So Newt wimped out in going after Mitt in the debate last night. What a surprise (not). Chicken hawk indeed!

If last night was any indication, it seems like everyone has pretty much given up.

Moments like last night are when I start to believe those who feel that this has been set up for Romney all along and everyone else is just doing a dance to make him seem more statesmanlike. It's all so contrived.

I did laugh at this.

http://www.cbsnews.c...ghts-in-debate/

Asked when was the last time he spoke out for gay rights, Romney said, "Right now."

That's one of the most cynical and hollow answers I have ever heard from a politician.

I wish they'd asked him about this:

http://thinkprogress...ible/?mobile=nc

Speaking last fall to a Mormon Church gathering, Mitt Romney, then on the verge of launching a bid for a US Senate seat, expressed dismay at reports of homosexual behavior in the group and denounced homosexuality as “perverse,” according to several people present at the meeting.

Romney’s alleged comments on homosexual practices were part of a 20-minute address he delivered on November 14 to the Cambridge University Ward, which numbers about 250 to 300 single Mormons.

“He said he was appalled at the incidence of homosexuals in the congregation,” said Rick Rawlins, a 32-year-old Mormon who had previously served as a counselor to the ward’s bishop. “He went on to say that he found homosexuality both perverse and reprehensible.”

Edited January 8, 201213 yr by CarlD2

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/romneys-inexplicable-debate-fibs

All the lies Romnet told today.

It's been said that all the candidates are tip-toeing around Ron Paul, because they fear if they treat him like an outsider, and don't give him the respect he wants, that he'll go for a third party run, ensuring Obama's re-election. Opinions on this? I know many in the Republican party are scared to death of Ron Paul, and see him as a loose cannon.

And one comment on the debates the other night, I am STUNNED at how the more "moderate" candidates stood there and when asked about gay marriage, extolled the virtues of "Seperate but equal". Romny baically said that Oh yes... make sure they can have these rights, and those rights, but make sure all these fags know there place, and stay there. Marriage seems like this badge of pride to them as if to say "I can be maried and you can't, so I'm better than you". I would dearly LOVE for a candidte to come along who is VERY fiscally conservative, and VERY socially liberal, and see what happens. I bet they'd roll into the white house like a sonic car hop on her skates. and did you notice how Newt lost his temper with all the gay rights questions? I wonder what Candace is thinking right now

Edited January 8, 201213 yr by alphanguy74

Candace probably has said to herself "Darn. Those exes weren't wrong after all."

They all, excepty for Huntsmann, have shoved themselves so far to the right just to win the Repub. nomination, they are destroying their chances in the general. Obama might just win for no other reason that the alternative is so far over the top voters wouldn't DARE elect that person.

Gay rights? Everyone should have have the very same rights under the law. Some republicans always say "keep Big Government out of our lives.", then, spend all their time sticking their noises into everyone's lives, so they don't have to say they have not one solution for what really matters in this country to Americans.

And one comment on the debates the other night, I am STUNNED at how the more "moderate" candidates stood there and when asked about gay marriage, extolled the virtues of "Seperate but equal". Romny baically said that Oh yes... make sure they can have these rights, and those rights, but make sure all these fags know there place, and stay there. Marriage seems like this badge of pride to them as if to say "I can be maried and you can't, so I'm better than you".

I cannot disagree with one word you wrote above, Alphanguy. The only thing that bothers me is that the mainstream media (which some here believe is conservatively biased) never seems to give Obama, Biden, or any other Democrat anywhere near the same amount of heat for opposing gay marriage. And I am deeply disappointed that many leaders in the homosexual community seem to give mainstream Democrats a free pass on this issue. With all due respect to the gay community, the Democrats are taking their votes completely for granted. (I can certainly understand why gays and lesbians would prefer the Democrats as the lesser of two evils. What I cannot understand is why they usually don't embrace the Green Party or some other party that fully supports gay marriage, as opposed to sticking with the Democrats. As a contrast, if you look at the Tea Party, they have constantly threatened to bolt from the GOP if they do not adhere to their agenda.)

It's been said that all the candidates are tip-toeing around Ron Paul, because they fear if they treat him like an outsider, and don't give him the respect he wants, that he'll go for a third party run, ensuring Obama's re-election. Opinions on this? I know many in the Republican party are scared to death of Ron Paul, and see him as a loose cannon.

This is an interesting topic. I used to believe that a Paul third-party candidacy would ensure Obama's re-election, but now I am not so sure, given that many of his supporters are young people who are solidly anti-war (a key group that voted en masse for Obama in 2008). One reason why Huntsman will do so poorly in the NH primary is because he was hoping cross-over Democratic and Independent voters would choose him; instead, most of them are flocking to Paul. Though this is somewhat off-topic, Huntsman made a key mistake by not running to the right of Romney in the GOP primary; Huntsman certainly could have done so by touting his recording in UT (and contrasting that to what Romney did in MA) and stating that he has always been consistent on guns and abortion.

Edited January 8, 201213 yr by Max

Huntsman's mistake was running at all. He never had a chance. He is not a flame-thrower, he has little record or organization, and he worked for Obama. I truly have no idea why he believed he would have a chance.

As for Paul, I don't think he takes voters from Huntsman. Paul is just a bit crazy, in his own way, and he says a lot of things many people feel but are often not said out loud by either party, especially regarding Israel.

Edited January 8, 201213 yr by CarlD2

Romney just seems to love to remind people how much money he has. He's thrilled with someone having to mortgage their home to run against him.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpolitics/romney-politics-for-the-rich

It's been said that all the candidates are tip-toeing around Ron Paul, because they fear if they treat him like an outsider, and don't give him the respect he wants, that he'll go for a third party run, ensuring Obama's re-election. Opinions on this? I know many in the Republican party are scared to death of Ron Paul, and see him as a loose cannon.

It's really a shame that Ron Paul is a white supremacist, jew hating radical, because a lot of the things he says make sense and I give him credit in that he truly believes what he says. He is absolutely right in that the country has been brainwashed into thinking that if we do not have a billion times more bombs than the rest of the world combined we are weak. He is right that there is no reason why we have 25,000 troops in Germany and another army in Japan, and who is paying for them? He is right that the war on drugs leads to racist results, and he is right that chickenhawks have no business sabre rattling. And while every other republican talks about strict constructionism, no one is stricter than Ron Paul. His one failing is when it comes to abortion, and suddenly he forgets he is for states rights.

The US is a war mongering country more than any other. No one likes to admit it, but there has not been a decade since the 1930s when the US was not somewhere establishing dictatorships, overthrowing governments and being overseas killing people. The 40s was correct, there was a world war on (that psycho Ron would not have fought), but the 50s on out has been an American crusade to establish an empire. Korea, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Savaldor, Iraq, Grenada, Iraq again, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Libya...how is it possible for one country to never be invaded but be perpetually at war? Eisenhower told us the answer: beware of the military/industrial complex. There is just too much money to be made from war for the arms makers to allow us to get out of it. Ron Paul is also right when he warns us why empires collapse. Rome, Britain, the Soviets...they all fall down eventually and if the US keeps on spending it will too.

Obama should co-opt some of Ron's talking points to get the military budget cut. If you can get by on 30,000 nukes, you can get by on 15,000.

Edited January 9, 201213 yr by quartermainefan

Romney just seems to love to remind people how much money he has. He's thrilled with someone having to mortgage their home to run against him.

http://www.buzzfeed....cs-for-the-rich

A Rich Mormon.....and A Homophobe and a Womanizer/Crook...that's what you call a great Republican ticket.....lol

More of Mitt the common man. What a guy.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20220109romney_ripped_over_pink_slip_remark/srvc=home&position=also

They didn't talk about Chris Christie's weird "going down" comments.

Romney is just stupid beyond words and those voting for him are worse. The guy has no clue at all.

Ugh.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/romney-i-like-being-able-to-fire-people.php?ref=fpb

This f*cking sucks. Though I am not at all surprised, Huntsman should now drop out. There's just no spinning this horrendous showing.

I have explained earlier why Huntsman (despite popular belief) is more conservative than Romney. The fact that he failed to campaign this way in a GOP primary is astounding.

Edited January 11, 201213 yr by Max

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71312.html