Comments on: A Quantum of Tough

By: Claretta Weekley

Claretta Weekley — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 22:17:37 +0000

Thorn of Girl…

Great info may be observed on this net blog….

By: Herb Beetley

Herb Beetley — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:10:53 +0000

Third Flower…

My spouse and i are already now delighted that Albert could execute his studies thanks to the concepts he had by means of your web content. It is actually every so often perplexing to only always be giving freely techniques which a lot of people could …

By: Repair_Man_Jack

Repair_Man_Jack — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:57:05 +0000

If he turns that around, Super Tuesday may start to take care of itself.

By: Repair_Man_Jack

Repair_Man_Jack — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:56:19 +0000

Come back more often, dude.

By: streetwise

streetwise — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:06:19 +0000

Clearly, you will replace FOX News

But seriously, good stuff.

By: rhampton

rhampton — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:59:29 +0000

“The electorate got bigger. It got more conservative. Romney did better. That, more than anything else I?ve seen from the man, was impressive.”

Have to agree with that, but Super Tuesday is (probably) the final exam and I’m waiting to see how well he can handle that particularly tough challenge.

By: acat

acat — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:23:59 +0000

Let me help you out.

100 – 48 = 52% who did NOT vote for Romney

Hint – you left out the numbers for Ron Paul and “other GOP candidates” including Perry, Roemer, and (MI native) McCotter.

So .. not-Romney won the popular vote… Romney merely lost by a smaller margin than I initially indicated.

This does not help his case, but it does prove his supporters need to take some remedial statistics….

Mew

By: renl57

renl57 — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:16:38 +0000

…Among Republican voters:

Romney 48%
Santorum 37%
Gingrich 7%

So Romney won more Republican votes than Santorum and Gingrich combined.

But those results got skewed by the now well-known liberal Democrat mischief-making voters. Among Democrat voters:

Santorum 53%
Romney 18%
Gingrich 3%

By: bgintn

bgintn — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:00:29 +0000

A Obama wolve on the hill over the flock.
A Romney wolve in a partial sheep clothing at the edge of the flock.
A Santorum wolve in better sheep clothing in the flock.
A Gingrich sheep dog trying to get the sheep away from the wolves.
A Paul black sheep on the edge of the flock.

By: Finrod

Finrod — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:30:03 +0000

Those two words don’t belong in the same sentence without a carefully-placed NOT in there.

Romney the Suckweasel has flip-flopped on every issue under the sun save for Ann Romney. If you think Obama won’t eviscerate him on that, you need to put down the Kool-Aid and slowly back away.

And no, I loathe Santorum as much as I loathe Romney.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:21:34 +0000

By: Finrod

Finrod — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:21:32 +0000

By: Finrod

Finrod — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:20:43 +0000

I actually voted for Romney on Super Tuesday four years ago. Why? Because the other options were John McCain or Mike Huckabee.

This time we have better options than Romney, plus ObamaCare/RomneyCare is an issue this time.

To put it graphically:

Gingrich, Santorum > Romney > Huckabee, McCain

If our choices in 2016 come down to Palin, Cain, and Santorum, I will bet you money there will be people who support Santorum now that will bitterly oppose him in 2016. Why? Because there are better options.

By: HaroldHutchison

HaroldHutchison — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:10:00 +0000

Agreed. I have been mystified as to what about Romney has changed from 2008 to 2012… and it just seems opportunistic or something.

By: acat

acat — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:34:31 +0000

All the history is still here, and still searchable.

Poor Seth.

Mew

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:25:00 +0000

People like you did. And you did so in order to prop up a 1 term governor of a liberal state. Also, you did it by calling opponents of Mitt bigots and comparing them to Nazi’s.

By: sethellis

sethellis — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:18:49 +0000

I think that’s kind of the point though. There’s more than one way to win. Obama did so through rhetoric. Absolutely nothing in his history showed an ability to get things done. He was a junior senator, and he voted present half the time. People fell for it, and we can see the results.

I feel that some Republican voters are falling for the same ruse. They support candidates because they have the momentum, the firey rhetoric, or because they think the politician identifies with them. Yet the truth is that candidates like Palin, Bachmann, Cain , and Santorum completely lack the leadership skills necessary to be president.

This foolishness is also the reason why we screwed it up with Perry. Perry was always the only real legitimate challenge to Romney. Yet we drove him from the race because we were blinded by the illusion of momentum.

By: Vegas_Rick

Vegas_Rick — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:56:51 +0000

and lies more consistently than, his competitors. Doesn’t sound like much of a change from the “Leader” we have now.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:54:04 +0000

…

By: sethellis

sethellis — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:50:29 +0000

Romney shows leadership by continuing to deliver results in the primary. In fact, this is probably the sole reason his campaign has gotten this far.

I want a leader that leads by doing. If leadership means talking the rhetorical lines then Obama could be considered an effective leader. But the fact is Obama is not an effective leader. He pontificate from the oval office every day, but never actually takes the lead in getting things done. He even took a back seat during the healthcare debate. I think it’s funny that it is called Obamacare because it was almost completely an invention of congressional Democrats.

We don’t need another campaigner in chief, or another smooth talking politician. We have plenty of that. We need someone who can actually reliever results. I believe Romney can do that, and he’ll start by winning the primary.