Republican Primary Megathread (poll now updated)

[Farnhamia]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

I ... words fail me.

[Kaeshar]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

I ... words fail me.

Video needs captions

[The Rich Port]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

No wonder they named the Football games after him.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

I laughed.

[Daistallia 2104]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

Johnny Rotten said it best...

[New Chalcedon]

No, it's because there are still four candidates fighting for the nomination, 'battling', if you will, to become the candidate. While Romney has the advantage, none of the others show any signs of dropping out and every intention of digging in to keep fighting Mitt until the convention.

The thing is Romney has a significant lead—more so than John McCain had at this stage for instance (at least going by pure numbers). If he were running a more organised campaign the nomination would have been all but decided by now. The other candidates in the race have no chance of winning and very little chance of blocking him—but they've been emboldened to stay in simply because the Romney campaign isn't controlling the media narrative the way it ought to be going purely by money and popular support.

IOW Romney ought to be the presumed nominee by now and be going on to act as it but for some reason the media narrative alone is allowing everyone else to stay in the race under the delusion they might get a brokered convention. Maybe someone in the party establishment just really doesn't like him, I dunno.

Lack of organisation is not Romney's problem - he's got a nationwide campaign that is quite well-organised, lots and lots of money (most of it from a handful of big donors, but hey) and name recognition.

What's plaguing Romney - the single reason that he hasn't been able to permanently put away even third-rate opponents like Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum and Newt "the angry little attack muffin" Gingrich - is that he does a very poor imitation of actually understanding or giving a shit about the problems that Main Street is facing. Which is natural for a Wall Street habitue like him, but not exactly helpful in today's political climate.

Except that little tidbit now known as Mitt-A-Sketch is going to keep the public's attention focused, especially since Frothy and The Lizard are both using it as part of their efforts to remain relevant.

Then, too, you're assuming that the Democrats won't remind the American people of Mitt's little honesty problem.



Rest assured, when you have ad material this good, you use it.

Democrats have a long & proud tradition of throwing away the best chances to win elections. They'll run a half-dozen ads in the next couple of weeks, then let the issue be forgotten - as they've done throughout the past several decades. You may note, for instance, that of all the things Obama had to say about McCain in 2008, his gaffes had little to do with it.

[Alien Space Bats]

They can be a howling annoyance, sure, but the question is how much that annoyance will affect votes. Put Mitt next Obama and they'll vote for Mitt every time because a Mormon flip-flopper is less terrifying to them than a socialist Muslim Kenyan.

That's not how the far right votes.

Put Mitt against Obama and they'll say, "I can't stand either one!" and just pass on down to the rest of the ballot - or not bother showing up to vote at all.

This is established voting behavior for Republicans; I base it on 35 years of direct observation. It's how the far right exercises control over the GOP; without it, they'd just become a loud and obnoxious faction on the fringe to whom nobody ever pays any attention

You've all heard me say this: The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that we Democrats vote for the lesser of two (or more) evils, while Republicans refuse to vote for anyone they don't truly believe in.

How in the Hell do any of you think we got here in the first place?!? Do you think it happened because mainstream Republicans back in the days were idiots and just handed the Bircher wing of the Party the keys to the store and said, "Here, it's yours; you may be psycho, but we love you?!?"

No.

It happened because the right decided to break the cardinal rule of Republican politics and screw their own party if they didn't get their way.

It started with Jerry Ford: When Ronald Reagan didn't get the nomination in '76, the right stayed home, weakening their own sitting President and opening the door to a win by Jimmy Carter. After that, it became de rigeur for the right: If a moderate or liberal Republican wanted to run for office, the right ran against him in the primaries; if he won, they refused to support him in the General and he lost.

They did this everywhere. They went after Congressmen with 20 years' experience on the Hill; they went after senior Senators; they went after everyone who didn't fit their rigid ideological mold. At first, Democrats chortled with glee, because it made the GOP less competitive; strong moderate or liberal Republican candidates suddenly found they couldn't win, and conservative candidates never were that strong, so the Democrats picked up a lot of offices they Couldn't have otherwise won.

But there was a purpose to all this fratricide: Party purification and redefinition of the ideological lines in America. Once the GOP moved to the right, the definition of where America's center moved to the right as well.

It's a strategy Dr. No laid out for the far right back in the late 1970's. A lot of us moderate-to-liberal Republicans thought him daft when he first enunciated his Master Plan for World GOP Domination; yet it's why most of us former moderate-to-liberal Republicans - who, like Democrats, do vote for the lesser of two evils - are now Democrats today.

Because while evil geniuses may be crazy, they're still evil geniuses all the same.

Over time, the long-suffering Republican center - no longer able to win office or have their voice heard within their own Party - came to adapt to their misery and bondage; moderate candidates learned to position themselves further and further to the right in order to survive, and moderate voters learned to put up with it. Think of it as a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome: After a while, moderate Republicans began to rationalize their position by embracing their captors; they became public conservatives and closet moderates, sometimes pretending to be even more conservative than they were for fear of being outed.

This year has been especially hard on the GOP center, of course: It has pushed the bounds of cognitive dissonance. Republican moderates have been conditioned - in honor of Mitt's dad, dare we say "brainwashed"? - into fearing Democrats more than Republicans, even as Obama colonizes the ideological space their centrist hearts desire. They may embrace Mitt with fervor, fearing Obama and thinking that Mittens is one of their own (as much as Mittens is anybody's); but the far right still rules the GOP, and it still refuses to let the other wing of the Party drive the bus.

If Mitt moves to the left, the right will stay home. "Better a Democrat," they will say, "Than a RINO."

[The Black Forrest]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

Holy Fuck.

I didn't think much of him and now I rate him equal to the shrub just for different reasons.

It's almost pathological.

Thanks for posting that. Now I can use the mute button on him for whenever he speaks.

I liked the fact Bain had a hand in it. So I guess when he talks about job creation he isn't really lying. Jobs will be created in China.

[Kaeshar]

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

Holy Fuck.

I didn't think much of him and now I rate him equal to the shrub just for different reasons.

It's almost pathological.

Thanks for posting that. Now I can use the mute button on him for whenever he speaks.

I liked the fact Bain had a hand in it. So I guess when he talks about job creation he isn't really lying. Jobs will be created in China.

Can someone do a transcript of what she said? I'm hard of hearing and that video apparently doesn't have subtitles available.

[Farnhamia]

Holy Fuck.

I didn't think much of him and now I rate him equal to the shrub just for different reasons.

It's almost pathological.

Thanks for posting that. Now I can use the mute button on him for whenever he speaks.

I liked the fact Bain had a hand in it. So I guess when he talks about job creation he isn't really lying. Jobs will be created in China.

Can someone do a transcript of what she said? I'm hard of hearing and that video apparently doesn't have subtitles available.

Crank the volume. Everyone within five miles of you needs to hear that, anyway.

You might have to search around a bit ...

[Alien Space Bats]

IOW Romney ought to be the presumed nominee by now and be going on to act as it but for some reason the media narrative alone is allowing everyone else to stay in the race under the delusion they might get a brokered convention. Maybe someone in the party establishment just really doesn't like him, I dunno.

Citizens United is keeping this race alive; it's one of the unanticipated side effects of that ruling. As long as you've got a pet billionaire or two who can pay the bills, you can keep running

its hard to say exactly how big a lead romney has. there are still plenty of tricks that can be pulled to get some of those delegates away from him and into someone else's pocket. all that it requires is that the party suddenly sour on romney.

The Sketchy One's lead is not what it appears to be; his organization is not as solid as it looks, and as the caucus process continues, it's going to be stretched to the limit.

That's why Goldfinger Ron Paul has all but ceased campaigning; he's focusing all of his resources on winning the second stage of the caucus process, because that's what will give him delegates.

This has led to a Devil's deal between the Well-Lubricated Weather-Vane Romney and Rumpelstiltskin Ron Paul; they're working together to strip away all of Santorum's caucus delegates through rules changes and mutual backscratching. Mittens the Magic Pander Bear is willing to give the Ronulans future control of the GOP in several States if that's what it takes to secure the nomination.

Again, I called this a few weeks back: If Romney doesn't get to 1144 before he reaches Tampa, his buddy from Texas will push him the rest of the way in exchange for a "player to be named later".

did you guys all see maddow's utterly epic take-down of romney lying literally all the time? fucking glorious.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-m ... w/46816690

Yeah, it was.

It also leads one to ask an important philosophical question: How far does a candidate have to go before we can actually call him a liar? Is habitual liar enough, does he have to reach the level of outright compulsion, like Mitt Romney has?

And is there a 12-Step Program for those who are psychologically compelled to be...er... creative with regards to the facts? If so, when should we stage Pander Bear's intervention?



<serious face>

Honestly, I have never in my life seen or heard of a politician who lies as frequently, reflexively, and pervasively as Mitt Romney. It's astounding.

Can someone do a transcript of what she said? I'm hard of hearing and that video apparently doesn't have subtitles available.

It will likely be available in a day or two. I'll post when it is.

[Siochain]

Ron Paul everyday forever. LIBERTY!
edit: I didn't see the poll asked who would win. I think Romney will. However I am definitely writing No Paul No Vote for me. No other candidate can even remotely compare. So once again I say LIBERTY!

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

[Kaeshar]

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

No, a decentralized government would be pretty inefficient, thats the problem with India isn't it?

Almost sounds like you'd rather have 50 separate nations than one cohesive nation.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Centralized power which can be voted out of office every 4 and 6 years.

How is it better being "oppressed" by *insert state capitol* better then Washington?

Fifty "tyrants" are better then one?

[Farnhamia]

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

[Ashmoria]

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Centralized power which can be voted out of office every 4 and 6 years.

How is it better being "oppressed" by *insert state capitol* better then Washington?

Fifty "tyrants" are better then one?

is there any tyrant (who cant kill you) worse than the head of the homeowners association?

[Jari Head]

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

Ron Paul's motto shall be - "Forwards into the Past, Backwards into the Future"

[Farnhamia]

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

Ron Paul's motto shall be - "Forwards into the Past, Backwards into the Future"

Dr. Paul does have his head firmly on his shoulders, it's just pointing the wrong way.

[Tmutarakhan]

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

[Jocabia]

Honestly, I have to say that is the first gaffe that could really put locking this up before the convention in danger. There is no question that gaffe will cost delegates. The question is, how many.

And if he doesn't close it up before the convention, he's in big trouble.

[Hittanryan]

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Ron Paul does want to centralize power, in the state governments.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yes, liberty. The liberty to have your rights jerked around by the state legislature with no Federal protections, the right to have the value of your money subject to the whims and foibles of the gold market, the right to watch the environment befouled by corporations intent only on squeezing profits from the very rocks. Brilliant plan.

False in every possible way.

No, pretty true: viewtopic.php?p=8544080#p8544080

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes let's centralize power, that sure doesn't result in tyranny. I would advocate even smaller governments than the state level, but a state influuenced government is most definitely better than a federal one. Maybe your state isn't as cohesive in their desire for freedom than others, but I would rather have 50 chances to get it right than one. There will undoubtedly be one state that would be a bastion of liberty and it would inevitably spread once the inhabitants of other states saw how awesome it is.

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

All of which assumes you're allowed to move.

Remember, if you read the Bill of Rights as a strict enumeration of our liberties (i.e., that there are no unenumerated rights), and you don't believe in incorporation besides (i.e., you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States), then what makes you think you're even going to be permitted to leave for another State?

I mean, where in the Constitution does it actually say that you have the right to travel and/or relocate, or to pick the State in which you're going to live?

[Farnhamia]

Why should I have to move because some lack-wit gets enough signatures on a petition to outlaw dykes, and President Paul stripped the Federal courts of the power to hear my grievances?

All of which assumes you're allowed to move.

Remember, if you read the Bill of Rights as a strict enumeration of our liberties (i.e., that there are no unenumerated rights), and you don't believe in incorporation besides (i.e., you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States), then what makes you think you're even going to be permitted to leave for another State?

I mean, where in the Constitution does it actually say that you have the right to travel and/or relocate, or to pick the State in which you're going to live?

Good point. And what's to say that some state wouldn't pass a law forbidding certain people from even stopping overnight in their territory? Kind of like the "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you" signs that were occasionally seen about our fair country in years gone by.

[Tmutarakhan]

All of which assumes you're allowed to move.

Remember, if you read the Bill of Rights as a strict enumeration of our liberties (i.e., that there are no unenumerated rights), and you don't believe in incorporation besides (i.e., you believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the States), then what makes you think you're even going to be permitted to leave for another State?

I mean, where in the Constitution does it actually say that you have the right to travel and/or relocate, or to pick the State in which you're going to live?

Good point. And what's to say that some state wouldn't pass a law forbidding certain people from even stopping overnight in their territory? Kind of like the "Nigger, don't let the sun set on you" signs that were occasionally seen about our fair country in years gone by.

In certain gated communities in Florida, it might be better if there were at least a sign to give fair warning.