing to Dems to come out and vote for you is a VERY GOOD THING, not only for Rick, but also for the future of the Party as a whole....

[alanmolstad]

..... What excuse do you think Rush will come up for this bad behavior?

I dodnt think that appealing to Dems is a bad thing to do at all....I wish more Republicans would do the same...

Appealing to Dems, like the Pro-Life Dems is one way to get some Liberals over the 'hump" of voting for a Republican.

Its a lot more easy to draw Dems to the republican party if you get them to vote for a Republican in a Primary election.

Its only human nature to support later in the general election the same person you voted for in the primary....

Give credit to Rush, this is a very smart idea...and should be part of every Republican Primary.

[BigJulie]

I dodnt think that appealing to Dems is a bad thing to do at all....I wish more Republicans would do the same...

Appealing to Dems, like the Pro-Life Dems is one way to get some Liberals over the 'hump" of voting for a Republican.

Its a lot more easy to draw Dems to the republican party if you get them to vote for a Republican in a Primary election.

Its only human nature to support later in the general election the same person you voted for in the primary....

Give credit to Rush, this is a very smart idea...and should be part of every Republican Primary.

It is one thing for Rush to do this; it is another for a candidate. It smells of desperation from the guy who touts himself as the "conservative."

[alanmolstad]

It is one thing for Rush to do this; it is another for a candidate. It smells of desperation from the guy who touts himself as the "conservative."from the Parties point of view its a very good idea and I wish a lot more Conservatives would make a clear statement of reaching-out to Dems who on some issues might share more with the Republicans than with the pro-Abortion Liberals.

Does it smell of desperation?...oh yes..thats clear.

and personally I dont actually like any types of robo-calls, so Rick did not win any points with me for that part of this.

But the idea to try to get Dems to vote for you is not only smart, its a very 'good" thing for the Party to see happen.

What we always have to remember is that there are a LOT of conservative Dems out there,,,,,they are the Dems who came out strong for Ronald Reagan.

Thus Rick has strong historical support for attempting to bring some more Conservative Dems out to vote for a Republican....

I hope that idea catches on....

[BigJulie]

In the general election, yes, we hope many democrats vote republican. In the primaries...well, here is what I see. To win a presidential election anymore, it doesn't just take a person with an idea, but it takes organization. We can see this already briefly in the primaries. Newt and Rick did not get on the ballot for lack of organization. In the primaries, this may not come across as that big of a deal, but lack of organization can kill you. My view on Rick is that this primary is a good practice run for him just as it was for Mitt last time through. He is seeing where his mistakes are both in organization and what he should not be talking about. For example, he keeps saying things that speak to inexperience and lack of knowledge.

So, this idea of Rick's may sound good, but while he may win the battle (trying to undo his lack of organization with a strategy to get the dems to vote for him), I think it will ultimately loss the war as he is not prepared.

[alanmolstad]

at this point in time...Rick is mostly playing for the open convention....same as Newt.

That is their only hope at this point.

The fact is that while Mitt cant just coat to victory, , all Mitt has to do at this point is not screw up, or have anything come up that screws up his walk to victory.


At this point Rick is really thinking about only one thing....the VP spot.

Rick needs to cause as much damage to Mitt in the next few weeks to show it's worth getting him on the ticket so as to bring in the conservative vote.


What we have learned in the last 3 weeks is that Mitt is going to lose against Obama big time...that Mitt cant even get the support of a minor percent of the Conservative vote, and without it he has ZERO chance of beating Obama.

Mitt has just dont nothing to imprive his odds of getting the support of the conservatives, and each day that p***es he sinks more away from where he should be.

You want to know what Mitt needs to do?
Mitt needs to be on a stage standing next to Sarah Palin.....


thats about the best chance he has right now....

[BigJulie]

Yes, and I think it would be rediculous to put someone in during an open convention who received less support in the general population than the leader did.

I question the mindset of "hey, the leader didn't get enough votes, let's put in the second or third place guy and see if he can do better?" (And why would they do better if they did not do well in the primaries?)

[alanmolstad]

Yes, and I think it would be rediculous to put someone in during an open convention who received less support in the general population than the leader did.

I question the mindset of "hey, the leader didn't get enough votes, let's put in the second or third place guy and see if he can do better?" (And why would they do better if they did not do well in the primaries?)

I think that the people that are really pushing to get the the convention, open it up to get rid of Mitt, and pick a new guy..have no intention of picking Rick or Newt.....

My views of this are the following..

Mitt has won the states that he had to win....yes, he did not win by much, but he still knew he had to win them and he did...

Thus I do not se any chance right now of an open convention....I just dont see it getting the big push it needs because Mitt won when he had to and thats-that.

While Rush and others in the conservative wing are still talking about an "Open Convention"...I dont see that happening unless something rather stunning happens to the Mitt campaign.

Right now I see the following...

Ron Paul is in this to try to work a back-room deal to get his son on the ticket

Newt is in this to pay-back Mitt for Iowa, and to have a center role at the convention.

Rick is in this to get the VP spot.





However...I have always felt that Huntsman will get the VP spot....

[BigJulie]

I




However...I have always felt that Huntsman will get the VP spot....

With Mitt? I can't see it. I think he would go for someone we haven't seen at all yet.

[alanmolstad]

With Mitt? I can't see it. I think he would go for someone we haven't seen at all yet.


Before this race started...before anyone had announced they would run....when the top of the media list was only Sarah Palin...I wrote the two names that i guessed would lead the Republican ticket.

mitt for pres
Huntsmen for VP

I believe that huntsment brings the two things to the office of VP I look for in a guy right now.

#1 - he knows the Chinese, and the fact is that China is where America gets it's cash, and if China ever got mad at us and held back from borrowing us the cash we need, this country would close in 24 hours....

#2 - he hates Mitt on a personal level....They have had words in the past and dont like each other personally at all...and this means he will NEVER be a "yes man" to Mitt....he will say whats on his mind...and Mitt will need that from the way i have watch Mitt's team screw up even easy calls like the tax return issue...clearly Mitt has too many Yes Men around him

I Mitt/Huntsman team would be good....


The problem with this is that Huntsman was just ****py in the debates....whereas Rick is well practiced at being in a debate...and when the two VP's debate all we want to see is our guy not screw up.......

I worry that because Huntsman is so bad at being in a debate he could **** the whole election...

[BigJulie]

Before this race started...before anyone had announced they would run....when the top of the media list was only Sarah Palin...I wrote the two names that i guessed would lead the Republican ticket.



He won't pick Huntsman because there is more going on than just China.

[alanmolstad]

I think he will...If you have been watching the news you would notice that Obama is moving all our ships and fleets to Southeast asia.....

We also are closing bases in the middle east and starting to build bases in Asia....

I think what Obama sees going on is that china is building up to start taking an active role in that whole area...and America is going to counter this so as to try to keep Free China free.....

There is also the North Korea situation....

Im thinking that Mitt will actually need help in this area...and the most likely name at the top of the list is Huntsman...

[alanmolstad]

or rather I should say that on paper Huntsman looks like a good pick.

The problem is again that Huntsman does not help him get elected at all.

the guy had a lot of issues with conservatives, and right now if Mitt wants to get elected hi has to consider a name for VP that brings the conservatives to his side....

[BigJulie]

Well, Mitt certainly won't be picking Santorum. I don't think those pastors did their homework when getting together and deciding by vote that they would all try to use their influence to back Santorum.

"One of the top donors to Santorum's charity was also the beneficiary of an $8 million Santorum-sponsored federal earmark, according to published reports."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions/story?id=15287424

I was reading the news this morning and a poster was posting some of Santorum's ethics problems and so I looked into it further (Santorum has a slew of them.) It appears that Santorum was selling his influence.

[alanmolstad]

Well, Mitt certainly won't be picking Santorum. ......

we shall see....No one knows the future right now, or how things will work out.

[BigJulie]

we shall see....No one knows the future right now, or how things will work out.

Santorum is too big of a liability between his unethical behavior regarding receiving gifts from those he gave earmarks as well as his lack of education regarding Puerto Rico stating English should be their official language or his delving into things that shouldn't be federal discussions, but personal (birth control)....there is no way that Mitt would pick him up.

To me, the way it comes across is that the only reason he is doing well is because of bunch of pastors got together and decided to use their influence to back him, but it appears that they did not do their homework before doing so. It makes them appear uneducated as well as those who follow them blindly.

[alanmolstad]

bunch of pastors got together and decided to use their influence to back him, ....

Yes, Rick does have a good chunk of the support of the good Christians within the Party, this is true.

And as we have seen, Mitt has no clue how to attract the very most religious of the party, and they are the very same people that will decide if he can beat Obama or not.

So does rick have a stong enough case to make as being someone who can delivir the Christian vote?...

I dont know...

The SC Primary taught us a very important lesson, in that it showed us once and for all that the most religion wing of the party would vote for a bag of dirt rather than vote for Mitt.

Im sure this lesson was not lost on Mitt not his staff as they put names of the list of possible VPs.


Mitt knows he has to find some way to get some interest from people of faith, Mitt has got to understand that just saying "Me or Obama" is a guaranteed way to lose an election.

Mitt has to find a way to get the Christians and Pro-Life Republicans eager to vote for his ticket.....


I dont know what he is going to do....

We shall see how well he has learned from the SC primary...

[BigJulie]

What do you think now Alan? Should Santorum get out of the race as he has no real chance of winning it and now it is just wasted dollars and time that could be spent going after Obama?

[alanmolstad]

What do you think now Alan? Should Santorum get out of the race as he has no real chance of winning it a
HECK NO!.....

REMEMBER, the reason that this has went the way it has is because Mitt has Zero support amount conservatives....thus Rick knows that if he can hang in until the convention there is a chance he can make his pitch to the members of the convention to suspend the rules.....

Basically that means to hold all the voting and results so far as a moot point, and simply open the floor up to take names...

I think right now Paul, Newt and Rick see a lot of support for an open convention and so that is why there is no chance of them wanting to get out.


Now money is another issue that may decide this.

Newt should have been out of the race a long time ago, but his money man kept writing checks.


If I were to give advice to Rick it would be to start writing the best speech you can give...and give it at the convention and at that point it will come down to a vote to suspend the rules or not.....

[BigJulie]

Santorum had the largest number of democrat voters voting for him in Wisconsin.

I absolutely cannot see making Rick the nominee at the convention. Do you mean to tell me that you think the GOP is so ****** that they would put in someone who has not done as well as another candidate and that NOW, at the last moment, it would be better to put in your second place guy?

I think Marco Rubio said it best about an dog fight at the convention---this would not be good for the GOP.

[alanmolstad]

Do you mean to tell me that you think the GOP is so ****** that they would put in someone who has not done as well as another candidate and that NOW, at the last moment, it would be better to put in your second place guy?

I think Marco Rubio said it best about an dog fight at the convention---this would not be good for the GOP.

Marco Rubio, as well as everyone else in this race at this point is doing the very same thing..."Applying for the VP spot on the ticket"




Now let me talk a little about Rick's point of view at this point in the election.


Rick knows how to do math...
Rick knows that Mitt has the primary won.

But rick also knows that Mitt lacks the needed support of conservatives to beat Obama....
Therefore Rick now considers the election all about setting himself up to run next time against Biden.

Thats who Rick is really running against at this point,,,Biden.

Rick knows he has to get a lot of people to be supporters of him so that in the next go-around he is sitting with a built-in lead into Iowa and the rest of the future primaries.

Also on Rick's mind is the off-chance that Mitt will pick him to be his VP.
Rick knows that at this point his only chance of being named the VP is showing in the last few primarys that there simply is a core conservative base of the Republican Party that will not support Mitt, but will support Rick, and thereby if named as Mitt's VP he would be able to deliver the conservative voting block.

this is one of the main reasons that Rick is still out there attempting to win a few more primaries before the convention...

Rick knows that he needs to have one or two more Primary wins to be able to tell Mitt and he needs him or else has no chance at all against Obama in the fall.


So Rick really needs to do all he can at this point to damage Mitt is every way he can think of , in order to show that there is still a large conservative base that is against Mitt, even now at the end....



Thats the other thing Julie I would point out to you...

That being the question...Why does Rick still get any votes?

Republicans do not support the underdog...we hate to be on the losing team...
Thus according to most years at this point, Mitt should be all alone in this as the other guys would have dropped out because no one would vote for the clear loser..

yet primary after primary have shown us that no matter what, there is still a large base of Republicans that will take the time to go vote for a guy with no chance at all , just to make a "point"


thats it....every vote now by any Republican for Rick is only made to make a "point"

Rick knows this...

Mitt knows this....


and....

Biden knows this.....

[BigJulie]

I don't think Mitt will ever put Rick in as VP---he has two many flaws that have lead him to be the number two guy in this race.

Mitt is smarter than that--he will put in someone that voters would see as a number one guy had Mitt not been in--someone they will trust if Mitt should die, etc. Right now, Rick isn't likeable enough to beat Mitt. He is losing by more than half.

I am not sure why Rick stays in the race. People in politics say he should get out before he becomes seen as a pain rather than a helper. When Mitt saw he couldn't win the last race, he bowed out gracefully and became a major contributor for McCain. Santorum should show the same cl***.

[alanmolstad]

I am not sure why Rick stays in the race. ......

Read my post above.


Rick knows how to do math as much as we do....HE KNOWS HOW TO ADD...

So Rick is not under any delusion that he can win enough votes to sway this election to his side.
But Rick also sees something that all the rest of us see as well, Rick sees that even if everyone in the Party knows full well that Mitt has it in the bag, still people still keep voting for Rick no matter what.

And these core Rick supporters that still vote at this point for Rick represent the very core conservatives that Mitt needs to beat Obama.
Everyone sees this fact.
Mitt knows that down the line he has to attract the core conservatives of the Republican party to himself in large numbers or there is no point in thinking he can beat Obama...

So right now everyone is doing a little dance.

Rick knows that Mitt has to pick a strong conservative as his VP.
Mitt knows that to beat Obama he needs a strong conservative vote.
Mitt also knows that the traditional way to build support with conservatives is to offer them a place on the ticket.

Thus Rick's name as well as a lot of other names are starting to be discussed openly now as Mitt's VP.

and another thing to keep in mind...
Rick is not at all interested in dropping out now to make Mitt a stronger person against Obama later.
Remember, Rick is thinking of the next election, and that if Mitt cant beat Obama this time it will leave Rick in the lead position going into the next Presidential election.

Like it or not, Rick and Ron Paul and Newt are all looking down the road to .....Iowa in 2016

[BigJulie]

and another thing to keep in mind...
Rick is not at all interested in dropping out now to make Mitt a stronger person against Obama later.
Remember, Rick is thinking of the next election, and that if Mitt cant beat Obama this time it will leave Rick in the lead position going into the next Presidential election.

Like it or not, Rick and Ron Paul and Newt are all looking down the road to .....Iowa in 2016


So, we have Rick who is not interested in making Mitt a stronger candidate to beat Obama but to his own election possiblities in 2016. Enough said!

[alanmolstad]

So, we have Rick who is not interested in making Mitt a stronger candidate to beat Obama but to his own election possiblities in 2016. Enough said!

Yes, Rick and Ron Paul and Newt are running "against' Mitt....when you run against someone you seek to beat them,,,to defeat them....not help them.

Ron Paul is in this for the ability to push his son forward, Newt and Rick are looking down the road to 2016 and Iowa....

[BigJulie]

Yes, Rick and Ron Paul and Newt are running "against' Mitt....when you run against someone you seek to beat them,,,to defeat them....not help them.

Ron Paul is in this for the ability to push his son forward, Newt and Rick are looking down the road to 2016 and Iowa....

Yes, but when it is clear that you cannot defeat them and instead of looking to make improvements in 2012 and supporting the guy who has the best shot---and rather look to your own election in another 4 years...well, that is selfishness at its finest.

[alanmolstad]

Yes, but when it is clear that you cannot defeat them .....

people have to look down the road....and set themselves in a position that they think will be better.

Rick does not work for the Republican party.....Newts is not being paied to make Mitt look better.....Ron Paul does not owe anything to Republicans or to Mitt personally.

So the idea that any of these guys has any interest at all in helping Mitt is silly......

That is why Mitt needs to name a strong Conservative as his VP or he simply has ZERO chance of getting the conservative voter support he needs to beat Obama..

Without the correct person named as Mitt's VP, the election is over and its a huge waste of time.

Mitt needs to name a person that Rush cant wait to vote for!
Mitt needs to find someone that will be able to speak the language of the conservatives.

Rick knows this and that is why he has tried so hard over the last month to show he can bring the conservatives with him should he be named as Mitt's VP....

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE=alanmolstad;120302]people have to look down the road....and set themselves in a position that they think will be better.

Rick does not work for the Republican party.....Newts is not being paied to make Mitt look better.....Ron Paul does not owe anything to Republicans or to Mitt personally.

So the idea that any of these guys has any interest at all in helping Mitt is silly...... It is not silly at all. Yes, you have said it best--Rick does not work for the Republican party and is more interested in self interest than this country. That is the point you keep making and I accept it. I just think it is very selfish. When Mitt, in 2008, was not in a position to win, he stopped his campaign to help McCain. That speaks to the character of both men, I believe.

[BigJulie]

Rick Santorum's decision to drop out of the Republican presidential race came after he spent the holiday weekend evaluating the race with his family, who were grappling with the latest hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Bella. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/politics/santorum-wrapup/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 '

From the news tonight.

[BigJulie]

Alan, I am curious where you stand now that Rick and Newt are effectively out of the race.

(I am glad that Rick wisened up by the way---and showed he cared more about the 2012 and family more than self.)

[alanmolstad]

No computer here...only phone

[alanmolstad]

(I am glad that Rick wisened up by the way---and showed he cared more about the 2012 and family more than self.)

well...I know that this is what Rick wants you and the Party to think.

Rick wants to have that image in the back of your mind , should Obama win and the next election we find that Rick is then sitting in the same top spot that Mitt had in this election.

[BigJulie]

well...I know that this is what Rick wants you and the Party to think.

Rick wants to have that image in the back of your mind , should Obama win and the next election we find that Rick is then sitting in the same top spot that Mitt had in this election.

I don't think he will be...but we shall see.

What do you think now---as an fiscally conservative EV---will you support Mitt?

[alanmolstad]

.

What do you think now---as an fiscally conservative EV---will you support Mitt?

do you even read my posts?

[BigJulie]

do you even read my posts?

Yes, I know you say that his religion is not what is the determiner for you--I guess I just haven't seen you say you would support him. Maybe in a post to someone else maybe, but not in a discussion with me.

[alanmolstad]

Julie, how many times did I have to read that if Rick or Newt beat Mitt that you would stay home and not vote for him?

It was like your theme....

Will it then be surprising for you to learn that others feel as you do, but just about a different name?

[BigJulie]

Julie, how many times did I have to read that if Rick or Newt beat Mitt that you would stay home and not vote for him?

It was like your theme....

Will it then be surprising for you to learn that others feel as you do, but just about a different name?

Okay---I just wanted to know if you would really vote for a Mormon. It appears that when push comes to shove, the answer is no.

Yes, I did not like Newt or Rick because both had ethical violations. Newt received a fine from an ethics committee and Rick was voted one of the top corrupt politicians for receiving gifts from those he gave all those earmarks to. That did create a problem for me. I liked Rick at first, but then when he became "vetted' --well, I don't want another politician who can be bought. We have that already.

But I don't look at the religion of a person. I have voted for many non-mormons in my life and will continue to do so. I like Mitt because I believe he will cut government waste, get rid of cooperate loop-holes, and free up our businesses to compete both here and globally. And I am not voting on his abortion position many years ago, but rather his voting record.

[alanmolstad]

..... It appears that when push comes to shove, the answer is no.

.
I can only say that when you look at me you are looking at the typical conservative voter....
and as a typical conservative voter, I noticed that I did not have to push that hard to hear you say you would never vote at all if one of the other guys won the Primary and beat Mitt.

Your mind was set from the beginning and as far as I could tell it was "Mitt or forget it".

Well, it may interest you to know that there are conservatives that have much the same "My guy of forget it" at***ude that you were so quick to state.

[BigJulie]

I can only say that when you look at me you are looking at the typical conservative voter....
and as a typical conservative voter, I noticed that I did not have to push that hard to hear you say you would never vote at all if one of the other guys won the Primary and beat Mitt.

Your mind was set from the beginning and as far as I could tell it was "Mitt or forget it".

Well, it may interest you to know that there are conservatives that have much the same "My guy of forget it" at***ude that you were so quick to state.

Actually, if you look back to my posts--you will see that there was a time I was supporting Rick as an alternative to Mitt. (Mitt has always been my first choice because he is a smart businessman and governor.) I did not jump up and down for John Hunt, also a Mormon. So, when I thought Rick was on the rise, I started looking at him---the same way I did Obama when I was not thrilled with McCain.

So, why was I against Newt? Because it is apparent from his history that he goes off at the mouth and has a history of ethics violations. This was not exactly what I had in mind for a President. So, then, I took a good look at Rick. Yes, I liked what he said. That is why I was sad to see that he also had ethical questions. As noted, he was rated in the top 4 corrupt politicians. Believe me, I would have happily voted for Rick had I not seen something so abysmal. So, it appears that there are many others like me who saw Rick as not being the best choice for the GOP.

So, the only reason I have heard that you do not like Mitt is because of his past stance on abortion. Yet, his voting record shows him as pro-choice. So now I wonder, what are you reasons for not backing Mitt? I gave you ample evidence why both Newt and Rick were VERY problematic.

I suppose you could vote for Ron Paul. But what if your choices are Mitt or Obama? Will you really give us Obama for 4 more years and his disastorous economic record over Mitt's past abortion stance?

[alanmolstad]

you were very clear....that if Newt beat Obama that you would not bother to vote for anyone at all.

It did not matter how bad a president Obama was...
It did not matter that one guy running would be a Republican and thus in position to name judges and sign bills supported by other Republicans.....

You would simply never in a million years support him.

Thus it should not be surprising to you to then later see now how your same mind set has caught on.....

Just different names but the same determined mind set.

[BigJulie]

you were very clear....that if Newt beat Obama that you would not bother to vote for anyone at all.

It did not matter how bad a president Obama was...
It did not matter that one guy running would be a Republican and thus in position to name judges and sign bills supported by other Republicans.....

You would simply never in a million years support him.

Thus it should not be surprising to you to then later see now how your same mind set has caught on.....

Just different names but the same determined mind set.

Yes, but the reasons for my mindset were very serious. Newt has had ethics violations to the tune of being fined $300,000. He was upset to think that anything that was discussed by the ethics committee would be leaked to the press. He has cheated on not one but two wives. This gave me great pause to consider him.

I have heard nothing from you as to why you would not consider Romney other than his old stance on social issues and so far, you have given me nothing at all. I am only left to believe that even though you state you would vote for a Mormon, the truth is that you have too much bigotry against them to vote for one as you have not given one real substantial reason for it. If old stances on abortion are enough and even though Mitt's voting record is pro-life, well then, what more can it be then bigotry?

[alanmolstad]

Yes, but the reasons for my mindset were very serious. ......

Dont care.
Every person's reasons for stuff like that always seem so good....

But the truth is that they are only good from their own little private point of view, and if they actually see someone else acting as they act they are the first to point out the flaws in such actions.

Just watch.....

[BigJulie]

Dont care.
Every person's reasons for stuff like that always seem so good....

But the truth is that they are only good from their own little private point of view, and if they actually see someone else acting as they act they are the first to point out the flaws in such actions.

Just watch.....

I think my thoughts regarding Newt are widely shared which is why he did so poorly in the GOP elections. And I have never had an affair or had any ethics violations, so I don't point this out as serious because it is my own narrow point of view, but for most people, ethics violations and affairs are serious problems. I am surprised you think otherwise. And I am glad to know that the majority of voters feel the same way I do. I believed that if they didn't--the GOP no longer represented a party with any decency.

[alanmolstad]

I believed that if they didn't--the GOP no longer represented a party with any decency.The moment you believe that one political Party is more decent than another you set yourself up to be very let down.

Political parties are not moral creatures.

[alanmolstad]

I think my thoughts regarding Newt are widely shared .....

a moot point.






Here is something to think about Julie.

We tend to judge our actions by only the "intention" we had.
We tend to judge the actions of others with no regard for their intentions.

Even if the results are the very same final "action".


So the result/action of not voting (and allowing Obama 4 more years) is seen in ourselves as "taking a stand", because we overlook the damage our actions may cause others because we only look at our "intentions"

We pat ourselves on the back because we believe our intentions are so good that they outweigh the harm we cause.

Perhaps we even believe that God supports our stand.


Then we hear that another person is also not going to vote (thus helping to allow Obama 4 more years) and we act all belligerent to them.

We call their intentions "bigotry"

And we don't believe in a million years that God supports their actions.

We are blind...

[BigJulie]

a moot point.






Here is something to think about Julie.

We tend to judge our actions by only the "intention" we had.
We tend to judge the actions of others with no regard for their intentions.

Even if the results are the very same final "action".


So the result/action of not voting (and allowing Obama 4 more years) is seen in ourselves as "taking a stand", because we overlook the damage our actions may cause others because we only look at our "intentions"

We pat ourselves on the back because we believe our intentions are so good that they outweigh the harm we cause.

Perhaps we even believe that God supports our stand.


Then we hear that another person is also not going to vote (thus helping to allow Obama 4 more years) and we act all belligerent to them.

We call their intentions "bigotry"

And we don't believe in a million years that God supports their actions.

We are blind...

Not voting for someone because they are dishonest and corrupt (as Newt---it is a proven fact) and then not voting for someone because of an old stand on social issues--well, they are not the same. Try as you like, it is not the same. How would putting someone in who has no ethics improve the situation? Now compare that to not voting for someone because of their old stance on something---one is bigotry, the other is not.

All I can see is that you distrust Mitt, not on anything he has done as a politician but what you perceive him to be---that is bigotry.

My distrust of Newt is on something he has done as a politician. I am just glad that the rest of the GOP see it the same way I do. I just couldn't believe it when SC supported him. I thought---if this is the GOP, then they do not represent decency.

Our reasons our different. Mine are on concrete evidence, yours is on nothing more than an old stance. That is a huge difference.

[alanmolstad]

I thought---if this is the GOP, then they do not represent decency.

.
If you believe that a political Party represents decency you are going to be in for a big let down.

Political parties are not moral creatures...

[alanmolstad]

they are not the same.

They are identical

Please refer to my answer 605 above.

[BigJulie]

They are identical

Please refer to my answer 605 above.

I strongly disagree---changing positions on issues is NOT the same as violating ethics and cheating on two wives. I am glad the majority of the GOP agrees with me.

[alanmolstad]

C
Alan, I am curious where you stand now that Rick and Newt are effectively out of the race.

(I am glad that Rick wisened up by the way---and showed he cared more about the 2012 and family more than self.)

The idea mitt has is that in the general election he does not have to appeal to conservative Republicans because who else could they vote for?
Mitt thinks all he needs to do is reach out to undecided and more liberal voters and he will win.

It is my guess that mitt will never draw the leberals and that when push comes to shove the conservatives will just never support mitt.

I actually think that there is a good chance yet that conservatives will yettry one more time to challenge mitt at the convention.


Time will tell but I have been listening to many conservative blogs and from Christian writers and there is a lot of planning going on even now about using a few rules at the convention to toss out all of the primary results and allowing all the people at the con the freedom to vote for anyone.

Remember my home state of north Dakota voted for rick well after it was very clear rick had no chance..think of that for a moment...
People went out into the cold on a dark night to vote for a guy who had no chance and there knew it!

There is the p***ion you need to have to win an election that mitt will never have...

Thus I believe the record is clear- mitt cant win without the supportof the conservatives. And they have been very very very clear in every vote so far that mitt cant count on them...even if he thinks he can..

[BigJulie]

Okay, let me get this straight---we have an electorial process and one person emerges as the lead--Mitt Romney. BUT, you and others think that we should toss out this person and vote in someone who does not have the lead or was unable to prove themselves as a leader in the election process. And you state that a group of "conservative blogs and Christian writers" are working behind the scenes to make this come about. Please, explain how this not a result of bigotry, but good logic?

Please note that many conservatives are supporting Mitt---which is why he is winning up to this point. Please inform me who you think these "conservatives" are who will not support Mitt?

[alanmolstad]

What people are attempting to do is avoid another Mccain....where a guy not supported by conservatives won the nonmination and dragged the whole party down.
The best thing to do is always run a person that has strong support with conservatives....

My guess is....that becauce the only guy left in the race is Ron Paul it will be his name that gets pushed forward....

Thus I expect that as the convention draws near we will suddenly see Ron Paul's name suddenly shoot up in the polls and there will be a strong attempt to change the rules to allow guys pledged to vote for mitt to be able to switch and vote for Ron Paul....

[BigJulie]

A change in the rules to get the guy in last place to the winner circle? That does not sound like smart politics at all. I think Rubio said it best when he said that a fight at the convention would not be good for the GOP and bad for the elections in November.

Here is part of Rick Santorum's endorsement of Romney:

"Santorum said in an unusual late-night statement that the two have differences, but that he came away from a meeting with the ex-M***achusetts governor impressed with Romney's "deep understanding" of economic and family issues central to the campaign.

"Above all else, we both agree that President (Barack) Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious," Santorum said."

Romney has a voting record (in a blue state) that is very conservative. I am not sure who you think all these conservatives are who do not support Romney. He is clearly garnishing the most votes.

[alanmolstad]

If a person believes that Mitt can beat Obama without the strong support of the Conservatives?.....then things are going just fine.

If you believe that Mitt can not beat Obama without the strong support of the Conservatives?.....then you smell "doom" in the air.


So Julie, do you believe that Mitt can win without the strong support of conservatives?

[BigJulie]

If a person believes that Mitt can beat Obama without the strong support of the Conservatives?.....then things are going just fine.

If you believe that Mitt can not beat Obama without the strong support of the Conservatives?.....then you smell "doom" in the air.


So Julie, do you believe that Mitt can win without the strong support of conservatives?

I guess the big question now is whether or not "conservatives" will sit this one out with Obama being in support of gay marriage. Would you still not vote for Mitt if he is the nominee with this new announcement?

[alanmolstad]

see that?

What you just said....


thats the thinking that Bob Dole had.

that's the same thinking that McCain had...
and now Mitt and his supporters have the same idea too!

They all think that they dont need to make any special appeal to the conservatives at all.

They believe that all they need to do is sit back and watch the conservatives come to them because there is no one else but (Dole/McCain/Romney) to stop the pro-gay liberals....


Thats the thinking Mitt actually has right now.
thats the "Plan" of his staff.....

They think that when push comes to shove that "Who else will the Conservatives vote for?"


Thats the thinking Bib Dole had.....and lost with.

Thats the thinking McCain had.....and lost with.

and thats the thinking of the supporters of Mitt have........

[BigJulie]

What exactly would Mitt need to change to appeal to you?

[alanmolstad]

There were 4 pro-life conventions held across the country during this election so far..

All of the people in the Republican race attended, even if they were not officially in the race, they attended and gave their voice to the issue....

Except for one guy.......

One guy made a point of not being there each time.

All the other people stood up and gave a strong voice to the issues I care about.....

and one guy had an empty chair represent his message to the conservatives.

The meaning was not lost on this conservative.....not lost at all....

[BigJulie]

There were 4 pro-life conventions held across the country during this election so far..

All of the people in the Republican race attended, even if they were not officially in the race, they attended and gave their voice to the issue....

Except for one guy.......

One guy made a point of not being there each time.

All the other people stood up and gave a strong voice to the issues I care about.....

and one guy had an empty chair represent his message to the conservatives.

The meaning was not lost on this conservative.....not lost at all....

Okay, so the ONE thing you would change is that Mitt would show up to pro-life conventions. Anything else?

[alanmolstad]

Okay, so the ONE thing you would change is that Mitt would show up to pro-life conventions. Anything else?

I dont think you caught my point...

Let me try again:

When I was just a little kid I can remember one time my mom and dad took my brother and I into town on Halloween to do trick-or-treat with the city kids.

There was one house of a lady that my parents knew so we make a special trip over to her house and knocked on the door.

But when she came out the lady told us that she did not give out candy on Halloween because it was Satan Worship, but that if we came back the next night she would give us candy.

We walked away.....

I remember as we walked away my parents did not know what to say to us...but my little brother spoke up what we all felt.

"Who in the world wants to knock on doors for candy when it's not Halloween?"...."That's dumb"

[BigJulie]

I dont think you caught my point...

Let me try again:

When I was just a little kid I can remember one time my mom and dad took my brother and I into town on Halloween to do trick-or-treat with the city kids.

There was one house of a lady that my parents knew so we make a special trip over to her house and knocked on the door.

But when she came out the lady told us that she did not give out candy on Halloween because it was Satan Worship, but that if we came back the next night she would give us candy.

We walked away.....

I remember as we walked away my parents did not know what to say to us...but my little brother spoke up what we all felt.

"Who in the world wants to knock on doors for candy when it's not Halloween?"...."That's dumb"

You're right---I don't get your point and now I don't get it even more. Are you saying that you won't vote for Romney because he hurt your feelings and didn't show up to your convention? Is this the ONLY thing you would change about Romney, or is there more?

[alanmolstad]

..... Is this the ONLY thing you would change about Romney, or is there more?.......hmmmm....you keep thinking that I want Mitt to change?....

I dont think any conservatives want Mitt to change.

I have never heard of any well-known conservatives that have called for Mitt to change.

We dont want him at all....



perhaps you have once again missed my point...
It's like this Julie , I remember back to when Bob Dole was criticized in the media for his lack of any support among conservatives.
Dole's response was that in the general election he expected the conservatives to "come around" because they will see the many things at stake if they dont support him.

The numbers after the election are interesting.
Yes, Bob Dole did get a very high percent of the vote from the conservatives, but what we have to keep in mind is the real lack of the conservative turn-out in that election..

So the fact that Dole got over 80% of the vote of the conservatives is rather meaningless when you consider that most conservatives did not bother to vote...


next up...McCain
John McCain ,who also had really no support among conservatives during the primary.

McCain won the Primary just like Mitt won this time, due to the split vote of the conservatives and really made no attempt to draw close to conservatives.

Once again when asked about the lack of support he had among conservatives it was said by the leader of McCain's election staff that "Who else would the conservatives vote for?"

So the idea the leadership of the Republican ticket had is that they never needed to reach out to the conservatives because sooner or later they felt all the Republican base conservatives would turn out to vote for McCain because there was no one else.

They felt that "Obama will scare them to the polls"

The result of thinking that the conservatives will "come-around'....is to lose.

As we learned in the SC primary, the conservatives would rather support a bag of dirt for President, than Mitt.

But once again the campaign staff of Mitt Romney was on the TV news shows last Sunday morning talking about the lack of support they had among conservatives.

and once again we heard the "They will come-around" answer given.

This is the type of answer that makes the liberals like the head of Obama's election staff smile from ear to ear.

They LOVE to hear the answer "Oh dont worry, the Conservatives will come around to support us in the election"



The underlining truth is more simple to see and understand.

The truth is that the conservatives never wanted Bob Dole....and so Dole lost.

The truth is that conservatives never wanted McCain...and so McCain lost.

and the results of the SC Primary make it very clear what the conservatives think of Mitt Romney.



But didn't Rick come out in support of Mitt?

Well sorta,
I mean he did send out an email in the middle of the night...
an email that talked on and on about beating Obama, and near the end indorsed Mitt.

But in reality, I have spread jam on my morning toast that was thicker than Rick's endorsement of Mitt.....LOL


and we all know why dont we?
Rick has to support the leader of the ticket in this election, to be in a position to draw them same supporters of Mitt in the next election.

All the people that support Mitt in this election, Rick wants them same people to support him in the election in 4 years.

[BigJulie]

So, what do you think it would take for Mitt to get the enthusiatic support of ALL the conservatives? Since "coming around" cannot be expected--what do you think Mitt should do to garner your support? (As you noted that he should not change any of his positions.)

I have yet to hear the reason you don't want him at all other than he didn't show up to your conventions. Is that it?

[alanmolstad]

....-what do you think Mitt should do to garner your support? ....

"do"?

This is a word that i think is going to come up more and more as the fall vote draws closer and the polling numbers for Mitt simply dont reflect what he and his campaine staff had bet would be the case.

I think that right around mid-summer the polling numbers will show that Mitt needs the strong showing of the conservative base that he always had expected to be there for him,,,but now seems to have dissolved into thin air.

I expect a lot of Republicans on Mitt's team will sit around the table and start to ask about something that Mitt might 'do' to fire up the conservatives into supporting him.

Perhaps Mitt will make a few statements....perhaps Mitt might have a few people over to his house to talk...
perhaps Mitt might name this or that person to a position that he thinks might make the conservatives happy.

Yes, Julie, im sure that before this summer is over that Mitt will try to "do' something to make conservatives support him.


Im just saying that its moot.

Wont matter....
would be seen as being fake,,,
would be seen as almost an attempt to buy votes of conservatives.

[BigJulie]

Is this your answer?

I don't see an answer here?

I only see these points:

1) There is nothing about Mitt's political positions you would change.
2) That you were upset (as well as other conservatives) that he did not go to your pro-life conventions.
3) That anything he did do would be considered fake.

So, according to you, Mitt's political positions are fine and yet there is nothing he could do to gain your support. Why is that?

[alanmolstad]

So, according to you, Mitt's political positions are fine ....Did I ever say they were fine?

What we have with Mitt is a guy who has made it very clear that he simply is at odds with conservatives and he has also made it very clear over this past election that he has no intention of drawing close to conservatives.

The feeling we all get from Mitt is that he views conservatives as a "necessary evil" that he has to put up with.

I dont want him to change anything about himself because I dont want him at all.

Mitt and conservatives are not good match.

Lets always keep in mind the "plan" that Mitt and his team are working under.
The plan is the very same "plan" that Bob Dole used, and the one that McCain used.
It's the plan where you get the lead spot on the ticket by splitting the conservative vote and drawing close to the more liberal wing of the Republican party.

Then in the national election the "plan" is to run as a middle-of-the -road guy, attract the independent voters, and then watch as all the conservatives come-over to your side in the fall election all on their own.

This means that under the "plan" you dont do or say anything to connect yourself too much to the conservatives because that will push away the liberals/independents.

The historical problen with this "plan" is?
It dont work.

We have seen in election after election that when the guy on the Republican side does not have the strong support of the conservative base, he will lose the election.

We have seen in the loss of both Dole and McCain that no matter what the liberal base is strongly motivated to support the dems....and that the Independents simply don't respond the way the "plan" calls for them to do so.


This means that as the fall election draws closer and closer and Mitt's team suddenly starts to see in the polling data that the numbers are not showing up that they thought would under the "plan"...that this will cause Mitt's team to dream up things to "do" to appeal to conservatives.


It will not work...

The conservatives dont want Mitt to suddenly change and "do" things to make us happy.

The simple truth is that the conservatives dont want Mitt at all.....

[alanmolstad]

how do we get into this fix?

How did we once again end up with a guy on our ticket that the conservatives will never support in a million years?

Its the way the primary goes...the popularity of conservative guys in the race is their undoing .

when you have a strong conservative base of voters and this encourages many other conservatives to enter the race, the effect is to split the vote and end up with a non-conservative winning everything right out from under them.


To make this more easy to understand what is happening, lets say there are 12 people that are going to vote on picking a leader.
of these 12 people, lets say that 5 of them are liberal, and the other 7 are strong conservatives.

before the election starts the 7 conservatives are all pumped up to vote because they believe they will win the election no matter what due to their numbers being bigger that the liberal's number.


But because the conservatives are so motivated to vote, this encourages more other conservatives to enter the race.

thats the problem.

lets say we now have a 3-way race going.
2 conservatives in the race against 1 liberal.

The 2 conservatives will end up splitting the conservative's vote and because there was only one liberal in the race, he will get all the votes of the liberals.

so each of the conservatives get 4 votes out of the 8-vote conservative majority, while the liberal guy gets all the 5 votes from the liberal minority.

The liberal wins!

and because he has won the election by appealing to the liberals. he will think that that is the way to always win too.

This is the reason Dole/McCain/Romney have won the lead on the Republican ticket, and also why under their "plan" they think they can win against the dems by appealing to the same more liberal-minded voters....


This is why Mitt has not done squat to draw conservatives to his team....Mitt has not needed conservatives so far, ....

Mitt's team does not see the need of doing anything to appeal to Republican conservatives.
They did not need to "do" anything to win the lead on the ticket, so why change in the general election?

thats their thinking right now....
They think that they got to where they are now by appealing only to the more liberal/independent voters, and that this will be the same in the general election in the fall.

this is the 'plan"
This is the reason they all have worked under the same 'plan"

and this is why they all fail.

[BigJulie]

Did I ever say they were fine?

What we have with Mitt is a guy who has made it very clear that he simply is at odds with conservatives and he has also made it very clear over this past election that he has no intention of drawing close to conservatives.

The feeling we all get from Mitt is that he views conservatives as a "necessary evil" that he has to put up with.

I dont want him to change anything about himself because I dont want him at all.

Mitt and conservatives are not good match.
.

First let's note---that among conservatives that Mitt Romney has received the most votes. So, so state that all conservatives feel as you do would obviously not be accurate.

Okay, you say that Mitt is "at odds with conservatives." How exactly so? What positions does he have that lend you to say this?

[BigJulie]

how do we get into this fix?

How did we once again end up with a guy on our ticket that the conservatives will .

You forget there was an attempt to get all "conservatives" to back Rick Santorum but that plan failed. Obviously, when it became a two-man race, Romney still faired better in most of the states. Yes, some were for Santorum, but Romney did better overall, hence he won and Rick backed out.

[BigJulie]

So, what do you think of Ron Paul's announcement today?

[alanmolstad]

So, what do you think of Ron Paul's announcement today?
I think you need to GOOGLE something to understand the context of why Ron Paul's announcement is a moot point to his plans.....and why the Republican leadership has just announced that there now are whole State delegations that may face a challenge to be seated at the republican Convention.


Google - "Ron Paul sneak attack"

[alanmolstad]

You forget there was an attempt to get all "conservatives" to back Rick Santorum but that plan failed. Obviously, when it became a two-man race, Romney still faired better in most of the states. Yes, some were for Santorum, but Romney did better overall, hence he won and Rick backed out.

The dates of different primarys is such that you have to do well in the SC primary as a conservative if you want to last to beat the big money guys later in the year.

The problem was that there were all the good conservatives on the ballot in SC so the vote was split and after that the moment was lost as vote after vote the conservatives just had too many names to pick from...

what is important to point out is the primary here in North dakota.
The election was totally over by the time I got to vote...there was no way Rick could win....and Rick did not even stop by my state...

yet Rick won in North Dakota!


what this shows is that no matter what there are conservatives that will vote for a loser over voting for Mitt.

again.....its still too early to see a lot of what I have said is about to happen to the Mitt campaign.

I think it has to be mid to late summer before the numbers of conservatives the Mitt was counting one, start to show that they simply are not there for him and never were....

[BigJulie]

I think you need to GOOGLE something to understand the context of why Ron Paul's announcement is a moot point to his plans.....and why the Republican leadership has just announced that there now are whole State delegations that may face a challenge to be seated at the republican Convention.


Google - "Ron Paul sneak attack"

I watched the video. It is an interesting campaign stradegy. I know in my state, Ron Paul has tried to strategies against the Romney delegate vote and has not succeeded. I also know that in my sister's state, she is a delegate and she will represent who was voted for by the majority which was Romney.

This will be interesting to watch.

[BigJulie]

The dates of different primarys is such that you have to do well in the SC primary as a conservative if you want to last to beat the big money guys later in the year.

The problem was that there were all the good conservatives on the ballot in SC so the vote was split and after that the moment was lost as vote after vote the conservatives just had too many names to pick from...

what is important to point out is the primary here in North dakota.
The election was totally over by the time I got to vote...there was no way Rick could win....and Rick did not even stop by my state...

yet Rick won in North Dakota!


what this shows is that no matter what there are conservatives that will vote for a loser over voting for Mitt.

again.....its still too early to see a lot of what I have said is about to happen to the Mitt campaign.

I think it has to be mid to late summer before the numbers of conservatives the Mitt was counting one, start to show that they simply are not there for him and never were....

You have yet to state what you think Mitt needs to change or what he needs to change in order to appeal to more conservatives such as yourself. Any suggestions?

[alanmolstad]

You have yet to state what you think Mitt needs to change or what he needs to change in order to appeal to more conservatives such as yourself. Any suggestions?

again.....my answer to that question has remained unchanged over these last weeks...


What I can tell you that as of late I have really come to question the staff of Mitt .
I see error after error, I see the election being controlled by Obama, with Mitt always playing catch-up a day late.

The question of Mitt's taxes is still there?


After months and months ago it should have been put to rest?....
Who in their right mind told Mitt that not turning over his tax records would fly?

What crazy person convinced Mitt that would work?

[alanmolstad]

what I see is this:

Mitt is about to pick a VP to run with.
If Mitt picks a conservative person as his VP, then it might get a few votes,.....hmmmm..maybe, but it will be good for the Party as a whole as it means that Conservative VP will be in the lead position going into the next election.

this means that while the conservatives will never support Mitt enough to beat Obama, they will love to see Mitt pick a conservative as his VP because - given the fact the Mitt will lose to Obama this time, the conservative VP will lead the ticket in the next election...

and that conservative VP will be elected President!

[alanmolstad]

I watched Meet the press this morning and they had on the guy from Mitt's campaign to talk about stuff.

As the interview went along it became clear to me that Mitt's staff is just not up to the ***.



Once again when it came to the real key questions the answer "I dont know" was he had to say?


and the issue with Mitt's tax returns still has no answer from even the very top members of Mitt's staff?

How can this be true at this late stage in the race ?



What this leads me to believe is that Mitt and his staff are simply not ready to take power...they are not ready to lead....


Im a Republican and I very much wanted to get Obama out of there, but Good LORD!.....where did anyone think for one moment that Mitt was ready for this?

Why didnt anyone tell Mitt that he better have a way better team of guys on his staff?

The main problem seems to be that Mitt's staff has limited experience, and only reacts.....
they do not take the lead....
They dont know how to lead...
they do not charge in and take control of the flow of the topics...

I watch this morning as the head of Mitt's staff got stomped on by a minor female staff person on Obama's team.

Mitt's top guy is thought to be in-line to become the Chief Of Staff if Mitt wins the election.
If that is true, and if Mitt wins, then this country is in some BIG trouble because the guy I saw in TV this morning was not ready to be in-charge of a High school team, let alone a powerful position in the White House.

........

[alanmolstad]

Yet another day where we see the news taken over by attacks against Mitt....and Mitt and his staff seem to have no clue how to respond.

It now seems very clear to all us Republicans that Mitt is just not ready to win this election..
If he wanted to win he would fight...and Mitt is not fighting...

Right now when i look at Mitt all I see is a lost person....he looks lost to me and just not ready to fight...or willing...

The Tee Party is never going to support a guy who simply does not have the guts to stand up and fight.

[alanmolstad]

well it's another day of Mitt stumbeling, and Obama in charge of the nation election conversation.

Once again I turn on the TV news and see Mitt looking like he has something to hide.
How any any of Mitt's advisers still be telling him that he does not have to show his tax returns?

How can anyone be so foolish?

There is no way that Mitt can be elected President if he is acting like he has something to hide.

If I was Mitt, I would fire his whole staff as they simply are not up to the *** of running this election, and I would turn over all his tax returns this Friday!

[alanmolstad]

I think what we are watching is not the start of Mitt's run for the Office, but rather we are watching Mitt come to the point where he may pull out of this race.


We are watching Mitt simply allow his argument to be President
being stripped away, and underneath he has nothing left to say for himself.

Day after day we are seeing Mitt's reasons to be president being forgotten and replaced with only reasons not to trust Mitt.


Remember....thats the thing here..."TRUST"...

Its this lack of trust of Mitt that is behind all the support in the primary for "Anyone but Mitt"

So not only do Conservatives not trust Mitt, but now we that the mood of the country is turning to not trust Mitt too.

Simply put, Mitt is acting like he has something to hide....

[alanmolstad]

there comes a point where you got to ask "What was he thinking?"

remember when Cain was in this race and later on we learned that he had a girlfriend?

the guy had a secret girlfriend for years, and then decided to run for president????
Are you kidding me?

When all this came out, I had to ask, "What was he thinking?"

How could a guy who knew full well that his past would be dug into closely, still want to run for president when he also knew he had a HUGE SECRET that he had been hiding for years?

Now we come to the case of Mitt, and his tax returns.

The topic is in the news, and is all anyone is talking about...
The question is, "Why will Mitt not give out his tax return information?"


This is just too hard for me to believe that Mitt thinks the question is not a big deal, or that he can get away from it by talking about other things.

I believe that the fact that Mitt has not given all the tax return infomation will lead any person to then ask, "Why not?"
and that leads us to the real question in the back of every American's mind -

"What does Mitt have to hide about his tax return?"

Now I believe that Mitt is going to have to come out with all his tax stuff....and it's got to be out in the open what his tax returns say about his money.

But if we then learn that Mitt was hiding something, I will once again have to ask
What was he thinking?

How could someone with tax trouble think that it would be a good idea to run for president?

How could a guy believe for one moment that he could run for president while at the same time keep something secret about his past tax returns?

[BigJulie]

What??

You think this election is about Mitt's tax returns that are 3 to 10 years old? The IRS did not have a problem with them--why do you?

Mitt Romney said he does not want to make this election about his tax returns but about the economy. The dems have 2 years worth. That is all McCain gave.

Are you really buying into this argument that these tax returns are important?

I'll vote for the one who "built that" and actually succeeded. Go ahead and keep trying to find any problem you can with the one who is "not Obama."

[alanmolstad]

Are you really buying into this argument that these tax returns are important?



the tax return itself is not important to me...

But the refusing to be honest with the American people and produce the requested returns is a key error of Mitt and his team and likely a deal breaker in this election.

To think for one moment that Mitt and dodge around the issue and not have it come up later is silly.

Unless Mitt brings out all his tax returns the issue is never going away and may become what this election becomes about.

Thus the staff of Mitt should sit Mitt down and tell him that unless he can stand behind his income tax forms he should not try to run for the White House.

[alanmolstad]

HOW IS THE ELECTION GOING SO FAR?

It's EVEN!

The only real blunder has been from Obama with his "You didn't build that" comment....

that one is going to come back on him many, many times...

Mitt has not really done any blunders as of late...
Forget the comments about the Olympics, as his supporters feel the same way that Mitt does about the guys running the games.

I also believe that all the talk about Connie Rice being picked as his VP is a real, real, real bonus for Mitt with Conservatives like myself...

Even the talk that she is being added to the list5 of named up for the VP spot has got me interested in Mitt really kicking some *** in November....

[alanmolstad]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f4837046-d67b-11e1-ba60-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21raUnSY0




Dont kid yourself...this was Connie applying for the VP ***.....

[alanmolstad]

Paul Ryan should be a good name to add to the ticket.

I dont find any problems with him, and with the addition of a good Christian catholic to the team we have removed the whole "Mormon thing" off the table.

[alanmolstad]

at the current time I give Mitt a good 75% chance of winning...



However....thats not the way it turned out...LOL

[alanmolstad]

Time to wrap things up and talk about the reason Mitt lost and the things I have talked about on this topic.

#1st....the main point of this topic was that I had no reason to vote against Mitt....that I did not hold his Cultist Mormon religion against him in the voting booth...

I believe that a person's religion should not be part of a political discussion.

#2nd - I never wanted Mitt to lead the ticket, and I felt that not many real conservative were likely to support Mitt.

This turned out to be very true.
Conservatives just never got fired up to vote for Mitt and Mitt seemed to go out of his way to do things that moved him away from conservatives.


#3rd -....On this topic I have said and argued many times that Mitt's only chance to win would be to push the social issues, and forget about running on the economy.

I was right once again about that.....

Mitt and his supporters tried to keep this election centered on the economy , and they never really even tried to raise the Abortion issue except for some minor talking points in a few speeches....

This is where Mitt lost....

I predicted that by the day of the election the economy would be seen as "recovering" and that the media would give Obama credit for this recovery.

I was right again on this...

Mitt had no back-up plan.
Mitt and his supporters had bet everything on the economy being in the dumpster on election day, and when that did not turn out to be the case they were left with nothing.

Conservatives would have supported Mitt had he not been such a flip-flopper on Abortion...but Mitt gave conservatives nothing to have confidence in him about.

From the start the staff of Mitt who ran his campaign were the same people, or getting advice from the same people that ran he campaign ot Bob Dole and John McCain.

Their idea was that they did not have to draw closer to conservatives because they felt that "Who else would conservatives vote for?"

The staff of Mitt, the staff of McCain, and staff of Dole would smile and say "Conservatives will support us no matter what"

They were all wrong....as I predicted.

[alanmolstad]

Did I ever say they were fine?

What we have with Mitt is a guy who has made it very clear that he simply is at odds with conservatives and he has also made it very clear over this past election that he has no intention of drawing close to conservatives.

The feeling we all get from Mitt is that he views conservatives as a "necessary evil" that he has to put up with.

I dont want him to change anything about himself because I dont want him at all.

Mitt and conservatives are not good match.

Lets always keep in mind the "plan" that Mitt and his team are working under.
The plan is the very same "plan" that Bob Dole used, and the one that McCain used.
It's the plan where you get the lead spot on the ticket by splitting the conservative vote and drawing close to the more liberal wing of the Republican party.

Then in the national election the "plan" is to run as a middle-of-the -road guy, attract the independent voters, and then watch as all the conservatives come-over to your side in the fall election all on their own.

This means that under the "plan" you dont do or say anything to connect yourself too much to the conservatives because that will push away the liberals/independents.

The historical problen with this "plan" is?
It dont work.

We have seen in election after election that when the guy on the Republican side does not have the strong support of the conservative base, he will lose the election.

We have seen in the loss of both Dole and McCain that no matter what the liberal base is strongly motivated to support the dems....and that the Independents simply don't respond the way the "plan" calls for them to do so.


This means that as the fall election draws closer and closer and Mitt's team suddenly starts to see in the polling data that the numbers are not showing up that they thought would under the "plan"...that this will cause Mitt's team to dream up things to "do" to appeal to conservatives.


It will not work...

The conservatives dont want Mitt to suddenly change and "do" things to make us happy.

The simple truth is that the conservatives dont want Mitt at all.....

I wrote this way back so long ago....yet its funny how true my words turned out to be.....

[alanmolstad]

The final conclusion of this election from my conservative-christian point of view is?

That it's likely going to be a mighty cold day in Hell before another Liberal/Mormon like Mitt Romney attempts to try to get conservatives of my Party to vote for him for President.

[alanmolstad]

the thing with Mitt was that he simply was not the guy that the Conservatives wanted.
Mitt never tried to draw close to the Conservatives.
Lacking the needed support of the conservatives doomed his election.
But there is a good side to this we should not overlook.

For far too long there has been a myth that Conservatives would only support a Christian for office.
We now see clearly that Christian Conservatives are able to look past the difference in a person's religion and judge them only according to their Conservative track-record.

this means that the Conservatives are READY to vote for the guy or girl that best represents the values they have in common, and not just vote on people's religion.

Kennedy got the "Catholic issue/Pope issue" off the table and no one talks about the Pope running the country if a catholic is President any more.

Mitt has taken the "Mormon/Cult issue" off the table now too.

[alanmolstad]

Democrats tend to vote in the primary for the underdog.
Liberals like to be supporting the little guy who comes on strong to win.


Republicans tend to support the guy who is in the lead at the start.
Conservatives want to be on the winning side from before the race begins...

So this is why I tend to believe that Bush has it already won.

As for who will be his pick for VP?....
I tend to think he will try to go with someone who the thinking is will bring in voters, and yet does not have a long track record.
I therefore predict that the bush VP will be a Mexican/American...

[alanmolstad]

so what went wrong?

Clearly Bush simply could not bring himself to draw close to the conservatives and wanted to remain in the middle.

The moment he did this he opened the door to Trump.
At issue after issue, we had Trump saying the things the conservatives wanted said...and Bush saying nothing.

Thus this election has shocked the Old Guard as the guy the Old Guard was pushing (Bush) just never sought the voters he needed.

The real story has been the way Bush ran his race just like Mitt ran and lost before him.
the idea that had was that they needed to draw close to the "undecided" and be in the middle of the road.

Mitt's lack of vision handed the election away
Bush's lack of learning the lessons from history handed his election away.

[BigJulie]

so what went wrong?

Clearly Bush simply could not bring himself to draw close to the conservatives and wanted to remain in the middle.

The moment he did this he opened the door to Trump.
At issue after issue, we had Trump saying the things the conservatives wanted said...and Bush saying nothing.

Thus this election has shocked the Old Guard as the guy the Old Guard was pushing (Bush) just never sought the voters he needed.

The real story has been the way Bush ran his race just like Mitt ran and lost before him.
the idea that had was that they needed to draw close to the "undecided" and be in the middle of the road.

Mitt's lack of vision handed the election away
Bush's lack of learning the lessons from history handed his election away.

But Romney won the primary--remember.

I think you explained it best when you noted that Christians like the immoral and rude Trump because he will state 'ban the Muslims" and "build the wall" when the other candidates will not. It made it very clear to me that the sensationalizing, exclusionary viewpoints I see in this forum is also seen within the political arena. It seems acceptable to Christians to sensationalize, stereotype and exclude in this forum and within politics.

I personally prefer candidates who speak with pragmatism and sensitivity recognizing that stereotyping and exclusion will not solve our problems. I find it interesting that those who support gun rights (which I do) seem to understand that we do not want to change our fundamental values based on the actions of a few--which has been sensationalized in the news. Yet, when it comes to those who are outside their own group, they are more than willing to throw out of values in the name of security.

I think it is precisely this exclusionary stance is winning Trump the votes and cost ultimately cost Romney and Bush.

[alanmolstad]

Right now I would not vote for Mitt for dog catcher

[alanmolstad]

The update to this topic is the recent story where Mitt Romney wanted to be trump's pick to be Sec of State.

Trump made Mitt jump though some hoops....made him come to him and opening beg for the *** and say he was sorry for the things Mitt had said over the last year..

and then Trump got his revenge on Mitt Romney when he gave the *** to this other guy .


So in the end, after the last 2 years were we saw Mitt Romney try every thing he could to try to be the big man again.....it all failed and Mitt had to drive back to his home empty handed.

[alanmolstad]

it is also interesting to note that trump did hire a member of Mitt Romney's family.....

I think the word we are thinking of is "Revenge"....

Trump has now settled the score.....

[alanmolstad]

It is also interesting to note how Mitt has dropped off the news totally?

Is he even still alive?

Right now he must be sitting at home wondering how he managed to go from leading the ticket and being the voice of his Party, to being left by the side of the road?

The truth is, he only has himself to blame.

[alanmolstad]

I have watched this topic over the years...

And of all the topics I have started, this one is the most viewed by people it seems.
At any given moment of each day I have seen guests stop at this same topic and have a look at my views.

it is odd that of all the things I have written on this forum in the many years, this lone thing became what I was most known for?

[alanmolstad]

I started this topic back in 2011 and whenever I check on the number of people visiting this forum and what they are currently looking at, I always seem to find this one topic of mine up that near the top of the list???

Im not really sure why this is?

Perhaps its the ***le?

Perhaps its because it seems to pop-up with people do a GOOGLE search?
(Im not sure why anyone would still be doing a google search for Mitt Romney?)

The basic idea I had at the time I started this topic is that beating Obama was more important to me that really any other concern I had over Mitt's false religion.

I still feel the same...

In the end, Mitt kinda bet "all in" on the wrong guy and ended up fighting Trump more that anyone else,,,and thus Mitt's little dream of being important still , has went down the tubes....

[alanmolstad]

about 9 years later and people still keep clicking on my old topic?