Comments on: AND THE WINNER IS…

By: Truthiz

Truthiz — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:23:37 +0000

Lol. Just as I said, they know ALL the candidates SUCK. More reax from right-wing world to Mitt's NOT so smart "gaffe" yesterday…… Erick Erikson: It is days like today that make me thankful I think they all suck. At least I’m thankful I’m in the firmly not Romney camp. Having told us only Romney was viable (with half-nods to Huntsman and Santorum) and having trotted out Elliot Abrams to smear Newt Gingrich with out of context quotes, even National Review is having trouble defending their candidate today. [….] RedState: "The National Review’s Candidate Won’t Stop Digging" http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/02/01/the-nati… Bethany Mandel: To the left, it verifies the long held suspicion Republicans only care about people with money, callously disregarding the plight of the poor. This verification will be played over and over during a general election if Romney clinches the nomination. To the right, it verifies that Romney is as liberal as they fear, complacent with the welfare state as it currently stands. […] Commentary Magazine: Romney and the "Very Poor" http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/01/romn… Ramesh Ponuru: The Corner consensus seems to be that Romney’s remark—you know the one I’m talking about—was a foolish message badly expressed. I concur. […] NRO: "Joining The Pile-On" http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/289928/joini…NRO Commenter: It was not taken out of context. Romney said that because there are safety nets for poor their troubles don't concern him. It's not only a dumb political statement but it isn't a good conservative position to take, either. There is no reason for a conservative to be unconcerned that a large number of adults are living in poverty- regardless of whether or not they happen to get foodstamps. Indeed a small government conservative should be even more concerned about getting the poor to a point where they help themselves and can get off the dole. […]

By: Truthiz

Truthiz — Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:03:02 +0000

A new day and a new suprise (at least for me).Despite the best efforts of the GOP, aided greatly by the American news media, to IGNORE what is becoming quite OBVIOUS (even to people around the WORLD), confirming what I've posted about several times since the GOP's Iowa Caucuses:The Telegrah – UK News:"What Mitt Romney's victories have in common: a low Republican turnout. Terrific news for Barack Obama" The New York Times's election and polling analyst, Nate Silver, has done some number-crunching using the exit poll data from the four states that voted in January and finds that there is a pattern. In Iowa the number of self-identifying Republicans was down by 11%, in New Hampshire 15% the reduction was 15% while in Florida overnight it was 16%. I wonder whether we are seeing the impact of negative campaigning. A number of pundits are suggesting that this has been the most negative campaign ever with an estimated 92% of all the advertising in Florida being designed to undermine an opponent. It's estimated that the Romney campaign and its associated bodies spent $15.3m on on TV spots in Florida in the past month alone. To put that into context John McCain spent just $11 million on ads during his entire 2008 primary campaign. [….]Read: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/mikesmithson/10…Welp. Here's my take on it: First: Most rank-and-file Repub voters Hate the President. We know that. But ACTUAL voting numbers don't lie. A lot of GOP voters are NOT that enthusiatic about getting rid of the President afterall so they are NOT showing up to vote for a Repub candidate. But WHY would that be? (given that "Any of our guys can be Obambi")Oh. I know…lol.2nd: The GOP candidates SUCK. ALL of them. Rank-and-file Repub voters know it. And NO amount of money OR BSing can change that fact.

By: Truthiz

Truthiz — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:32:08 +0000

Lol. The key word being: "ALMOST" not funny……..because I have to tell you BD: When it comes to the GOP these days_and especially Mr. "electable"_I find it darn near impossible to keep from laughing!

By: BD

BD — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:11:30 +0000

I see your on top of it as usual Truth. He has problems since nobodys excited about Romney. Then he goes and makes a dumb arse statement about poor people????? This is almost not even funny amymore.

By: Truthiz

Truthiz — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:27:56 +0000

A few right-wing Reax to Mitt's latest gaffeEd Morrissey @ Hotair:Earlier today, I said that only Mitt Romney could derail Mitt Romney this month. Did my prediction come true already? The media and Romney detractors have jumped all over this statement to CNN in which Romney says that he is “not concerned about the very poor,” but that slice of Romney’s statement is entirely misleading — although it’s certainly not adept for a front-runner.The Washington Post, to its credit, quotes the entire statement rather than just parsing out the controversial fragment. ….. this is still a gaffe and a worrisome misstep for someone who has been on the campaign trail as long as Romney. Candidates are supposed to express concern for everyone, not just one particular class, which gets to the more substantial error Romney makes. […]Romney “not concerned about the very poor, we have a safety net”http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/01/video-romne…1. Hotair Commenter:"And this is the best candidate the non-conservative right-wing of this country could find to put up against Obama. How is the employment situation in Iceland these days?"2. NRO Commenter:"Man, where are his handlers? It will be taken "out of context", but the DNC attack ads practically write themselves. I thought that he was the "smart candidate"…3. NRO Commenter:"THIS is the guy that NRO has been pining for?!?!?!?!"4. FreeRepublic Commenter:But, but, but, the Establishment says he is the most electable.Congrats to President 0bama on his re-election. […]