…although a grammar-error reflects a deeper problem with Mitt’s candidacy, which will be explored.

First, one sentence requires clarification: I wrote “In this instance, comparing/contrasting [JUST for example] Mitt and Perry, the “retail politics” magnetism of the latter is [albeit too infrequently] evidenced quite regularly.” When I was referring to the infrequency of Perry’s magnetism, I was citing the dearth of media-reports thereof.

*

Second, regarding Santorum, the fact that Mitt is going after him aggressively [just discussed by Politico on PMSNBC] is huge, and the two criteria [spending/immigration] that are supposedly to be promoted don’t even cite a great S.C. concern [opposition to "right to work" laws].

*

Third, it may be recalled that The Newt has unambiguously supported the Individual Mandate. This is why “Wonkish1″ has absented him/herself from RS during the past month, and this is why “JSobieski” has chosen to discuss other facets of the campaign. Both resisted this conclusion aggressively, despite provision of overwhelming documentation thereof. This was documented both within video-clips and in his RECENT writings [much as how he would claim the posture dated back two decades, when he based opposition to HillaryCare on an expressed-preference of private-insurance instead of single-payor].

Quoting from “Winning the Future” [2005, page 116, ¶ 2]: “4. You have the right to be part of the lowest-cost insurance pool and you have a responsibility to buy insurance. We need some significant changes to ensure that every American is insured, but we should make clear that a 21st Century Intelligent Health System requires everyone to participate in the insurance system.”

Quoting from “Real Change” [2008, page 227, ¶ 3]: “Third, individuals are expected to help pay for their care. Everyone should be required to have coverage. Those with very low incomes should receive vouchers or tax credits to help them buy insurance. Those who oppose the concept of insurance should be required to post a bond to cover costs. Allowing individuals to pass their health costs onto others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors that bankrupt the current system.”

*

Third, Paul’s status [discussed by Dick Morris yesterday, http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/why-is-ron-paul-getting-votes-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/] illustrates the need to recall the three “layers” of the GOP platform; he notes that, although he rejects two [foreign policy and non-libertarian social policy], it is vital to integrate his economic message. Just like RR, Perry has also espoused fiscal responsibility [even specifically praising Paul's perspective on the Fed], suggesting a potential facility of ensuring his viewpoint would be emphasized in a GOP-POTUS campaign in the fall..and beyond.

Morris emphasized the 50%-vote in NH from youth [who could be "imprinted" to remain within the GOP], and D-rationalizations [Rendell just said, on PMSNBC, that politicians "get trapped within the system"] would only emphasize further the capacity of Perry to dismantle D.C. [a major message he has increasingly conveyed during the debates].

Politically, if indeed Colbert’s “committee that is exploring whether to create an Exploratory Committee” yields any type of formal filing, the “message” of widespread disgust with insiders can easily be captured ONLY by Perry, for reasons aforementioned. It is hoped that the TPM will recognize the sincerity of Perry’s unambiguous pledge ["I have your back and please let me have yours"] and act accordingly.

This is the worst field in my lifetime. If Mitt is a disaster then the other candidates are an even more certain disaster.

Newt Gingrich? The mother load of Newt’s baggage has yet to hit the fan.

Santorum? He has “I’m a social conservative” tattooed on his forehead and the MSM will hammer him for it just like they have already.

My man Perry is imploding with his staff leaving to go to work for Mitt.

Who will save us, Erick? Show us the light, Erick. Give us a full throated endorsement of someone and lead us from the darkness.

The beltway media is behind Mitt Romney. Mitt will get along just fine with the existing Senate. I can just see it now. Photo opts of Mitch McConnell and Romney begging to please the liberals.
The inside trading will continue. The trade offs made at the expense of Americans. Washington, both Democrats and Republicans, are afraid of Gingrich.
Forget this Bain debacle, the real problem is the Mass. liberal on the Republican ticket. Romneycare equals Obamacare. It was the model for Obamacare. No one’s talking about it and that is a shame.
Florida is important, but it is no longer a conservative state. The population has changed over the years. The north has moved south. They love us, but just like the radicals that move into our country because they want relief,and then go about changing it to what they hate; the north has brought their baggage too. There are UNION workers in Florida-they’ve moved from Michigan,which they destroyed. They’ve moved from NY , which they allowed to be destroyed. The entire northern sector of the U.S. has moved down here. We welcome them, but don’t be thinking those are conservatives pushing Romney. Florida is not what you think. We love Florida, but we haven’t considered it southern and conservative in years.

Republicans voters (for the most part) and the GOP have become nothing more than Puppets for the Left to control, especially in Presidential elections.

Liberals HATED ‘W’ and eventually Republicans came to hate him.

Liberals HATED Palin, and most Republicans started hating her, hating her a lot quicker than it took for them to hate ‘W’ as their Puppet Masters grew more experienced at controlling the strings.

By the time Herman Cain showed up, it took a mere tug at the strings and most of the Right went to destroying him or sitting idly by as Cain was destroyed.

Now we have John Bolton backing Romney, i.e. Bolton backs Socialism over Communism. Never thought I would see that happen…

Erick,
now you sound just like one of those so-called “concern trolls.”

I’m positive you’re not raising Romney’s Bain record because you’re “concerned” it will affect his electability.

You’re trying to stop him from getting the nomination at all costs, and you’re knowingly smearing him with the same tools that Ted Kennedy used in 1994.

You’ll be pleased to know that you Perry supporters have earned the eternal gratitude of liberal Obama supporters like E.J. Dionne:

“What if a certain class of capitalist makes scads of money not by building up companies but by tearing them down? What if there is a distinction between the capitalist we typically honor who comes up with a good product and hires people to make and market it; and another kind who takes over a company, pulls out all the cash he can, and then abandons it to die?

“This is not the narrative of some Marxist intellectual writing in an obscure journal. It’s how Perry, who last I checked was a rather ardent conservative, described Romney’s line of work.”

http://tinyurl.com/7lrtqrr

Erick,
you’re worried that Romney is unelectable? You and Perry are *making* Romney unelectable.

The most delicious thing (from the liberals’ point of view) is that you have legitimized the left-wing attack on Romney. You’re basically admitting that Ted Kennedy was right about Romney in 1994. Now all Obama, or the DNC has to do is quote you, Perry, and Gingrich verbatim in their attack ads on Romney, should he be nominated.

Romney’s background is widely known and documented. He’s by far the most vetted candidate still running. The companies Bain invested in are well-known and can be examined by anyone who wants to. Your claim that “There are a lot of unknowns with Bain Capital” is a sad effort to muddy the water; if you want to know, ask around. Romney’s not hiding anything.

Gingrich’s “KingOfBain” video has been debunked by everyone who has examined it. One of the best is here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/four-pinocchios-for-king-of-bain/2012/01/12/gIQADX8WuP_blog.html

Your anti-Romney psychosis is deepening, Erick. You’ve developed a reputation for dealing with reality, but your reputation is taking a huge hit when you write things like this. Of all people, you ought to be forthright and clear, not helping the DNC confuse voters by alluding to “unknowns” that don’t exist.

Not to mention, you keep shilling for Gingrich, who has been far less forthcoming than Romney. In fact, we’re just now learning a little more about Gingrich’s lobbying activities, since he refuses to explain beyond lying about being paid $1.6 million for services as a “historian.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/group-calls-newt-gingrich-lobbying-investigation/story?id=15298454#.TxApY29YuAo

Every one of them seems to be a lawyer and have done lots of “public service”. Other than that, name any of these that ever had to meet a payroll and hire/fire people other than maybe a secretary:
- Obama
- Biden
- Hillary
- Clinton
- Gore
- Kerry
- Edwards
etc.

to paint Romney as trying to buy the election when Obama is raising 1 Billion dollars. That figure is well known and far more than anything the Reps. will be able to do.

Bruce Herschensohn ran against Barbara Boxer in 1994, beating Tom Campbell and Sonny Bono to win the primary. Herschensohn wasn’t a wealthy, self-funded candidate, rather, he was a conservative L.A.-based TV commentator who had experience in the Nixon Administration. He ran for the Senate nomination in 1986, losing to the self-funded and moderate Ed Zschau, a two-term Congressman from the Silicon Valley. Herschensohn ran the closest to Boxer in a year that featured a weak George H.W. Bush at the top of the ticket with Ross Perot doing better in California than in most states.

and John “Channeler” Edwards…a couple more sanctimonious sleazeballs who made their millions the old fashioned way-they whored for it! Republicans better understand yesterday that you don’t waste too much time defending yourself and capitalism, you attack, attack, attack Obama with grand theft charges: TARP, Solyndra, et al. Here, the best defense is indeed a good offense. I remember Romney in ’08, chasing down some democrat pit bull journalist who had savaged him, pleading with him to explain why he was being so darn mean and begging for a Kumbayah moment with him. Drop the mitts, Mitt! This is Chicago blood sport. Rick Perry, I have no doubt, would relish and prevail in the bare knuckles brawl that’s about to take place.

…consider efforts by Santorum to redistribute wealth [from "It Takes a Family"...pages 151-152].

“The opportunity to build wealth, and the understanding of how to do that, needs to be democratized. Senator Joe Lieberman and I have been promoting an idea ever since I arrived int he Senate. Individual Development Accounts, IDAs, act like a 401(k0 program for low-income individuals. These programs are set-up, many by faith-based organizations, with a mix of federal, state and private dollars. These organizations help their low-income clients set-up accounts at their local banks or credit unions, provide training on how to manage and grow these accounts, and then MATCH INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THESE ACCOUNTS DOLLAR-FOR-DOLLAR UP TO $500 PER YEAR. These accounts earn tax-free interest and can be used to pay for education, to buy a home, or to start a business. In other words, these accounts launch low-income people into the asset accumulation game.”

Yeah, and they also manifest a type of Compassionate Conservatism” that BHO would perceive as “redistributional,” eh?

I wince when people hold up Newt Gingrich as an alternative to Mitt Romney. Why? I’ve dissected this short revealing video of Gingrich and Hillary Clinton in front of the cameras back in 2005 making the case for health care mandates. I was able to weed my way through the piles of Newt-speak to find a very candid glimpse of the real Newt.

More…

An extra “t” snuck in there.

I am simply curious what we are contrasting against? Is the choice or implication now that people will go with “the devil they know”?

Let’s talk about “optics”, shall we? Since 2008 these pages have been graced with gratuitous, truthful examples of how Mr. Obama has been a one man wrecking ball to our economy and way of life. He has destroyed the American Dream for thousands, undermined America’s role in the world, foisted socialist themes into our nomenclature, lost our credit rating, lumped historical amount of debt on our children, bowed to our enemies, depleted our military capabilities, appointed liberal radicals to SCOTUS and installed a new social program which will ensure our fiscal destruction and potentially changed our rights, as articulated by the Constitution.

So with the aforementioned in mind, are you saying that the optics of a “millionaire” banker (whether true or not) as you state it…wins?

Anyone have a Nexis account to source the 1994 article? Politico covered it too.

http://forums.charlotteobserver.com/?q=node/15229

Pious Baloney from the National Revue: Mitt Romney ran a firm that invested in struggling businesses, made money, and never asked for a bailout — and Romney’s rivals apparently expect Republican voters to regard that as a liability.
Never asked for a bailout? Uh:

Republican Senate nominee Mitt Romney’s rescue of a business consulting firm was achieved in part by convincing the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to forgive roughly $10 million of the company’s debts, according to sources close to the deal and federal records obtained by The Boston Globe. Romney, whose business acumen has been the cornerstone of his campaign, has said saving the Bain & Co. consulting firm from the brink of bankruptcy in 1991 was the accomplishment that most convinced him he had the mettle to be a US senator.

That’s from The Boston Globe, October 25, 1994 (via Nexis). So not only did Mitt Romney ask for a federal bailout—he received one. And unlike loan guarantees, Romney sought—and received—the equivalent of cold hard cash. Romney apologists will say that the FDIC is funded by financial transaction fees, but taxpayers provided the backstop, and even though Bain & Co. went on to make millions more in profits, the fund was never replenished.

That’s not the only bailout in Romney’s past, however. When a steel mill backed by Bain collapsed, not only was the entire workforce out of a job, but the federal government was on the hook to the tune of $44 million to bail out the mill’s pension plan. Bain, however, made nearly $10 million on the deal, profiting handsomely from failure.

I can’t say that I’m surprised that Mitt Romney and his allies have conveniently forgotten about these bailouts … but I am a little puzzled about why his Republican rivals haven’t brought them up yet. They don’t have much—if any—more time.

Read more here: http://forums.charlotteobserver.com/?q=node/15229#storylink=cpy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58952.html#ixzz1hqSHP532

takes bailout funds, approves of TARP and Auto bailouts and also tried to take credit for the Detroit bailout before he changed his mind.

Fact is dems see Mitt as the other Chosen One because he’s mallable, his MA record is proof the man will cave in to support the other side too often. A true conservative would lead as a conservative not a moderate and progressive even in a blue state……..that’s his excuse. Except for the fact that gop governors have won blue states many times and lead as a conservative. Isn’t Chris Christie standing up to dems and lib media. To beat Romney, focus on his past career in the public sector and private sector too.

My guess is that come election time Bain Capital as an issue with rest alongside McCain’s houses in relative importance — an issue that is more or less non-impactful even though many people in the media talk about it. A placeholder and way to talk about other issues rather than an actual issue itself. This relies on Mitt dealing with it well, though, which I imagine he’ll do in time. And I’m not sure that many in the GOP are doing Mitt any favors, since he’s currently not explaining Bain but instead saying there’s nothing to explain.

Watching the (melodramatic, groan-inducing) “King of Bain” ad-film, there is a sense of, “wow, that is kind of messed up”. Romney needs to say something more than “it’s about envy” to combat the “that is messed up” factor. If Romney is running on his record as a private citizen, and the jobs he created as a private citizen, all this stuff is on the table. Mitt put it there. And what’s on the table vis-a-vis the Bain record is not a jobs creation program/plan that will play well in PA, OH, or MI, relying as it does in many cases on eliminating surplus labor (i.e. voters) from the payroll.

So, if I had any advice, it’d be to let Mitt work through this on his own. Support from the right will only help until Tampa. Maybe not even until then. After that it becomes a liability. So if he muddles through with a little help from his friends, he’s muddling into quicksand.

Romney seems to love creative destruction when it comes to companies like AmPad when it leads to big profits for Bain while costing thousands of people their jobs and livliehoods. So be it. Perhaps that is the way the system works.

But why is it that he didn’t apply that same standard to AIG or Goldman Sachs or Fannie or Freddie or Bank of America? He seemed to be stating in 2008 that the creative destruction of those private companies would destroy the economy and thus the taxpayers should be required to bail them out with no hope of ever seeing a return of the money given to them. Could it be perhaps that in the case of the creative destruction of AmPad that the only people who would be hurt were the little guys who ran the machines while if creative destruction was applied to AIG or Goldman the pain would be felt in the halls of places like Bain?

Romney’s adherence to this philosophy seems to only be applicable when it benefits people like him.

If not Romney, who? It’s time for an endorsement from Erick.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka found one thing to agree with Newt Gingrich on: the attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.

“I agree with some of the things Newt Gingrich says – not a lot, but some,” Trumka said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” continuing on to say that he thought Gingrich’s line of attack on Romney was fair game.

“I heard [host Joe Scarborough] say it’s going to backfire because of the attack on free enterprise. The question is what kind of free enterprise, and who does that free enterprise benefit?” Trumka said. “If that kind of free enterprise only benefits the top percent, you’re going to see more of what you saw on the street.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71408.html

Is going to play great in Ohio and PA.

So, Mitt doesn’t get any blue states or swing states or conservative states because I bet 10-20% of conservatives bothered to vote for McCain because Palin was on the ticket.

Maybe Mitt will put Nikki on the ticket. How is that going to work out? LOL

Including & especially Obama. No need to focus on that tiny man’s money. oodles of other fat, greedy capitalist swine financing the Chief Loser, a crowd of plutocrats to be thrown in the face Obama, Axelrod, and the other dull witted inventions of the media that cluster around him. i think you could call it a target rich environment.
Go for the juglar.

Yesterday on Rush:

After Perry described rival Mitt Romney’s work at Bain Capital as “vulture capitalism” (rather than venture capitalism), Limbaugh lashed out.

“That is indefensible!” he said on his EIB broadcast today. “It’s absurd…this is the language of leftists! This is the way Fidel Castro thinks, or says he thinks.”

http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2012/01/rush-limbaugh-compares-rick-perry-to-fidel-castro-for-using-language-of-leftists-against-romney/

Well, if Rush said it, then it must be true, and if Perry is a Communist, then so am I. Romney can run adds saying Newt is handing out free abortions, but anyone who touches Bain (Part owner of Clear Channel radio) is a communist.

Do svidaniya, Comrade Limbaugh.

Recalling President Reagan’s question to voters during a debate with Jimmy Carter, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”, I ask the question:

Were Massachusetts taxpayers better off when Mitt Romney left office than they were when he was sworn in?

In respect of health care and health insurance, we know that they were much worse off because of Romneycare. As yet I have read of no positive accomplishments for taxpayers by the Romney administration. If there were any, I invite Romney advocates to provide details.

In particular, I wonder what if anything Romney did to combat the wholesale corruption that permeates every level of government in Massachusetts. Based on the absence of any reports of a crackdown, it would seem that he looked the other way rather than risk the welcome received by John Lindsay from New York’s corrupt unions — a transit strike and the sanitation unions’ failure to plow snow in Queens for more than a week while the Lindsays were vacationing in Puerto Rico.

From Karl Denninger at Market Ticker Blog:

Mitt Romney And Bain: Fair?

Is this a fair attack or not?

It’s hard-hitting, but is it correct?

To a large degree, yes it is.

Let’s talk about what Bain, and other “private equity” firms really do. Their task — how they make money — is to find companies that are “inefficient” and turn them into more-efficient entities. Their reward for doing so is that they take some of the spoils for themselves — frequently as much as a quarter of the value in the firm or more.

Efficiency is not a bad thing, and driving out inefficiency is, on balance, good. The problem is how that efficiency comes about.

We live in a world where our government has conspired with banks to make cross-border arbitrage profitable. Very profitable. The result has been the evisceration of our working-class population — the vast majority of America. Our manufacturing has been made “more efficient” by moving it to China, where people labor under effective slave conditions — conditions so good that recently a group of employees at Foxconn threatened to commit suicide en-masse.

But it doesn’t end there. The abuse of leverage makes possible the taking of more and more debt by firms that then gets paid out to these private-equity raiders. The putative argument for this sort of structure is that the debt will help grow the company and thus everyone will benefit.

But it doesn’t always work out that way.

KB Toys is one example outlined in that video that is truthful. KB was larded up with debt and ultimately collapsed under the load. Yet Bain made a monstrous profit on what was, objectively, a failed transaction.

This sort of “strip it and steal it” model is entirely legal. But the question is not whether something is legal — it is whether it’s a model we ought to encourage and base our economy upon, and whether someone who has practiced this destruction of American jobs and the offshoring of capital should be elected President.

The answer, quite simply, is no.

For starters, one of the biggest recipients, Goldman Sach’s, is Romney’s #1 donor. Romney is connected to many of the other recipients also.

When the amount of government loans and bailouts used by Bain Capital to execute their deals comes out, who thinks that Tea Partiers are going to crawl to the polls to vote for it’s CEO?????

As a CEO of a firm which benefitted him personally Romney was a wild success. But as a CEO of a government as Governor of Massachusetts Romney was a disaster (47th in jobs creation in the nation).

Meanwhile we will have lost the one candidate who has a record of instituting all that the Tea Party conservatives have longed for as CEO of his State in Governor Perry in instituting Texas as the biggest jobs creator in the country, in the primary.

Lesson….. Romney was a good CEO when it came to benefitting his own bank account. Perry was a good CEO when it came to benefitting the people whom he served!!

According to this article covering this mornings Perry et al Ballot lawsuit, this is the first paragraph-

“Campaign officials for the four presidential candidates who failed to qualify for the VA primary testified Friday that they likely would have succeeded had they been able to have out of state residents circulate the petitions.”

The judge will rule on the case by the end of today.

Interesting that Perry’s attorney said that they have spent $91,000. on petition access in the various states, but, $45,000 of that was spent in VA.

I’ll have a Glenfiddich with a splash of aqua, thank you.

I really think a worse narrative would be the Disgraced former speaker who once shutdown the federal government. I am not too sure that it is not the almost shutdown over the summer that cause the Congress to receive their lowest numbers since Gallup has been recording it. If Obama is going to run against Congress, then Newt will make for a perfect bad guy? If the Chicago machine can wrap this Congress around Newt, then we would also be in huge trouble. I think with the baggage Newt brings, it would also be hard to beat Obama. This is the very reason I think Perry is by far the best candidate to face Obama, and I think if the party would unites behind his message of real Reform, we would see a positive coattail all the way down to local governments. This is my take at least, but I’ve been shocked by how the media dictates the narrative, and think it is why we need a candidate with a strong record, over someone with high name recognition or oratory skills.

The Judge said they waited too long to file their case. Sh!t!

WaPo story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/perry-gingrich-lose-lawsuit-to-get-on-virginia-primary-ballot/2012/01/13/gIQAyN0pwP_blog.html

What I take from this is that they have a case, but it was denied because the state would not have time to prepare changed absentee ballots for mail out. So their suit had merit. Ah well, its just one state- not super critical to the final delegate count if its the only one.

If Rick Perry gets out of the race due to a bad showing in S.C.
the Tea Party looses.
We are left with Newt or Mitten’s. Neither a long term TEA PARTY AMERICAN. Newts record and baggage will follow him and Mittens, the establishment, Fox News and the like will make him our candidate.
We are desperate for Tea Party Express and/or Palin to jump in and tell the American people what the press won’t allow Perry to do.

of nominating McCain and Dole so Romney would fit right in with that group.

Hope this works, never embedded a video before.

is his business experience and “job creation record”, he should present evidence of creating those net jobs. I don’t criticize him for being a “capitalist” but need more than generalities and platitudes about his “record”. He needs to show us his record, in detail, and then we might believe him. Otherwise, he’s just Obama in a better suit making false claims and promises he won’t keep. At the moment I wouldn’t even buy a used car from him.

We already know that the Democrat spin-machine is going to go after the nominee in whatever way they think is going to get them re-elected. This isn’t news. But you are worrying about it too much just for the sake of decrying Romney. What a waste of time. Each of the candidates is going to have their own personal firing line they would have to wade through assuming they got the nomination. Santorum is a big-government Republican – perhaps worse than any of the other candidates – with no executive experience (though that really didn’t hurt Obama). Gingrich’s infidelity and general dislike are prime targets for the smear campaign. Ron Paul’s wacky newspaper statements are easy prey.

Instead of writing these stupid two-paragraph articles, why not point out what each candidate has to do to SUCCEED! We all know you don’t like Romney, but every candidate has their flaws. We don’t need to be tearing down our own candidates, and Romney at least has worked in the private sector – something only Ron Paul can also attest to.

in all of tht time this is the worse set of candidates I have ever seen from the Republican Party. This is the worse run primary season. The GOP seems to be run by a bunch of amateurs. For God only knows what reason the GOP decided that Romney was to be their man. Nothing has deterred them from tht choice. The Elite Republicans decided after Reagan that they would somehow get rid of the conservatives and move the Party to the middle and left. slowly over the past 23 years they have managed to do that. The real push came with Bush 42. Micheal Steele took over the RNC and told the conservatives they weren’t welcome anymore. When the Tea Party arrived and even though they took the House for the Republicans they have lambasted them and demonized them. The Party hs no intention of allowing a full fledged conservative to gain the power to repel Obamacare. Romney is the Father of Obamacare. The only real answer I can come up with for the party is that they have moved so far to the Left and been infiltrated with Progressive Liberals into the Elite leadership positions. At this point the Progressive Liberals don’t really care which Party wins they win wand will continue to push their agenda as they did with Boehner as Speaker of the House. The Democrats have won every major issue withthe budget and deficit since the Republicans took over. Whats with that? It is like Pelosi never left. People laugh at me when i predict that the Republicans won’t even be able to keep the House tis election let alone add seats to the Senate. The stage is set now for the Democrats to keep the White House and take over Congress again. There will be no stopping the Progressive Liberals if that happens. Romney might collect Moderates but the conservatives and Independents he will lose. Many conservatives will just stay home and not bother. After 46 years as Conservative Republican i have disavowed any membership now with the Republican Party. I consider myself an “Independent Conservative”. I am a man without a Party now. This will be the worse beating the Republicans have had in many many years. All of this is the Fault of the Republican party and their ill fated move to the left. I predict that by January 2013 there will be a new and Powerful Party emerge out of the ruins of the GOP.