"Independent voters are rejecting Romney"

[JohnnyD]

"But the fight for the right that is now the focus of these primaries is souring independents on the GOP. And the relentlessly negative ads from the Romney camp are having a particularly pronounced impact on his ability to connect with the crucial independent vote, even if he were to slog through this mud fight to win the nomination."

I've been saying this for a month now. The longer Romney panders to the far-Right in order to gain the Republican vote, the more harm he is doing to himself. This is also the reason why Santorum is doing alright in the Primaries but is completely unelectable and will be completely crushed in a general election.

"Likewise, only 32% of independents say Romney takes consistent positions on issues. And perhaps most devastatingly, only 31% of independents say Romney "understands the needs of people like you" -- 60% disagree. This spells special trouble for the GOP if the key battleground demographic of the election is middle-class voters."

When he wins the election and attempts to move back towards middle, the above underlined quote will fall even further.

Independents hold 60% of the vote now. Democrats and Republicans alike need to stop pandering to the extremes and realize this country is growing more and more moderate.

[nightfighter]

His campaign manager should be fired. They are fighting fires on a daily basis and losing sight of their long term strategy, which is to beat Obama. Jumping to extreme positions is not necessary to win the nomination, nor to beat Obama. He is sounding more and more like a man standing out on a ledge than a contender.... He is the only one left that is electable, but I'm losing more and more faith daily....


And you know I don't tread in this forum very often... but someone needs to take the reins here.

[striperman36]

Nobody in that camp has taking those reins in 8 years, who will do it now?

[RIJIMMY]

Lets not forget the GOP barely supports him.
You guys blasted when months ago I stated that the majority of repubs are "anyone" but mitt. Look at how many people have been high in the polls, the repubs jump from one candidate to the next.
Perry
Cain
Gingrich
Now when its no one left but Santorum and Romeny, Santorum is showing up strong in the polls! Give Santorum time to shoot himself and Romney will the last one standing. The best he has to offer, the least obnoxious candidate
Big O for four more years. Lame performance by the Repubs in a time when there was a lot of momentum

[nightfighter]

Even the Chinese have a better system to groom their future leaders...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

You guys blasted when months ago I stated that the majority of repubs are "anyone" but mitt.

The only thing I blasted when you said that a couple months ago is that the GOP is strongly "anyone but Ron." Mitt is essentially their consolation prize because there is no electable nomination for the GOP. One thing the Democrats do better than Republicans is choose candidates who's crooked past won't come back to bite them in the ass. Seems like every Republican candidate this year has a closet overflowing with skeletons... except for that one guy who was the only Republican nominee to poll higher than Obama yet is continually lied about and shunned.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

One thing the Democrats do better than Republicans is choose candidates who's crooked past won't come back to bite them in the ass. .

No. What Democrats (and their Public Relations arm called "the media") do is overlook every single immoral thing that a Democrat does, and go crazy every time a Republican is accused of anything.

The same media folks who said that it wasn't fair to hold Obama accountable for the statements of Rev Wright, are now attacking Santorum because one of his campaign donors said that the best birth control is for women not to sleep around? Ted Kennedy gets re-elected 85 times, but people here are turned off by Rick Santorum's personal values?

Furthermore, I love how the lefty media is suggesting that tghe GOP is in disarray because there is not yet a clear front runner. The hypocrisy here is stunning. In 2008, the Democratic primary contest between Hilary and Obama was as bitterly contested as any election in our country. As that time, the media claimed that the competition was a healthy sign of the democratic process. Now when the GOP finds itself in a similar situation (although not all that similar because teh election is so far off, whereas in 2008, the Democratic fight went right up to the convention), it's a sign of disarray? I'm not buying it.

Tell me I'm wrong...

[spence]

I think you're wrong.

The problem with the GOP isn't that they're having a great race, it's that all the candidates suck. At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think you're wrong.

The problem with the GOP isn't that they're having a great race, it's that all the candidates suck. At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential."

Ah yes. Hilary is the "proven quantity". This is the same woman who claimed that on a visit to Sarajevo or somewhere, that she had to dive into an armored vehicle because of sniper fire. When footage of that incident showed that she lied, her excuse was that she didn't get a good night's sleep the night before. Spence, let me tell you something. I have 3 young boys, one was collicky, one had acid reflux. I have been as tired as a human being can get. And never, not once, did my exhaustion ever lead me to falsely believe that I was shot at. If a Republican told that lie, they would RIGHTLY no longer be viable contenders for the office as President. But it's OK when a democrat does it.

And Obama, the "unknown with great potential". This was a guy who was known for 2 things as a state senator in Illinois - voting "present", and for supporting the right of mothers to kill their babies afetr the babies were born and outside the womb. Then he had one half of one term as a US senator, where he accomplished exactly nothing of any significance. So I can only wonder on what you base your assumption that he had great potential...

[Jim in CT]

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion. As his position on abortion is radical, that's understandable. I respect that fact that even though Santorum knows that his views on abortion will turn off a lot of folks, he doesn't hold back. That's a lot more courageous, and a lot more honest, than Obama. When Obama was campaigning, and a reverend asked him when he thought life began, Obama answered "that's above my pay grade". That's called d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g, that's called lying. Everyone knows what Obama's position on that issue is. And if someone from the National Organization For Women asked Obama that same question, he would have given a substantially different answer.

So. The media is making a big deal of Santorum's radical pro-life stance. Why, I wonder, didn't the media make as big a deal about Obama's monstrous stance on abortion? Since I'm sure many don't know this (because it wasn't widely reported), when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a mom's right to kill her baby, after the baby was born and out of the womb. Sound too shocking to be true? Google Obama and the Infants Born Alive Protection Act.

In communist China, a truly barbaric place, they will force women to have abortions against their will. However, as they are dragging a woman off to perform an abortion, if the baby is born first, Chinese law demands that the baby be cared for, because even the Chinese realize that this is clearly an innocent, precious human life. In other words, Obama's position on abortion is more barbaric than the Chinese.

But the American media are telling me to be afraid of Rick Santorum? And some here are buying into that?

Go ahead Spence, tell me where that's even a little wrong.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion. As his position on abortion is radical, that's understandable. I respect that fact that even though Santorum knows that his views on abortion will turn off a lot of folks, he doesn't hold back. That's a lot more courageous, and a lot more honest, than Obama. When Obama was campaigning, and a reverend asked him when he thought life began, Obama answered "that's above my pay grade". That's called d#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g, that's called lying. Everyone knows what Obama's position on that issue is. And if someone from the National Organization For Women asked Obama that same question, he would have given a substantially different answer.

So. The media is making a big deal of Santorum's radical pro-life stance. Why, I wonder, didn't the media make as big a deal about Obama's monstrous stance on abortion? Since I'm sure many don't know this (because it wasn't widely reported), when Obama was a state senator in Illinois, he supported a mom's right to kill her baby, after the baby was born and out of the womb. Sound too shocking to be true? Google Obama and the Infants Born Alive Protection Act.

In communist China, a truly barbaric place, they will force women to have abortions against their will. However, as they are dragging a woman off to perform an abortion, if the baby is born first, Chinese law demands that the baby be cared for, because even the Chinese realize that this is clearly an innocent, precious human life. In other words, Obama's position on abortion is more barbaric than the Chinese.

But the American media are telling me to be afraid of Rick Santorum? And some here are buying into that?

Go ahead Spence, tell me where that's even a little wrong.

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure, as usual you're pretty much wrong about everything.

First off, Obama wasn't "lying" when he said he didn't know when life began. A lot of people don't think it's at conception and a lot of people think it's before birth. Our laws are negotiated around an imperfect position here. It was a dodge, not a lie.

Secondly, Obama never supported a woman's right to kill her baby outside of the womb. The legislation he opposed was designed to eat away at Roe V Wade without adding any real value. Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable.

Obama also did support a virtually identical measure at the Federal level where it became law.

So your accusations, both of them, are clearly false.

-spence

"Illinois already had law instructing doctors to treat a healthy fetus outside of the womb as viable."

Absolutely, 100% false. You could not be more wrong. The Born Alive Infants Protection Act was a proposed law that said that if a baby was born, doctors would be required to care for it. The bill was proposed SPECIFICALLY because babies that somehow survived abortions, were allowed to wither and die, if the moms told the doctors not to care for it.

Spence, you are entitled to your own opinions, insane as they are. You are not entitled to your own facts, and once again, you are making them up.

Obama twice rejected the bill, which allowed the practice of living abortions to continue, until a federal law was unanimously passed by the US Senate which forbid the practice.

Yuo go ahead Spence, you show us the law that existed BEFORE THEN, that made living abortions illegal. If that was the case, why did the US Senate feel the need to pass their own law?

You really just feel free to make it up as you go along, don't you?

FactCheck.org : Obama and ‘Infanticide’

Let's see what you're made of Spence, this post is a defining moment for you. You either show me what law prevented living infanticide, or you admit that you made it up.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Some folks here are concerned about Santorum's position on abortion.

Ah yes... just a matter of time before you got on the typical abortion kick . I think this completely unrelated tangent was created quicker than usual. This thread about Independent's lack of support for any of the GOP candidates just took a fun nosedive into the trash heap.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Ah yes... just a matter of time before you got on the typical abortion kick . I think this completely unrelated tangent was created quicker than usual. This thread about Independent's lack of support for any of the GOP candidates just took a fun nosedive into the trash heap.

Johnny, someone else posted that Santorum has a whacky position on abortion. All I did was claim, corrcetly, that Obama's view on abortion is at least as whacky, if not more so. Take a breath and calm down...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"At least with Clinton and Obama the Dems had a proven quantity and an unknown with great potential."

Ah yes. Hilary is the "proven quantity". This is the same woman who claimed that on a visit to Sarajevo or somewhere, that she had to dive into an armored vehicle because of sniper fire. When footage of that incident showed that she lied, her excuse was that she didn't get a good night's sleep the night before. Spence, let me tell you something. I have 3 young boys, one was collicky, one had acid reflux. I have been as tired as a human being can get. And never, not once, did my exhaustion ever lead me to falsely believe that I was shot at. If a Republican told that lie, they would RIGHTLY no longer be viable contenders for the office as President. But it's OK when a democrat does it.

And Obama, the "unknown with great potential". This was a guy who was known for 2 things as a state senator in Illinois - voting "present", and for supporting the right of mothers to kill their babies afetr the babies were born and outside the womb. Then he had one half of one term as a US senator, where he accomplished exactly nothing of any significance. So I can only wonder on what you base your assumption that he had great potential...

Your personal opinions on two politicians you don't like aren't really relevant here. What's important is that the Democrats happened to like both Clinton and Obama...while the GOP is trying to figure out who's the least worst.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Your personal opinions on two politicians you don't like aren't really relevant here. What's important is that the Democrats happened to like both Clinton and Obama...while the GOP is trying to figure out who's the least worst.

-spence

Spence, what I posted about Hilary and Obama was fact, absolute, objective, irrefutable fact. Because those facts made your political heroes look like the awful people they are, you dismiss those facts as "my personal opinions". That's the difference between a blind ideologue like you, and a rational person like me.

If one single thing I posted was wrong, please enlighten me.

To you, liberal always means right, conservative always means wrong, and you bend over backwards to regurgitate that message, and repeatedly ignore that which does not fit that simple-minded narrative. I see right and wrong on both sides, where it exists.

Here is the world according to Spence...when the 2008 Democratic primary kept bouncing back and forth between Hilary and Obama (up until the week of the convention by the way), it was NOT a sign of disarray, but rather, the inevitable result when faced with a choice of 2 such superb human beings. When the 2012 GOP primary goes back and forth (9 months before our convention), it's necessarily because all of the candidates stink.

Do I have that right Spence?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here is the world according to Spence...when the 2008 Democratic primary kept bouncing back and forth between Hilary and Obama (up until the week of the convention by the way), it was NOT a sign of disarray, but rather, the inevitable result when faced with a choice of 2 such superb human beings. When the 2012 GOP primary goes back and forth (9 months before our convention), it's necessarily because all of the candidates stink.

Do I have that right Spence?

Not completely...

I think the Dem's in 2008 saw two positive candidates and the issues you mentioned weren't considered as major factors by primary voters.

As for the GOP, every candidate running is flawed in the eyes of the establishment, so flawed in fact that they lack confidence any one of them can beat the person you think is the worst president in the history of the USA.

-spence

[spence]

Ahhh, sorry. Didn't read closely enough. Be honest though, it does sound like something you'd say

As for your checkmate, you appear to be debating someone other than myself. I've never denied living abortions took place...rather that if they did they would be illegal in Illinois under state law.

You've really not challenged anything I've said, other than rant about abortion.

Let's recap.

Obama has always supported protecting a living aborted fetus outside of the womb.

Obama opposed amending state law because he thought it presented an obvious judicial challenge to Roe V Wade (which he obviously supports) and that the practice would already be illegal.

Obama supported the Federal law signed by President Bush.

And to you Obama's complicit in infanticide.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Ahhh, sorry. Didn't read closely enough. Be honest though, it does sound like something you'd say

As for your checkmate, you appear to be debating someone other than myself. I've never denied living abortions took place...rather that if they did they would be illegal in Illinois under state law.

You've really not challenged anything I've said, other than rant about abortion.

Let's recap.

Obama has always supported protecting a living aborted fetus outside of the womb.

Obama opposed amending state law because he thought it presented an obvious judicial challenge to Roe V Wade (which he obviously supports) and that the practice would already be illegal.

Obama supported the Federal law signed by President Bush.

And to you Obama's complicit in infanticide.

-spence

"Obama has always supported protecting a living aborted fetus outside of the womb."

Spence, have you been painting inside with the windows shut? You need to open the windows a crack. Not once, not twice, but three times, Obama blocked proposed bills that would have required doctors to care for babies born alive, regardless of perceived viability (and that's what the law you cited called for...unfortunately, viability is very subjective). The 3 proposed laws stated specifically that care would be required for babies that were born, and outside the womb. That's not remotely close to abortion.

If you read the factcheck link I posted earlier, they say that the 3rd time the bill was proposed (and blocked by Obama), there were no discernable differences between the bill Obama blocked and the one passed by the US Senate. And the bill passed by the US Senate, last time I checked, had no impact on a woman's right to abortion.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, have you been painting inside with the windows shut? You need to open the windows a crack. Not once, not twice, but three times, Obama blocked proposed bills that would have required doctors to care for babies born alive, regardless of perceived viability (and that's what the law you cited called for...unfortunately, viability is very subjective). The 3 proposed laws stated specifically that care would be required for babies that were born, and outside the womb. That's not remotely close to abortion.

Actually he only voted against the legislation once.

If you read the factcheck link I posted earlier, they say that the 3rd time the bill was proposed (and blocked by Obama), there were no discernable differences between the bill Obama blocked and the one passed by the US Senate.

Yes, there were similar provisions, but remember that this was all going on at the same time. Obama felt the issue was better handled at the Federal level so the State amendment wasn't used to challenge Roe V Wade in the State courts. I don't believe the refined state amendment (with wording to protect the right for the abortion in the first place) wasn't even added until 2003...after the Federal bill was already signed into law.

And the bill passed by the US Senate, last time I checked, had no impact on a woman's right to abortion.

Exactly why Obama supported the Federal legislation.

Did you notice how your hero Newt was claiming that Obama "voted to legalize infanticide" in that recent debate?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually he only voted against the legislation once.



Yes, there were similar provisions, but remember that this was all going on at the same time. Obama felt the issue was better handled at the Federal level so the State amendment wasn't used to challenge Roe V Wade in the State courts. I don't believe the refined state amendment (with wording to protect the right for the abortion in the first place) wasn't even added until 2003...after the Federal bill was already signed into law.


Exactly why Obama supported the Federal legislation.

Did you notice how your hero Newt was claiming that Obama "voted to legalize infanticide" in that recent debate?

-spence

"Actually he only voted against the legislation once."

He blocked it 3 times, twice in committee.

'Did you notice how your hero Newt was claiming that Obama "voted to legalize infanticide" in that recent debate? "

No, I didn't notice. But good for Newt, he's stating precisely what happened.

Again Spence, I'm sorry if Obama's actions here are self-explanatory in their monstrocity. Don't blame me for what he did, and don't pretend it didn't happen.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

'Did you notice how your hero Newt was claiming that Obama "voted to legalize infanticide" in that recent debate? "

No, I didn't notice. But good for Newt, he's stating precisely what happened.

Again Spence, I'm sorry if Obama's actions here are self-explanatory in their monstrocity. Don't blame me for what he did, and don't pretend it didn't happen.

Interesting...so Obama doesn't vote to make something illegal that's already illegal, while publicly supporting other efforts to make it illegal...and this is voting to legalize it?

In the other thread you described yourself as "rational".

What gives?

-spence

[spence]

And now Romney is slamming NASCAR fans for wearing ponchos?

WTF???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

And now Romney is slamming NASCAR fans for wearing ponchos?

WTF???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Romney's friends that own NASCAR teams didn't like seeing the ponchos.

[spence]

If the current State law already made it illegal, and it was happening regardless, how would an amendment to that same law make it not happen?

-spence