— you know, the one who supported stimulus, TARP, cap and trade, and state run health care — and who thinks capitalism exists to create jobs for the working man?
And no, I’m not talking about Obama, sillies. Wait, what–?
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | |||||
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I think if we want to stop Wall Street Romney someone needs to drop out
I’m not naming any names
I’d certainly be curious to see what the numbers would look like between just Romney and Gingrich.
Gingrich should drop out so that Santorum can stand in juxtaposition to Romney.
Romney: Pro-TARP, pro-stimulus, pro-cap and trade, pro-individual mandate, thinks the purpose of capitalism is to create jobs for people, thinks the role of the government is to help the people achieve happiness, legislate to make that happen, then manage the resulting Utopia. Yield: preferred GOP candidate. Electable!
Gingrich: Pro-TARP, anti-stimulus, pro-cap and trade, long-time supporter of the individual mandate, critic of private equity firms, thinks the role of the government is to Get Things Done in the way of an FDR. Yield: not too different on many issues than Romney.
Santorum: anti-TARP, anti-stimulus, anti-cap and trade, anti-individual mandate (pro-private health savings accounts), thinks capitalism works best in unfettered markets, and thinks the role of federal government is defined by the why of the Declaration and the how of the Constitution: protect individual rights that need be beyond man’s capacity to rescind, protect the country, otherwise bugger off (unless — and here we’ll call this the happyfeet social engineering exemption — it’s about the family, in which case the pernicious Mr Santorum wants to allow families to keep more of their money through tax credits; or about the manufacturing industry, which Santorum wants to bring back from extinction after years of over-taxation and over-regulation by way of a 0% tax holiday). Yield: it should be obvious.
Following up from last night here’s what SurveyUSA, Rasmussen, and Nate Silver predicted yesterday, and today’s final results
Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul
SurveyUSA 41/26/12/12
Rasmussen 44/28/12/10
Nate Silver 44.7/29.4/13.2/11.1
Actual 46.4/31.9/13.4/7.0
It looks like SurveyUSA’s cell phone voters are saying they are for Ron Paul on the phone but they are pulling the lever for everyone else. And Santorum clearly exceeded expectations ;-)
Sure, a Republican who praised Teddy Kennedy and distanced himself from Reagan, who supported TARP and the stimulus and state run health care and cap and trade, may have won tonight.
But at least Santorum’s vicious gay hatred and forced enslavement of women lost.
And in the end, isn’t that what the GOP and its base is all about?
romney 46% non romney 52% 95% reporting
Both Gingrich and Romney should drop out, since by the time they’re through with each other, neither, should one of them prevail, will be able to rally the supporters of the other. And therefore it’s unlikely that either could defeat Obama going forward. They both should immediately drop out for the good of the team. DON’T THEY WANT US TO WIN?
Gingrich, Romney, and Obama should drop out.
“Gingrich should drop out so that Santorum can stand in juxtaposition to Romney.”
g-d i hate these none ivy league folks;)
mr. romney is of bain capital don’t you know. dealing with pheasants is hard.
I’m sticking with: We’re doomed.
And the winner is……
Guess who.
I thought Meghan lurved Newt? Or did she forget already?
Romney is getting Secret Service protection.
All should resign themselves to another four years of Barack Obama. He will be reelected and without the need to pander for votes, his second term is going to make his first term look positively Burkean by comparison.
I already have.
I blame you, mostly.
What was that Genghis Khan is supposed to have said?
Something like, “you’re sins must have been great for God to send you a punishment like me,” wasn’t it?
Concerning Santorum and February, mostly.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-during-victory-speech-man-this-is-a-weak-fi,27233/ This is way too close to the truth to be funny.
…something like a month and half ago?
Did I win?
Our last best hope?
Sweet Meteor of Death:
I don’t know why this isn’t catching on more fervently.
Nulla nova mihi res inopinave surgit.
answer: six months ago.
On the downside, all of the hard core “ideological purity pundits” won’t be voting. On the upside, if Florida is any indication, there will be alot of geriatrics who don’t read blogs, listen to pundits or give a shit about ideological purity (but who understand Obama is the enemy, period) who will be out voting for the nominee.
Seriously Jeff, if Mittens wins the nominee, are you going to spend the next 9 months bitching about him and how shitty you think he’ll be as opposed to bitching about Obama and pointing out the myriad of ways in which he has shown us how shitty he and his policies are. 4 more years, without having to worry about his poll numbers? God help us all.
The calls have already started. We should all march in lockstep now with Mr. Inevitable, and bow down to our Republican masters.
By the way, somebody should inform Newt that if Santorum drops out roughly half of his supporters will go to Romney. On the other hand, I have a sneaking suspicion that a significant majority of Newt’s support would go to Santorum if Gingrich drops out.
Just saying.
I see the Romneybots are already laying the groundwork for excuses when their man goes down to defeat this November. It won’t be because they foisted a turd of a candidate on the rest of us. No, it will be the fault of us little hobbits who insisted that merely being better than Obama is good enough.
It should probably be pointed out that even if you combine the Gingrich and Santorum votes, Romney would have won Florida by a point. Make of that what you will.
I don’t like this meteor option, di. I’ve still got a lot of things to do.
This is going to be first election sitting out. I’m kinda bummed and it’s hard for me to keep paying attention now.
Other than grow veggies and buy guns, what’s left to do?
Gingrich can still sneakily try campaigning on issues people actually give a shit about instead of nattering on about moon bases and arcane judeo-gastronomical practices.
That could be a real game-changer.
Seriously Matt, do you think there’s much of a point to fixing the economy just so we can implement 50 RobamneyCare plans break it again?
Do we want this election to be about something or not?
Other than grow veggies and buy guns, what’s left to do?
Vote the down ticket.
I won’t fill in the oval for Romney, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think the rest of the races are unimportant.
hmm double negative
— maybe I am too depressed to care.
This Romney is causing great distress in my household.
The mister thinks we can’t do anything about it and should vote for the Obama-lite. Did you get that? “We can’t do anything about it.”
Argh. Double argh.
FoxNews is calling for everyone to quit and rally behind Mr. Inevitable.
OT: Don Cornelius of Soul Train fame has died of apparent suicide at 75. A harbinger, perhaps?
*Seriously Matt, do you think there’s much of a point to fixing the economy just so we can implement 50 RobamneyCare plans break it again?*
Uh, yes? Mittens says he’ll spend the first 4 years rolling back all the Obama damage. He’s said its possible he’ll be a one termer because of that. Do I trust him completely? No, I don’t. but AGAIN, there is no way Mittens will be WORSE than Obama. Obama will run roughshod over this country for 4 years, doing whatever he wants to, using executive orders to circumvent Congress, appointing people in recess, running up further deficits, sending guns into Mexico, making race relations even worse, etc. You KNOW all these things and yet you still cling to the notion that somehow Romney would be worse. I realize Romney is not ideal. My candidate of choice is no longer in the race and Santorum, who I like better than Romney, is not going to win the nomination after Florida. I loath Newt and think he’s a huge liar (yes, I got that Robo call about screwing holocaust survivors- screw you Newt, screw your big fat lying pasty cheating ass) But if Gingrich got nomination, I would happily pull the lever for him, even knowing he’ll do some things I won’t like, because I know EVERYTHING Obama does, I will not like. Obama is the worst president of the modern century and we cannot survive 4 more years of him. How this is not paramount in the minds of every single Republican voter, I cannot fathom.
God help us all.
If the stakes are as high as you claim, Matt, then explain to us why the GOP is foisting this big-government technocrat on an unwilling electorate. We stayed home in droves in 2008 because McCain was a dud. We came out in droves in 2010 to install fiscal reformers into Congress by the dozens. We’ve been clear in our demands for a return to limited government and increased responsibility.
If the GOP chooses to ignore the evidence of recent history and the clearly-stated demands of over half their electorate, why on Earth should we reward them for giving us the finger? Why on Earth should we support a group of guys who use the Worst President In History not as a springboard for reform, but as a threat to blackmail us into voting for their go-along-to-get-along placeholder?
I will not be played. I will not be threatened. I will not be blackmailed. And if Obama wins next fall, I will not be blamed. The blame will fall squarely on the kingmakers in the old-school GOP who thought they could run another bland statist in a year when that’s the last thing anybody wants.
The GOP will reform, or the GOP will die. Going along with their lame preferred candidate accomplishes neither.
rip Mr. Cornelius
As with the “lazy” Fred Thompson the media have now found their perfect Gingrich narrative “Angry Newt“. This will allow Romney to run any attack he wishes and never be called to account for any inaccuracy or even outright lie.
If/when he runs in the general and attempts any attack on Obama, only then will all the mendaciousness be illuminated in defense of “The One”.
Mr. Matt it’s not just that Romney’s a loathsome disgusting pandering whore coward, it’s also that he’s the second one in a row.
And at the most crucial time.
The only way to win is not to play.
Regardless of which statist gets elected to POTUS, we’d be better served by electing HoR and Senate peoples who understand that POTUS != Elected King and act accordingly. That goes for the state and local level too.
If enough people ignored Barry when he goes into “l’etat, c’est moi” mode, it wouldn’t matter what he says. Until, of course, the guys with guns or liens come at you. Then you got problems.
As dispised as Newt is by many around here, Mitt is really showing himself to be a right twat.
We can be assured that he will never bring it to Obama like he has been to Newt in the past week or two.
I don’t know how you do a robust down-ticket with a cowardly whore at the top
has that ever happened?
If everybody used “has that ever happened?” as the basis for our plans and desired, nothing would ever get done.
So the answer is, “I don’t know. Does that really matter?”
I prefer eratic Newt to angry Newt myself.
one must be realistic
I don’t know how you do a robust down-ticket with a cowardly whore at the top
And with that, the demented hamster has stumbled upon a nugget of subtle truth. My assertion above was that the GOP learned nothing from the 2008 and 2010 elections. happyfeet strikes upon the other possibility: the GOP took one look at the 2010 elections and Tea Party demonstrations, and determined that it had to keep us all home in 2012. Better that they maintain their comfortable sinecures as a minority party, than that they be forced to return to their small-government roots. In that light, the Romney candidacy makes perfect sense.
Erratic Newt, angry Newt, professorial Newt.
You just never know what Newt you’re going to get…and we never will.
At the risk of going all Godwin on the thread: some days, I feel like I’m being criticized because I don’t cheer the Vichy Party full-throatedly. That’s pretty much how I view the establishment GOP at this point: collaborators.
I’ll roger that, Squid.
I don’t know how you do a robust down-ticket with a cowardly whore at the top
has that ever happened?
Good question. To the best of my knowledge, no. And that, as well as anything, demonstrates the flaw in the thinking of the Establishment/Professional Republicans.
What do we know from recent history (’06, ’08, ’10) about the enthusiasm gap?
Mr. Ernst – Mr. Karl points out that low turnout historically favors Republicans. I have to confess that upends the inchoate thesis I’ve been developing about what happens in November.
Which is to say that Mr. Levin’s hopes for down-ticket success this year might could very well pan out.
Fixed that so you might recognize it Matt. Sound familiar? Perhaps you fell for that line once before?
Maybe focusing on issues and principle might work for a change…
With all due respect, and no call for purity!
That would be low turnout in general. Not low turnout among the GOP’s base of voters.
Low turnout historically favors Republicans in part because low turnout favors the minority party and historically, that’s been the GOP.
If you set aside the Party label, and look to ideological labels, conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1. You want conservatives fired up and eager to go vote.
Romney is no more likely to do that than McCain.
Mr. Jeff I think disillusionment in our rapist president is strong among people who voted for him last time.
Romney says he’ll roll back ObamaCare. He’s said a lot of things. Trusting somebody who tells you contradictary things is a choice, and it’s no way to go through life, son.
As much as I generally agree with Mark Levin, I disagree with him about, in the end, supporting Romney if he happens to get the nomination.
I’ve said I would support Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Pawlenty, Gingrich, and Santorum. And yes, I recognize the threat Obama poses. But it just seems to me counterproductive to bitch bitch bitch about Romney and the establishment, even as you let them know up front that, should they be able to use their money and media apparatus to weather the storm and eventually defeat all the conservative candidates, they’ll get the base to come out and support whomever they put up.
Which in turn gives them even more reason to fight hard and dirty to make sure they get their guy.
No thank you. Romney — and I’m going to keep writing this until it sinks in — supported TARP. He supported the stimulus. He supports the idea of an individual mandate, just not at the federal level. He supported cap-and-trade. He intentionally distanced himself from Ronald Reagan, then later, intentionally tethered himself to his friend and collaborator Ted Kennedy.
He has the backing of many of those who fought the TEA Party candidates in 2010.
Why on earth would I give him my vote if I won’t give my vote to Obama? Because he has an R by his name and he’s not as ideologically driven by his progressivism as Obama has proven to be?
Sorry, that’s just not enough.
Low turnout.
that’s not good news Mr. geoff it shows that Wall Street and Newt both aren’t able to communicate what the stakes are
Yeah, it is. So why would we want to help them level the playing field by depressing our own base? The Republican smart (like Fredo) set will tell you that they don’t want to scare those disillusioned moderates and independents into voting for Obama with an easily demonized conservative.
Barak Obama is going to do that with Romney (or whomever) anyways, but we actual conservatives/classical liberals know the truth.
So we’re going to have moderates/independents depressed because they’re disillusioned with Obama, conservatives depressed because we know the truth about Romney, and liberals ginned up to keep that rightwing sonofabitch racist sexist bigot homophobe MORMON out of the White House.
Yeah. This is going to end well.
Oh, I agree. I’m just saying that the dynamics are different wrt voter turnout this time. What could be a GOP landslide will likely be a lot closer if the base doesn’t turn out.
And if you look at the next post, you’ll see who is suppressing the base…
That’s been kind of a theme of mine here.
It hasn’t made me very popular with many of the new media conservatives, who it turns out are just like the rest of the establishment GOP, only with a better understanding of WordPress.
I figure Ernst has the calculus about right in #62.
WINNING!
Think about it this way: our model should be 1980. Their model is, of necessity, 2004, and the GOP establishment is agreeing to fight this election out along the lines of their model because hey, Kerry almost won!.
fuck that shit
Well, it beats spending the next 9 months trying to figure out how I defend his pro-TARP, pro-stimulus, pro-cap and trade, pro-individual mandate, anti-Reagan and pro-Ted Kennedy just because he has an R in front of his name.
You see, I’m against those things. Obama and Mittens were for them. So I’m in a bit of a pickle.
Another thing I plan on doing, when the GOP elites begin trying to shame and blame us Hobbits, is point out that they are voting for a guy who supported TARP, stimulus, cap and trade, and state-run health care.
Then I’m going to remind them they are Republicans.
Then I’m going to stand back in case their heads explode.
Well, to take the Godfather analogy a bit further, I think it’s time to go to the mattresses.
I need to find out if my state ever signed a non-aggression pact since we were Indian Territory unti about 100 years ago. If anyone wants to secede with me, I’m over here by the lake.
A thought experiment here. It’s inspired by the whole “sitting at home = vote for Obama/Romney” argument:
Our voting process normally involves a positive “for” vote for one specific candidate, with the candidate gathering the most “for” votes winning (ignore electoral college, etc for this.)
Let’s posit that we can now cast negative “against” votes. Each voter, for each office, can cast either a for OR an against, not both. A For vote means “I positively want THIS douchebag in the office”, and an Against vote means “I don’t care which shitbird has the office, as long as it’s not THAT fucktard”. To determine total votes, we simply take For – Against. To win office, your vote total must be >0 AND the maximum of all candidates for the office. Even trivial cases like “one office, one candidate” get more interesting.
We can get into some interesting scenarios depending on how many people are running for an office, if the total number of Against votes is more than the total number of For votes, and if NOBODY gets positive votes.
I get that under these rules it’s possible that offices would not get filled. In fact, I see that as a feature. What do you do if you hold elections and the candidates are so odious to the electorate that nobody wins? Current office-holder stays? Office goes vacant or to the official next-in-line? Redo the election with a new slate?
I know this is pointless in that it doesn’t reflect reality, but I think it’s interesting to think about. Maybe some future iteration of liberty-based self-government would use a concept like this. Maybe I’m full of myself for thinking so. Maybe I’m bound up and need some of that oatmeal to regilate my system.
Related to #62. Here and here.
I can’t see whatever it is this Melissa person tweeted on my old slow browser.
From this poll.
[…] Right Again! Posted on February 1, 2012 9:47 am by Bill Quick question: after a Romney win in Florida, how long will we have to wait before we hear calls for all … – you know, the one who supported stimulus, TARP, cap and trade, and state run health care — […]
In one respect, I’m lucky. My top o’ the ticket vote means squat in my true-blue state. Accordingly, I won’t have to feel bad about not voting for Romney. My bumper sticker, post-election, writes itself: “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for either of them.” Of course, my vehicle will be parked outside my bunker.
happyfeet posted on2/1 @ 8:13 am
Mr. Matt it’s not just that Romney’s a loathsome disgusting pandering whore coward, it’s also that he’s the second one in a row.
And at the most crucial time.
The only way to win is not to play.
So this is a serious question and not meant to be snarky but how do you define “win” in this sentence? Who wins and what is it that they would win?
that is a very good question
win means that you retain your own integrity and you don’t cast a convictionless vote I think
what you do instead is you join with others to create a market for those uncast votes
and then you wait to see who’s in the market for them
Squid the GOP is not one entity that foisted these candidates on us. These were the people that decided to run. Ryan, Pawlenty, Palindrome didn’t run. Perry, Bachman and Cain didn’t pan out. With the exception of Gingrich, I’d take any other candidate on Jeffs list over Romney. I voted for santorum yesterday. But if we re left w a flawed progressive republican vs a Marxist, you should vote for the flawed candidate. You’re not going toteach the GOP a lesson if Obama wins. There’s no guarantee we’ll get anything better in 2016. What is likely is if everybody who thinks mittens isn’t good enough doesnt vote, then we’ll get Obama for 4 years. Maybe you think that’s ok. I don’t.
Was just listening to rush. He says he restrained going all out on the candidates so he could support the nominee, whoever it is. He says the enemy is Obama. He’s right. I guess you’re basically telling me Rush is wrong.
Bob, no idea what you’re talking about. Did you get the impression I’m a dem or something? I liked and supported Bush.
Rush knows what side his bread is buttered boy does he
he drives a VERY nice car
Vampire werewolf girl is for Romney! Yay! Bloodsuckers!
@49 …Squid-Happyfeet 2012
Vampire werewolf girl is a Mormon! Yay! Bloodsuckers! But she knows Mitt’s heart and that’s what counts! Because it’s true true true, not fake fake fake (and haz nothing to do with the whole bloodpumping thing).
Squid the GOP is not one entity that foisted these candidates on us.
I agree that it’s not a single, unified entity. I consider more as a collection of long-time political operatives, who’ve spent their careers building up contacts, resources, relationships, tactics and strategies, and organizations that they use to promote candidates they feel will best represent their interests. There’s nothing wrong with this, in and of itself, apart from the fact that the interests of these power players no longer coincide with the interests of the electorate.
There’s no guarantee we’ll get anything better in 2016.
There’s no guarantee of anything; there’s only influence, incentives and probabilities. I maintain that giving your time, your money, and your vote to non-conservative Beltway organizations in support of non-conservative candidates is a very good way to promote more of the same. Conversely, I think that withholding your support from the same old same old is the only practical influence an average individual can use to change the status quo. Sure, I’d love it if everybody gave up their hobbies to pursue political reform, but there’s only so many people willing to make that sacrifice.
What is likely is if everybody who thinks mittens isn’t good enough doesnt vote, then we’ll get Obama for 4 years. Maybe you think that’s ok. I don’t.
I don’t think it’s okay, either. Which is why I’m so pissed-off at the GOP for denying us a candidate we can vote for. If Obama is re-elected, it will be because the Beltway GOP refused to support the reformist candidates.
I understand your argument that the country may not survive another 4 years of Obama; I share that feeling myself. But I’m looking down the road at the next 20 years, not just the next four. For as damaging as another 4 years of Obama will be, how much more damaging will it be for our country to go another generation without a political party willing and able to fight to roll back the federal Leviathan? How will our children and grandchildren ever be freed from the nanny state and its crippling debt if their choices are forever limited to those who support growing the nanny state, versus those who’ll simply maintain it (and perhaps nibble around the edges a bit)?
I still think that Obama won’t win. For as dispiriting as a Romney nomination would be, the past four years of Obamanomics at home and remote-controlled drone assassinations abroad is going to leave the Dems even more dispirited. Regardless, I don’t want either one of those guys in the Oval Office. At this point, my energies are focused on reforming the party from the ground up. I want Governor Dayton to face a motivated and antagonistic Legislature in St Paul, and I want Obamney to face a motivated and antagonistic Congress, and a couple of dozen aggressively recalcitrant States. Above all, I want the Beltway insiders to realize that the momentum is with the reform movement, and that they’ll be best served to get aboard our train before they get run over by it.
Obama and the commiecrats aren’t the enemy. They’re the opposition. The Establishment GOP elite is the enemy for the simple reason that small government conservatives and classical liberals are their enemy.
As Jeff said in a newer thread:
First things first.
Paul Zummo posted on 2/1 @ 7:05 am
Yes, actually, you will.
If Romney is the nominee, and he gets fewer votes in the general than McCain did — which, given a presumed lack of a VP Palin or anyone else that conservatives might be able to vote for seems a distinct possibility — I fail to see how that’s anybody’s fault but Romney’s. And the various Establishment types who’ve been trying to cram Mr. Inevitable down our throats for months prior to the first primary. Who will now, post-FL, be declaring the the primary all but decided, what with the Mittster having a whopping 5% of the 1144 votes he needs to wrap up the nomination. “An insurmountable lead! It’s time to come together for the good of the party!”
Make the case: “why should anyone vote for Romney?” Don’t tell me “well, he’s better than Obama, so you have to vote for him” — Joe freakin’ Biden would be better than Obama; doesn’t mean I’d vote for him, either.
Seriously, is Mister Mitt so utterly devoid of charm, and incapable of reaching out to actual Republican voters (rather than the possibly-mythical ‘independents’) that the only way to get conservatives to vote for him is through threats?
As Jeff’s already pointed out, 2012 was a potential “perfect storm” for the Rs, since on paper, a week-old tuna sandwich could beat President Chavez. But rather than say “Excellent, a great opportunity to run someone who really embodies Republican principles — we can’t lose”, the Rs go with the weakest, most moderate candidate available, a man who lost to John McCain handily.
Except it’s clear to me that Romney does exemplify Republican principles quite well, the foremost, and possibly only one being “we want to be the ones controlling Leviathan.”
We need a movement to get people out to vote, but then either turn in a blank ballot or just vote the bottom of the ticket.
If enough folks would do that, it would definitely get some attention.
Simple answer: it won’t. There is no way the US will survive unless government spending and scope are reduced.
There is no way the US will survive unless government spending and scope are reduced.
And for that to happen, you first need a political leadership dedicated to more than tinkering around the margins.
Romney lost to McCain. Who lost to Obama.
You should expect he’d get few votes than McCain did.
Also, it will be the fault of those who nominated the man who lost to McCain who lost to Obama, should the man who lost to McCain now lose to Obama.
Enjoy!
If you think President Romney is a win, then you are an idiot.
I just love the way people who support nominating the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama, want to blame the people who refuse to vote for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama for the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama’s losing the election.
What, didn’t we make it clear enough that we didn’t want to vote for Romney last time? Why would the GOP just assume we’ve changed our minds since then?
And why are we the bad guys if we remain consistent, and not-vote for Mitt yet again, just like we said we would. Why isn’t the (inevitable) defeat the fault of the numbnuts who insisted on nominating him anyway?
See 2008 and 2010. Get the conservatives excited, you win. Pat them on the head and tell them they “have” to vote for a Giant Douche: they stay home and you lose.
You’d think the pragmatics would understand that, and act accordingly. You’d think.