« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mitt Romney: Registered Democrat

the good news is that he is a "natural born citizen"

By: streiff (Diary)  |  February 3rd, 2012 at 01:20 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Mitt Romney‘s 1992 Democratic Primary vote for Paul Tsongas — a technocratic modernizer and reformer, but very much a Democrat — raised some Republican eyebrows last week.

What hasn’t been mentioned: Romney’s vote formally enrolled him in the Democratic Party. more…

For anyone who either believes in leprechauns or that Mitt Romney is a conservative this should be of significance, especially since his minions haunted this site making much of the fact that Rick Perry was a Democrat before 1989.

The speculation is that Romney had originally intended to challenge Ted Kennedy in the Democrat primary then decided to run as a Republican. This makes his 1994 campaign strategy much more understandable.

According to a Romney campaign spokesperson, Romney “switched back.” One doesn’t know how Romney managed to “switch back.” According to the town clerk, Romney became an Republican only on October 19, 1993. The implication is that Romney had either never voted between his registration as a independent in 1979 and 1992 (so his vote in 1992 automatically enrolled him as a Democrat) or that he was a regular Democrat voters in those earlier elections and changed to Republican to run for Senate.

Now I’m off to National Review and Jennifer Rubin’s precious little blog to read some more on how conservative Willard Romney is.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Since he’s both a Registered Democrat and a GOP Candidate, he’s a uniter and not a divider. Since his core principles simply do not exist; what is there not to like? I mean the Primary season is over, he’s inevitable, just get in line, man.

    • andystone

      His opinions are always in line with the current opinion polls of whichever constituency he aims to represent. Furthermore, when challenged, he will protest with indignation that he has always held the same opinions.

    • georgehenry85

      Romney is what you call a NEO-CON.

      Simply an anti-concervative libtard that has hijacked the GOP to destroy America. Obama is also a NEO-CON that’s why the media supports Romney and Obama! The FED, military and media get all the power under a NEO-CON presidency!

      It should never be about who can win the presidency accoring to the media it should be about who can better the united states of America!! Do you really think Romney would do that? We just seen what 4 years of Romney would look like under Obama! If it came down to romney vs Obama people would notice they are the same and would vote Obama.

      But the American people are slowly waking up and realising that the only one who is different from the status quo is the 76 year old conservative! The NEO-CONS worst nightmare!

  • brojohn2

    It is fascinating that the MSM has not picked up on this one, even though it has been mentioned before. How about Ann Coulter, shill for Mittens, and the “progressive” wing of the Republican Party. Can’t believe that she used to be a true conservative.

    Romney has never been a conservative, and he won’t be once he gets in the White House, (if he does) because then he will be able to let his liberal self set to work to change Obama care, not repeal it. I only wish that more Conservatives would jump on this bandwagon and get this man defeated. I will be glad to vote for Gingrich, or Santorum, at least I would not have to hold my nose to do so.

    • Stan

      until after Willard’s coronation is complete. Then they’ll cut loose with all of this – the flip-flops, being the Godfather of Obamacare, etc. It’s a set-up.

      • znjs

        or pointed out the connection between Romneycare and Obamacare. You believe that they are hiding this information from the public in order to spring it on him in the general election. You seriously think this? This is what you believe?

        • Vegas_Rick

          Not like they will.

          • znjs

            I think Romneycare and Flip-flopper are the 2nd and 3rd most common words associated with Romney after Mormon in the polling I saw.

            I think people sometimes mistake people’s reactions to a story and the media’s reporting of the story. The story is out there for anyone paying attention. The media has done that. Whether people still vote for him or not isn’t in the media’s hands.

          • clowngirl

            It’s more likely to be the Bain stuff (which KILLED Romney in 1994) he won’t be able to shut down the Democrats by screaming class warfare and we don’t really know if there was anything amiss.

            there’s also the medicare scandal at Damon Capital while Romney supervised over it which has hardly been touched.

            There’s potentially some serious baggage that we don’t even know about.

          • znjs

            that they’re purposely hiding stuff to spring on him later in an attempt to keep Obama President. Yes, the media loves to tear down people – it makes for great ratings. Attacks that few Reps are going to go on the record and make but Dems will obviously will be a bigger part of the general election then primary, And yes, I could see the Obama administration holding on to something until the primary. But to say that the media is hiding him being a flip-flopper? That’s just not happening.

            As I said, people seem to mistake the media and the response their stories get. The media reported on Perry’s gaffes, and it was enough to sink him. They also reported on Mitt’s flip-floppery, but it hasn’t been enough to sink him, at least not in the Republican primary. But that says more about Republican voters then it does about the media. But some people can’t accept that voters disagree with them about with story is the bigger disqualifier and then do this whole blame the media thing. It gets old, and paranoid sounding after a while.

          • Stan

            was hiding anything, znjs. Your characterization is inaccurate. What will happen after Willard is crowned is more (MUCH more) of what folks on this site have already seen. That doesn’t make me paranoid, just a realist. And if you think hearing about “Microwave Mitt” is old now, wait until October…

          • znjs

            That’s just common sense – right now their focus is divided. Mitt and Obama will get more coverage over the nomination process is over.

          • Stan

            your earlier question – “How much more can they say it?” A lot more.

          • Stan

            Yup, znjs, that’s what I think. The media have soft-pedaled on Willard, since he’s the most palatable candidate to them. When it comes down to Willard vs. “Dear Leader”, however, the gloves will come off, and there will be nightly footage comparing the positions of “Microwave Mitt”… and if/when he opens his mouth on Obamacare, they’ll howl about how Willard can diss the mandate when that’s exactly what he did in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts.

            As for whether or not people voting for Willard is in the media’s hands, I don’t think most Americans are paying attention right now… just us political junkies. When the primaries are over, and the general election gets cranking, Willard is going to get sliced & diced by Dear Leader’s 10,000 press secretaries in the MSM…

          • stealthalong

            than they are for the primaries. There will still be South Carolinas out there. The south may indeed be full of regional attitudes against certain affiliations (call these parochialisms) because they just don’t get out much, and that may be a good thing. The general will be no more vaunted in purview than is this primary season.

            You seem to hold Mitt up to the light as though he were Palin or Bachman. This man has some wherewithal that goes entirely disregarded because, ‘by golly, he’s a relijish nut, and a cultified one at that’. Thankfully, the proportional representation for such voters is minimal and will have little influence on a grand scale.

            As was the case in CA, while LDS folk made up about 2% of the voting population during the Prop 8 campaign (as does the LGBT community), thinking people of considered moral makeup carried that banner rather clearly. About 70% of the black vote, and something quite similar for Hispanics (in LA county, as I recall) brought this all about. And you know what sort of influence the Mormons hold over this contingency, don’t you?

          • Stan

            I guess I’m missing something… when you say “You seem to hold Mitt up to the light as though he were Palin or Bachman.” As I’ve said before, I think Willard is the Republican incarnation of Bill Clinton – desperately trying to be whatever it is he thinks the electorate wants him to be. He has *no* real positions that emanate from a moral or cultural center – everything with this guy is an issue of convenience; a way to get what he wants. That’s why he’s capable of changing positions on fundamental issues (abortion, gun control, a health care mandate, etc) so quickly. All of that being said, he’s a better choice than the weasel currently occupying the Oval Office – but it’s definitely a choice between “bad and worse”.

      • demsaresatanic

        about that. McCain was the lib media favorite Republican until the general election, then they said that he was a worthless old flip-flopper who screwed up his first decision by picking Palin.

      • sandiegovoter

        Mitt fought hard in the primaries for his win. He earned it more than Bush did in 2000 and arguably more than McCain did in 2008.

        I’m getting fired up for the general election.

  • btrb

    . . . is not that Romney was a Democrat, but how the Mass. primary system used to work.

    The law has changed since, but in the past, independent voters–called “unenrolled” by Mass.–could vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary by requesting the appropriate ballot on primary day. However, when you voted you automatically became enrolled in the party whose ballot you took. You had to fill out a card–in the old days you literally had to go back to your registrar of voters–to become “unenrolled” again.

    I myself would vote in the Democratic primary (to cause havoc or to get a “least bad” alternative nominated) and became, for however long, a Democrat. That’s how it worked.

    Sometimes I didn’t bother re-registering until the time limit arrived before the next election. Such happened to most voters in Mass at one time or another.

    Meanwhile, Reagan was once a Democrat. What’s your point?

    • streiff

      from 1979 through 1993… or that he didn’t vote in those years. You can decide which is worse.

      Reagan stopped being a democrat in 1950. What’s your point? other than shilling for Romney, I mean?

      BTW, your personal experience has nothing to do with this unless you’re asserting that Paul Tsongas was more conservative that GHW Bush.

    • demsaresatanic

      voting Democrat was just clever strategy, sort of like running as a Republican and governing like a Democrat, isn’t it.

      • sandiegovoter

        He governed like a Republican. You should look this up for yourself.

        • JSobieski

          Signed on to Romneycare.
          The liberal NY Governor Paterson used the line item veto pen more than 200 times more frequently than Romney did.

          Romney served a full term, while Paterson did not.

          As is so often pointed out, the Mass legislature had a blue super-majority the entire time. I don’t see any evidence that Romney’s term in Mass is on the whole distinguishable from that of a moderate Democrat .

          Compare Romney to Bill Richardson (tax cutter in a Blue state) or Paterson (veto pen in a Blue State)

          • sandiegovoter

            Romney cut taxes as governor. He lobbied the senate to support the Defense of Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

            He opposed and blocked stem cell research. He did everything he could legally do to block gay marriage in Massachusetts and did in fact prevent many gay marriages by limiting it to Massachusetts citizens (citing a very old law).

            He did not make any friends among Massachusetts’ liberals as governor. He did prove that a Republican could get things done in Massachusetts without raising taxes or providing funding for stem cell research (aka human cloning).

          • JSobieski

            nt

  • znjs

    Technically being automatically (rather then intentionally) registered as a Dem to vote in an election the way we already knew he did changes nothing.

    Like him or dislike him as you will. But this means nothing. It fits firmly in the “stuff that doesn’t matter at all” area of the debate.

    • joayn

      How about:

      “Romney Denied Free Olympic Tickets to 9-11 Widows, Orphans; Gave Them to Utah Legislators”

      “Romney?s executive assistant, Donna Tillery, twice denied requests to provide free or discounted tickets to widows and orphans of the felled firefighters but gave them for free to Utah legislators just six weeks later, according to a new book, The Real Romney (HarperCollins, 2012).

      Tillery sent e-mails to A.J. Barto, a former Salt Lake City firefighter helping the 9-11 widows and orphans, citing a policy barring giveaways, but Romney gave 100 free surplus tickets ($885 each) to Utah legislators. ?I was outraged at the hypocrisy,? Barto told Kranis and Helman. ?In less than two months, he went from saying, ?We?re going to run a tight ship? to throwing out free tickets to a group of people who could help him politically.? (221)

      The gifts would have helped Romney politically. After living in Utah for three years, Romney flirted with running for office in the Beehive State. He even reportedly contemplated running as a Democrat, though in the post-Olympics buzz there was no office available until 2004 which was too late for someone riding the successes of the the Games.”

      http://biggovernment.com/cjohnson/2012/02/01/authors-romney-denied-free-olympic-tickets-to-9-11-widows-orphans-gave-them-to-utah-legislators/#more-418240

      So I think streiff is right on the money. Republican, Democrat, doesn’t matter. What matters is what works for Romney. And by the way, I think lying about his voting record is pretty important. If it was no big deal, why lie? See, it’s the lying that speaks volumes about his character. And from where I sit, I’m not buying it.

      • znjs

        That bothers me. Though streiff seems to be saving that it does matter that he was once (without any indication he wanted to be) registered as a Dem, why else make this post? So I don’t get your final paragraph.

        • joayn

          voting procedures at the time he voted for Tsongas. As I understand the process, I think it’s safe to assume he knew he’d be enrolled as a Democrat and would have to change back to unenrolled to become Independent again. Wouldn’t you agree with that?

          So, he registered as an Independent in 1979 but there is no record of him voting unitl 1992, as evidenced in his vote for Tsongas which enrolled him as a Democrat; IOW, there’s no paper trail of him voting between 1979 and 1992.

          For whatever reason, he changed his party affiliation to Republican in 1993 in order to run against Kennedy in 1994.

          I would address your statement “without any indication he wanted to be.” Well, if he didn’t want to be known or affiliated with the Democrat party why didn’t he change back to Independent after the election? I would surmise that it just wasn’t important to him at the time. That’s how it reads to me.

          As a conservative Republican, I find this information germaine to establishing or refuting Romney’s claims that he is a conservative Republican. First, that he would vote for a Democart versus a Republican erodes his conservative claim as a conservative.

          Secondly, and maybe I’m the only one on this, but voting I take very seriously. So if there no existing record to support Romney voting for any party between 1979 and 1993, is it safe to say he didn’t vote for 14 years? I think that’s something to consider when it pertains to a presidential candidate (or any candidate, for that matter).

          My point is that this is what a lot of conservatives don’t like or trust about Romney. It not only represents an unseriousness to the beliefs of conservatism, it speaks volumes as to his unseriousness to any core value system except what’s good for Romney, An anything goes, I’ll say anything, I’ll be anyone, just to get elected history. It speaks to what he wants, his goals. His, his, his …

          Streiff’s point wasn’t about Romney being a Democrat at one point in time. It’s about the lying and misleading people into thinking otherwise.

          • znjs

            But even if he did know, a year later he changed to a registered Republican. Also I could be mistaken, but my understanding is that the fact that there is no paper trail only means he didn’t vote in any primaries between ’79 and ’93. Not ideal, people should vote in primaries, but honestly most people don’t and I’m not too concerned about that.

            I think there are many, many valid criticisms about Romney. Believe me, I’m been debating with myself about switching to Newt – but I just can’t stand him. But the fact that when Mitt voted in a Dem primary (which he revealed himself) and therefore was automatically registered for a year as a Dem isn’t one of them, especially when it happened about 2 decades ago. I guess when there are so many good reasons to oppose Romney, I don’t understand why anyone would bother with this one even if you consider it meaningful in some way, which I don’t.

          • sandiegovoter

            Romney is winning the primaries. Streiff sees this and he’s not happy about it.

            He decides to put some phantom “facts” out of his bag in a last-ditch effort to try to derail Romney’s path to the nomination.

            These “facts” are based on a very technical argument and are supported by documents which in fact show the opposite of what Mr. Streiff is trying to prove.

            He wants to prove that Romney is a Democrat. So he does it by linking to a site that shows Romney’s 1976 voter registration. In which all boxes are unchecked, including the “Republican” box, the “Democratic” box and the “American” box (whatever party that is. Sounds like of klannish to me.)

            So Romney didn’t ever register as a Democrat and if he ever became one by voting for a Democrat (by the way, it’s a secret ballot. Where is Streiff’s proof that Romney actually voted for Paul Tsongas? Don’t tell me “Romney said he did”. That’s not proof.) Therefore, if Romney didn’t vote for Paul Tsongas, then he never became a registered Democrat and Streiff is lying.

            My contention remains that Romney is not a Democrat. I want to see Streiff try and prove that Romney is in fact a Democrat.

          • lineholder

            You want to promote Romney? Have at it. But for those of us who have been at RS for a while, our loyalty is likely to be higher to the mods than to either you or Mitt Romney. So attacking streiff isn’t likely to win people over to your guy, okay?

          • sandiegovoter

            I don’t need to do that. I will be proudly promoting Romney now and after this primary election is over.

            Since Gingrich has called a press conference tonight, I am very anxious that the primary phase might end sooner this year than it did in 2008 or 2000.

            We really need to circle the wagons and discuss how to mend fences with all of the disparate wings of the party.

            But I think that Streiff’s point is totally wrong. If anything, his title should have been “Romney used to be a Democrat”. But then everyone would have said “So what?” and not bothered to read what it was that he had to say.

            Instead, Streiff went for the far more provocative “Mitt Romney: Registered Democrat” which is Streiff’s idea of a major bomb.

            Guess what, Streiff? Your “major bomb” is going to be ignored by all parts of the media, including other conservative blogs because it’s a nothingburger.

            If people cared about candidates’ former political ties, then Reagan would not have been the GOP nominee in 1980. And your boy, Rick Perry, would not have even considered running for governor, let alone president.

            Romney could not have intended to become a Democrat in 1992 or at any other time. He never ran for office as a democrat (unlike Rick Perry) and he did not endorse Democrat Al Gore for president in 1988 (as Rick Perry did).

            So we can all learn a lot about party loyalty from Romney and Streiff. If you want to be considered a Republican, vote for Republicans. Vote for them enthusiastically. Tell your friends who you’re voting for and why. Put a sticker on your car proclaiming which candidate you support. Put a yard sign in your yard.

            Don’t be a baby just because your candidate didn’t win the primary. Support the Republican in the general election. Be a man, in other words.

          • lineholder

            You keep acting like this is a done deal when the primary season isn’t over, and getting more than a bit uptight about it when people are still considering candidates other than Romney. The whole purpose of the primary is to review our options as Republicans and voice for our first choice on whatever criteria we individually use as a basis for making that choice.

            And this particular primary season has been as erratic and unsettled as they come. People haven’t been willing to just toe the line behind any one candidate that is dictated to us. They’ve been more proactively involved in researching candidates to find out more about the each candidate’s position on various issues. That’s trend has been good for our side and is likely to continue through at least Super Tuesday if not beyond.

            When the nom ination is settled and we have a candidate for the general election, the greater majority of people will back that candidate against Obama. Why wouldn’t they? The whole point is to have Obama become a one-term-President!

          • sandiegovoter

            Lets see if he concedes. At this point, Gingrich’s odds of becoming the GOP nominee are less than one in 20. Romney would have to be killed or become seriously ill for anyone else to have a shot at it (I’m not trying to encourage the wackos here.)

            With Gingrich out of the race, I think that even the most ignorant among us will concede that Romney is the nominee.

          • lineholder

            .

          • Vegas_Rick

            Calling a press conference ensures the press are not all licking Romney’s shoes after the results are known.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            but he passed legislation in Romneycare that has liberalism written all over it.

            Are you actually trying to get us to believe what Romney says with regard to his flips on abortion and a whole host of other issues, but his word that he voted Dem isn’t good enough for you? Typical.

          • sandiegovoter

            You don’t believe that Romney is a registered Democrat.

            Good. I don’t either.

            If you looked at Reagan’s record as governor of California, you would have found a lot of things that you didn’t like. Reagan raised taxes as governor. He threw a few bones to liberals in order to get stuff done.

            Romney did the same thing. Romney passed a private-sector healthcare plan that was approved by organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and individuals such as Newt Gingrich and others. It was not the far-left plan that Ted Kennedy and others wanted. Romney has said that he will repeal Obamacare after he is sworn in as president. I believe him.

            As to whether or not Romney is a democrat, I think we’re all in agreement that Streiff is wrong on this one.

          • lineholder

            Oh, yeah, he is. Sorry, but that’s more or less the truth. Romney is a moderate who likes all those “progressive” ideas that Liberals like. He’s far more inclined to trend in that direction than he would be to trend to the right!!

          • sandiegovoter

            Romney has made that clear. Romney is opposed to Obamacare and will repeal it.

            Romney cut taxes as governor of Massachusetts and has pledged to cut capital gains taxes and corporate taxes as president. Moreover, he will preserve all of the Bush tax cuts that Obama will not preserve.

            If Obama has to choose between allowing all of the Bush tax cuts to lapse in 2012 as they almost did at the end of 2010, and cutting spending on liberal pet projects, Obama will take away all of the tax cuts. He will raise taxes on the middle class if he needs to.

            This is why Obama must be stopped now by any legal means necessary. We have a strong candidate in Romney.

            As Neil pointed out, Obama will not win unless the economy seriously changes course.

          • lineholder

            Romney may say that he is opposed to O-care, but when he gets on a national stage and defends progressive policy plans like the socialized health care model on which both Romneycare and Obamacare…sandiegovoter, you can’t just expect people to automatically take him at his word about actually having the determination and perseverance it is going to take to go O-care repeals when he does foolish things like that.

            His economic plan has both some good points and bad points. It just isn’t as bold as we truly need right now. It’s better than Obama’s plan of increasing debt and increasing spending.

            Some of the numbers being used to determine how well our economy is doing are being fudged a bit in Obama’s favor. The only thing we can do about that is to try to make sure people understand how they are being manipulated so that they don’t end up being misled into believing that Obama’s economic policies are succeeding.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I’m not rebutting streiff’s diary at all. I should have added the word “now.” at the end of my title.

            It’s those “bones” Romney likes to throw to liberals that have me and other conservatives worried.

            As for being in agreement with you on streiff’s diary or anything, I doubt it. I’m a conservative. Romney’s not, and it appears you’re not.

          • jaykali

            All this talk ab Gingrich staying in maybe isn’t going to happen. Reading ab mr. Adleman in an ny times article makes me think he isn’t going to fund a lost cause. As soon as he stops funding this campaign it’s over. Romney appears to be in for a huge February as he seems to do well in western states. I wonder if anyone will drop out before march.

          • joayn

            But I do think it goes to the heart of the matter of him claiming to be a conservative, which I think we both can agree he isn’t. I would also point out that he didn’t reveal that he voted for Tsongas in 1992; it was brought up in the debate and he had to defend himself for doing so. And he lied about it.

            While I understand that this is not an important issue to you, it is to a lot of conservatives. As I said before, it adds to the narrative that there’s no there there with Romney. If he wins, how will he really govern? Can we judge him by his past or what he says now?

    • sandiegovoter

      Who is there among us that has voted only for Republicans his or her entire life?

      If voting for any democrat at any point in one’s life is a cardinal sin, then many of us are guilty.

      I cannot believe that Streiff is still bashing Romney now that it is clear that Romney will be the Republican nominee.

      It shows some serious immaturity. McCain wasn’t my first or second choice in 2008. But once it was clear that he would be the nominee, I enthusiastically supported him. Which is what Republicans are supposed to do.

  • izoneguy
    • sandiegovoter

      Some of his advisors came from Jeb Bush (in 2008). Barbara Bush is a huge fan of his.

      I don’t think that W has a dog in the fight this year. Other than keeping the nomination away from Rick Perry, I don’t think he really cared who won. Between Gingrich and Romney, I think that W will probably choose Romney. But he won’t be endorsing either one.

  • annas

    Was Reagan not a registered Democrat at one time? What happened to ABO? I personally like the stable, family man, nice wife, no craziness, no leash required, decency of Romney. I will vote for whomever is a our candidate, however. My country matters to me.

    • streiff

      1. Reagan stopped being a democrat in 1950.

      2. Romney has been the worst for criticizing Rick Perry for being a democrat though he registered as a Republican before Romney did.

      • reno_dave

        In the 1950s, he was a Democrat for Eisenhower, and in 1960, a Democrat for Nixon.

        He didn’t officially become a Republican until 1962, four years before he ran as a Republican for the office of Governor of CA

        http://www.npr.org/news/specials/obits/reagan/timeline.html

        BTW, he ran a tentative campaign for the Republican nomination for President in 1968, just six years after his official registration as a Republican.

      • znjs

        It wasn’t so much that Perry once was a Dem – many Republicans are guilty of that. It’s that Perry actively worked for Al Gore. That’s somewhat different then trying to improve the candidate that the Dems will run and then ending up incidentally registered as a Dem.

        • streiff

          Perry was a conservative Southern democrat, who else was he going to support. BTW, prior to 1988 Al Gore was a solid pro-life vote in the Senate and very strong on defense.

          Paul Tsongas was better than Clinton? Well, if you say so. Tsongas was light years to Clinton’s left.

          • renl57

            which did more than any other organization in the Northeast to push for a balanced Federal budget and for entitlement reform. (Warren Rudman was another co-founder.)

            That’s not somebody who is “light years to Clinton’s left.” Clinton didn’t embrace a balanced budget until he was forced to by the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. Tsongas was advocating a balanced budget years earlier. And Clinton never embraced reform of Medicare and SS the way Tsongas did.

          • sandiegovoter

            He has characterized his vote as such.

            If so, he’s a hero in my book. I once voted for a democrat in a primary election because some important Republicans told me that the best way to help the Republican candidate in the general election was to make sure that a union-backed (but charismatically challenged) Democrat was such an awful candidate that the Republican Party was sure to pick up the governorship if this particular democrat was the nominee.

            We were all wrong. But we were trying to help. Tsongas would have been such a weak candidate that Bush probably would have been re-elected if Tsongas had been the Dem nominee.

      • sandiegovoter

        You’re criticizing Romney for criticizing Perry for being a democrat?

        When did Romney do that?

        Put some facts down, please.

    • demsaresatanic

      Newt the closet Democrat despite his solid conservative voting record, now Reagan the closet Democrat despite his record. One of these days you will be able to show something Romney did to help the conservative cause, maybe he donated money to the Reagan campaign and just forgot about it. Maybe that video of Mitt saying that he never supported Reagan/Bush is just a fake. Keep looking, you must be getting tired of making excuses for Romney’s 100% Rino record.

      Here’s an idea, try slinging mud, maybe that will divert attention away from Romney’s record.

  • clowngirl

    Sounds like Mitt was trying to keep his options open and didn’t decide until late 1993 whether it would be more politically advantageous to run as a Democrat or a Republican.

    Whatever views and convictions he claims to hold should be considered in the same light.

    • streiff

      He was independent, then democrat, than Republican.

      • clowngirl

        ok, but I thought I read otherwise.

        I have no problem with being corrected.

  • mikej75

    Isn’t the question whether or not Romney was truthful in the Jacksonville debate when he said that he always voted for a Republican when a Republican was on the ballot? The research cited in this article casts doubt on that. Primary voters deserve an explanation.

    • Finrod

      This is simply yet another example of it. He also lied through his teeth (or he’s grossly incompetent) when he claimed he hadn’t seen the cheap hit ad against Newt that had him in it saying “My name is Mitt Romney and I approve this message”.

      • Vegas_Rick

        He is that, and more.

      • sandiegovoter

        Except Gingrich doesn’t just lie to voters, he lies to debate moderators and his wives as well.

        Newt’s been running a tawdry info-mercial that essentially blames Romney for being successful.

        Newt will probably drop out of the race tonight. I’m excited.

      • romansdaughter

        • scottishjew

          Ive been trying to post video. Cant do it.

  • reno_dave

    I’m not comparing Romney to Reagan in terms of temperament or depth of conservatism, but this seems a silly line of attack, as Reagan was a Democrat before 1962.

    If Romney officially became a Republican in 1993, whether it was a switch back or as a first-timer, it was nine years before he ran for Gov of MA as a Republican.

    Reagan became a Republican in 1962, and ran for Gov of CA as a Republican four years later.

    When Reagan first ran for president in 1976, he had only been a Republican for 14 years, but by the time Romney first ran for president in 2008, he had been a Republican for nearly 15 years.

    There are plenty of things available to attack Romney, but the fact that he was once a Democrat is easily countered.

    BTW, I plan to vote for Romney tomorrow at the Nevada Caucus.

    • streiff

      based on your comment I took you for a Newt voter

      • reno_dave

        I’ve written in defense of Newt on NRO, Ace of Spades, HotAir, and other boards, on topics ranging from his marriage and conversion to Catholicism to his idea to change child labor laws to allow schools the options to pay kids for work.

        I also defended the trumped-up ethics violation, his version of an individual mandate, and even his commercial with Pelosi.

        I was a fan of his in the ’90s, and saw his entry into the race as a good thing, though his managerial style has been a concern.

        I liked what I was seeing with his insurgency candidacy.

        He began to lose me when he attacked Romney over Bain, which came across as an attack on capitalism,.

        His favorability numbers began to concern me, because I realized that seventeen years of the press beating on him had made it nearly impossible to swing enough voter opinion to give him a fair chance to beat Obama.

        He pushed me a little further away with his attack on Romney’s tax returns ( I see no problem with Cayman or Swiss bank accounts or paying 15% tax rates on capital gains and dividends).

        The last straw was the robo-call about Romney supposedly doing away kosher meals. Maybe the robo-call will prove to be a Democrat plant.

        BTW, if Gingrich somehow does get the Republican nomination, I will walk precincts for him, and work hard to get out the Washoe County vote.

        • clowngirl

          but one robocall (which I’ve heard wasn’t even untrue) and Newt thinking that Romney should face any scrutiny on his 25 years as CEO of Bain (which Romney has made the centerpiece of his candidacy) is enough for you to turn on Newt?

          Seems like you’re giving Romney a pass and being very hard on Newt.

          • reno_dave

            I said the robocall was wth final straw, and that it may have been a Democratic plant. The reason it was a final straw was because if true, it spoke of desperation on Gingrich’s part. If it was from his organization, and he didn’t know, then it indicated bad management of his campaign by Newt. Newt’s management skills have been an issue since the late ’90s. I was hoping they had improved, but this, and other things, like failing to get on the ballot in Virginia, indicate that they haven’t as much as I would like.

            Romney’s work at Bain should be scrutinized, but not attacked as it would be by the left.

            I’ve come to the conclusion that Gingrich can’t win enough independents and women to win the general election, and that he might also drag the Republican ticket down.

            I think a Romney/Rubio ticket will win, and bring out enough Republicans and independents to also keep the House and give the Republicans the Senate. Given a reasonably conservative House and Senate, along with a truly conservative VP, we can mitigate Romney’s liberal tendencies, and push him towards more conservative solutions.

            I’m looking at the long game.

          • Vegas_Rick

            and the House and Senate will not be “reasonably conservative.” Just look at the House we have now.

          • sandiegovoter

            I think that Governor Bob McDonnell would be the best runningmate for Mitt. I’d also like to see Senator Cornyn or Senator Coburn on the ticket. Governor Nikki Haley would be an outstanding choice.

          • clowngirl

            at the height of his first surge.

            And, keep in mind, Newt’s flaws — or in some cases things that aren’t even flaws but are being given an extremely negative spin by the press — and also slanderous attacks on Newt — are being so widely and aggressively covered that independents can’t help hearing about them.

            You have to be paying conscious attention to be aware of problems with Romney at this point.

            Many independents are probably still regarding Romney as something like the generic Republican (he does, after all, try and sound as generic as possible) but that would change drastically in the general election.

            Romney presided over a company that pulled off the biggest medicare scam in history — up until the point when they started getting investigated.

            This potentially huge scandal hasn’t gotten much press up until this point, but that would change drastically in a general election.

            The extent of his culpability isn’t known — but it won’t reflect on him to say the least. The most charitable interpretation is that Romney was astonishingly clueless.

            Romney’s continually presented as inevitable, but the fact is that he’s had huge advantages (press, money,etc.) that he won’t have in a general election and if Florida’s delegates were awarded proportionately, Newt would still be in the lead.

          • renl57

            (cf. latest NBC/WSJ poll)

            Note also that in FL, after the “open marriage” revelation from Gingrich’s Wife II, Romney beat Gingrich by 22 points among *Republican* women.

            And that’s not something Gingrich can fix. His personal history is a matter of public record.

            Female voters aren’t going to vote for a guy who treated two wives so disgracefully and then proceeded to make his second mistress into his third wife.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            .
            .

          • sandiegovoter

            if Newt somehow wins the primary and the general.

            Newt has the biggest ego of any politician I’ve ever seen. His current campaign in Nevada is a total train-wreck. He missed his appointment with the governor, claimed a non-existent Donald Trump endorsement, etc.

            He is not ready to manage a Dairy Queen, let alone be president.

          • clowngirl

            and the “open marriage revelation” you claim is the unsubstantiated contention of a bitter ex-wife who has already fired both barrels and is now out of ammo.

            Female voters have known about Newt’s affair for years. I would say women are just as likely as men to decide it’s time to forgive Newt and that other matters are much more relevant.

            Seeing as Marianne Gingrich had little if any new information — any impact of her interview is not likely to last.

            And Democrats are not in a position to make an issue of Newt’s prior lack of faithfulness having invested so much in saying it’s irrelevant.

          • Vegas_Rick

            the intelligence of those voters? Gingrich’s past failures will not affect theirs lives one whit. But Obama’s policies will end the America we all know and love.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            what exactly are those “slanders” ? Did he or did he not get kicked out of the house leadership? Did he or did he not have ethics violations? Did he or did he not take several sides of different issues, sometimes within the same year? Does he or does he not have literally 90% of the republicans he once worked with say they do not support him? Did he or did he not take money from Fannie and Freddie to not jump on the reform bandwagon? And I am not even going into the personal/sexual stuff.

            What if this guy was a democrat? You would be screaming at the top of your lungs about how sleazy he is.

          • clowngirl

            1. saying Newt “resigned in disgrace” because of ethics violations.

            Saying that Newt “resigned in disgraced” implies he resigned because he was guilty of wrongdoing. Even Mark Souder, who was part of both the failed and successful coup just wrote an article for Weekly Standard entitled “Newt did not resign in disgrace” defending Newt against this false charge. He mentions several problems he had with Newt’s leadership all of which were very different from any sort of moral failing or “disgrace”

            even Rich Lowry of National Romney Online wrote recently that Newt was exonerated on the ethics charges and that they were blatantly politically motivated.

            He also wrote an article in 2006 entitled “Foley Report finds no ethics violations”

            2. taking quotes way out of context and twisting them to make Newt appear anti Reagan

            if you want further examples I’d recommend Thomas Sowell’s article “The Florida Smear Campaign” or Mark Levin’s passionate defense of Gingrich which begins with the words “If this is what the conservative movement has become, then count me out” (and Mark Levin is not even supporting Newt)

            If you need more references, let me know.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            those two were not even on my list

          • joayn

            “Did he or did he not get kicked out of the house leadership? Did he or did he not have ethics violations?” She answered you.

            And, BTW, I LOL’d at this: “Did he or did he not take several sides of different issues, sometimes within the same year?” Seriously? Now that’s funny.

            And please enlighten us with the names of the “90% of the republicans he once worked with say they do not support him.” I would be interested to know who they are.

            “Did he or did he not take money from Fannie and Freddie to not jump on the reform bandwagon?” Repeating allegations as the truth does not pass as the truth, btw. Newt released his contract with F & F for everyone to scrutinize. Also, former congressman J.C. Watts verified Newt’s denial of those allegations.

          • joayn

            “Did he or did he not get kicked out of the house leadership? Did he or did he not have ethics violations?” She answered you.

            And, BTW, I LOL’d at this: “Did he or did he not take several sides of different issues, sometimes within the same year?” Seriously? Now that’s funny.

            And please enlighten us with the names of the “90% of the republicans he once worked with say they do not support him.” I would be interested to know who they are.

            “Did he or did he not take money from Fannie and Freddie to not jump on the reform bandwagon?” Repeating allegations as the truth does not pass as the truth, btw. Newt released his contract with F & F for everyone to scrutinize. Also, former congressman J.C. Watts verified Newt’s denial of those allegations.

          • xymbaline

            This is what we call a ‘concern troll’, someone who claims to be a true supporter of something-or-another, except for that ‘one little thing’ that they just can’t accept.

            A common pattern amongst trolls.

          • reno_dave

            Here’s what I wrote on Feb 1 at NRO defending Gingrich’s idea to change child labor laws. Personally, I think it says it better than Newt himself:

            “What he was saying was that because of child labor laws, kids in certain neighborhoods have few legitimate ways to make money. They can’t do the things that kids in suburban neighborhoods do to earn money, like mow lawns, shovel snow, have a newspaper route, wash cars, etc, because those types of after-school and weekend jobs don’t exist in the inner city, and child labor laws prevent businesses from hiring them.”

            “He’s talking about changing the laws to ALLOW kids to take jobs that will earn them some cash, not mandating that kids clean the schools.

            http://tinyurl.com/6srdonj

            I also mentioned in that thread that I would probably vote for Romney.

            There are other comments of mine in that thread where I take Romney to task for his stupid wording in his comment on safety nets for the poor, and show how Santorum’s words on birth control have been distorted by the left.

            In the comments in the next link (an NRO entry on Jan 30), I defend Gingrich’s statement on an individual mandate:

            http://tinyurl.com/884mo28

            Finally, on Jan 24, 2012, I defended Gingrich’s comments from an interview for Freddie Mac, pointing out that when he was working for Freddie, he was working off the same public data that Freddie execs were feeding to the SEC, and couldn’t have known that these execs were possibly lying to the SEC (since the SEC recently charged three Freddie execs with fraud). I don’t believe I’ve heard anyone make this line of defense of Newt.

            http://tinyurl.com/86xox6w

            BTW, I’ve defended Santorum, Romney, and even Ron Paul (in a few cases) when I think they’re being unfairly attacked. Why? Because one of these four men will be the Republican nominee, and we’ll need to be able to defend them against attacks by Obama and the Dems.

            No point in tearing each other down until they’re weakened, beaten and battered.

          • clowngirl

            after all, he lives in a very pro-Romney state and may just be succumbing to Stockholm Syndrome.

          • clowngirl

            is that Romney was always Renodave’s default candidate, but that he was open to being wowed by Newt and for awhile was impressed enough to consider Newt his first choice.

            But his support has always depended on Newt keeping his place on the high-wire, making few if any mistakes and continuing to consistently impress.

            Any hint of a problem, and he’s back to Romney –because he seems to have bought into the whole idea (pushed heavily by the media) that Romney’s the most electable and will be beholden to conservatives and therefore suddenly be a conservative President (despite the fact his campaign says he wouldn’t repeal Obamacare, etc. etc.

          • reno_dave

            As I wrote, I was happy to see Newt get into the race. As I write this, I am looking at my copy of Time Magazine from December 25, 1995. That is the issue where Newt is on the cover as Man of the Year. I did not subscribe, but bought that issue because he was on the cover (there is a photo on page 73 of Newt and Marianne kissing on the beach in La Jolla, CA, BTW).

            I also wrote that the robocall was the straw that broke the camel’s back, That means that it was an accumulated weight of things that changed my vote, and I wasn’t wobbling back and forth.

            After reading a National Review magazine article about Governor Perry in March, 2011, he became my preferred candidate, followed, in order, by Gingrich, Cain and Romney (March was well before Perry entered the race, BTW). If Perry was still in the race, I would have voted for him tomorrow, despite low poll numbers.

            I like Bachmann, and agree with her on many things, but thought it would be better for her to stay in the House and work to get into the leadership. For the same reason, I didn’t want Paul Ryan to enter the race, as I think he’s more valuable chairing the Budget Committee.

            In order to sell a conservative agenda, we need people like Ryan and Bachmann in the house as spokespersons.

            I also like Mitch Daniels, but he decided not to enter the race.

            Whoever is the nominee, I’d like to see Jindal or Rubio as the VP.

            BTW, regarding Sen Coleman’s comment on repealing Obamacare, I wrote several comments in the following NRO thread that explain why it would be hard, but not impossible to pass a bill repealing it in its entirety, and that Republicans have been working on plans for a replacement if they do get a repeal. IMO, Coleman is simply expressing how tough it will be to get 60 votes for cloture on a full repeal vote.

            http://tinyurl.com/6rj8skx

            It may be that Newt would be better able than Romney to drive the public opinion that could help to generate Democratic cross over votes. OTOH, if I’m right about Romney having better coattails, then we would need less Democrats to cross the aisle for cloture.

          • reno_dave

            After posting the last post, I realized that my mention of the photo of Newt and Marianne could be an effort at a subtle slam. I didn’t mean it in that way.

            I’m Catholic, and believe in reconciliation, and so, as I wrote on some other boards, once Newt reconciled his sins as part of his conversion to Catholicism, his prior marital situations are not an issue to me.

            I only mentioned the photo on the beach as a way of showing that I was holding the actual magazine.

          • clowngirl

            That seems to defy both the conventional wisdom. and the evidence we have so far:

            in New Hampshire, where Romney won, the turn-out wasn’t any higher than in 2008 even though Ron Paul mobilized more independents and cross over democrats

            but in South Carolina, where Newt won, turn out was way up.

            In Florida, turn out was up in counties that Newt won, down in counties that Romney won…

            To me, that suggests that it’s Speaker Gingrich who is likely to have the better coattails.

          • reno_dave

            I think I can use Sharron Angle as an analogue to Newt.

            Sharron Angle was not a perfect candidate, but she beat the favored Sue Lowden in the primary, partly because Lowden self-immolated by making a comment about bartering for medical care, using the example of a relative who once gave a doctor a chicken in exchange for a home visit.

            Unfortunately, during her time in the Nevada Legislature, Angle had made enemies in the Republican camp (sound familiar?,) to the extent that the Republican Mayors of Reno and Sparks helped to form “Republicans for Reid”. IIRC, a husband and wife, who were members of the Washoe County Republican Party Central Committee (I am also a member) actually wrote an editorial for the Reno Gazette Journal describing why they would not vote for her.

            Within a day or two of the Rep primary, Reid began a negative ad blitz against Angle, and she had no money to respond. Reid painted her as extreme. Of course, a month or so later, she had raised a tremendous amount of money, and was running negative ads of her own.

            I met Sharron on several occasions, and once had an extended conversation with her about the need for some positive ads to counter the “extreme” charge, and found her to be decent and reasonably intelligent.

            Most thought she actually beat Reid during their one and only debate, as he seemed old and disorganized (I think Newt would beat Obama in debates, BTW).

            She did make a comment to some hispanic kids about how some didn’t look Mexican, as a way of trying to give an example of how you can’t always look at a person and tell who they are, and she was crucified in the NV press.

            But when election day came, quite a few Republicans voted for Reid (or voted for “none of the above”,) while significantly fewer Democrats crossed over to vote for her. Angle may have won independents by a small margin.

            So, in a few months, Reid was able drive Angle’s negatives to the point that he was able to win. Newt’s been around for nearly 20 years, and his negatives are already high. I don’t think he’ll be able to reverse them with the independents and cross-over Democrats we’ll need to get to elect a Republican. Additionally, I think those negatives could cause independents and democrats to avoid voting for down ticket Republicans.

            BTW, to be honest, there’s one part of my analogy that doesn’t quite hold up. Republicans actually did quite well in other NV races. Brian Sandoval beat Reid’s son, Rory, for Governor, and we may have picked up a couple of seats in the Legislature, and one in the state Senate. So maybe Newt could win, and not have coattails, or lose, and not have negative coattails.

          • clowngirl

            and don’t see Sharon Angle as analogous to Newt.

            You leave out an obvious possibility saying Newt could win and have no coattails or lose but not hurt other Republicans.

            It’s also possible Newt could win and have long coattails.

            Newt isn’t going to be able to win the primary without improving his favorability rating. It would take another surge under very difficult conditions – and he would need to keep gaining against Romney and the press.

            Newt would face Obama thoroughly tested and having won despite more-difficult-than-general-election conditions.

            Something that speaks loudly to me as how quickly Newt is developing resilience under attack.

            In Iowa – Newt surged into the lead, topping off at about 33 percent in the polls. He faced $10 million in negative ads and was savaged by attacks from the press and dropped down to 13%. and his concession speech reflected a definitely low mood (which was understandable but probably not useful — though he was at least real)

            in Florida, Newt had a mini-surge coming off his big victory in South Carolina, and most polls had him at 31-34 percent. After Romney ran attack ads at a rate of 65 to 1 (with Newt’s super PAC claiming that the local stations were holding up some of their ads) and the type of ugly and dishonest attacks that it has to be hard not to take personally (mischaracterizing big chunks of his record, calling him anti-Reagan, saying Newt resigned in disgrace, giving credence to blatantly partisan ethics charges) Newt still finished with 32% of the vote — and that’s with averaging in half a million early votes many of which were cast before even the South Carolina debates.

            That suggest that Romney wasn’t able to erode his support a second time — the most he could do was keep Newt from expanding it.

            In his “concession” speech Newt was clearly undaunted.

            The next time Newt surges, Romney won’t be able to stop him — and he’ll have found his groove and his message to the point that neither will Obama.

            Romney on the other hand has run an uninspired almost entirely negative campaign.

            Even with the press firmly in his corner and a huge spending advantage — if Florida decides to award its delegates proportionately he’d still be behind Newt right now.

            Romney’s doing as well as he is because of advantages he won’t have in a general election and without demonstrating the ability to speak extemporaneously.

            And we don’t even know for sure what baggage he has because he won’t tolerate vetting.

            Romney strikes me as woefully unprepared for a general election and an almost certain loser to Obama.

          • joayn

            nt

          • Vegas_Rick

            Some great points.

          • clowngirl

            n/t

          • sandiegovoter

            Romney puts states like Michigan, Florida, and Ohio in play. Newt would get killed in all of those states.

        • jakeofalltrades

          John “Keating 5″ McCain and Newt “$300,000 Ethics Fine” Gingrich for our nominees? The GOP has got to do better than this.

          • clowngirl

            he only reimbursed legal expenses.

          • jakeofalltrades

            More of a technicality, really.

            Thanks for forcing me to research.

          • clowngirl

            thank you for researching!

        • romansdaughter

          • demsaresatanic

            Good find.

  • scottishjew

    Ive been saying. Mitt couldnt break into the democratic party there. It is clogged with too many democrats trying to move up the ranks. Romney skipped that by running on the Republican ticket since the party ranks are thinner. He used that as a vehicle to run for Senate and Governor. But he was never really a Republican. He ran as a progressive and AGAINST the Republican Party.

    See Mike Blumberg.

    • lalupa

      and Bloomberg is a perfect example. Did anyone really think he was a Republican?

    • clowngirl

      The fact Romney didn’t declare himself a Republican until right before he ran, suggests to me that he was keeping himself uncommitted — ready to run on whichever ticket he saw as most to his advantage.

      • jakeofalltrades

        I do not have rose-colored glasses on for my candidate. Those were shattered with Perry’s exit.

        On the other hand, I think the conservative position is to defeat Obama at all costs so that a GOP Congress would actually mean something.

        Ideological purity is not a discriminator between the candidates.
        Record is a mixed bag and also not a discriminator. Newt has the better political record; Romney has the better ethics record.

        Newt has the better platform; Romney is much more likely to have his platform actually take power.

        There is an argument that if we are to lose, wouldn’t we want it to be for Newt? And this is persuasive, if you accept the notion of losing. I do not.

        Romney is the best [gulp] conservative who can win against Obama.

        And now I need to go look in the mirror – my nose feels funny…. bigger somehow.

        • lineholder

          He isn’t a Conservative. He’s a moderate. The sooner people just own up to the truth of that, the better off we’ll all be. There’s no sense in lying to ourselves or to each other about this. Mitt Romney is a moderate. He is a moderate who likes the same kind of “progressive” ideas that Liberals like. That’s why he has recently found himself on the outside of the Conservatives ranks looking in…because he’s let it slip through the cracks that this is who he really is.

          Now, if you or someone else wanted to make an argument for Romney based on the truth of his ideology (i.e. that he is a moderate, but he’s a moderate who does happen to love this country, which is a lot more than we’ve gotten from Obama)…at least this argument has merit.

          Arguing that Romney is a Conservative has no merit.

          • jakeofalltrades

            even though, as JSobieski points out, some Democrats have an even more conservative record. (Though I disagree with him that that makes that record meaningless – it doesn’t. 0 versus 800 vetoes is probative of conservatism whether you like it or not… it’s just some democrats are also somewhat conservative).

            But yes, Romney is a moderate a la Bush I. This is really the crux of the electability argument – that he can win moderates.

            Persuasive conservatives can also win moderates and move the country right, but I’m not sure we have one.

            I just hope Rubio becomes Governor of Florida and then President – he’s our next Reagan. We need someone who can win and push the country rightward, and, failing that, I’ll take someone who can win who is even slightly to the right of the opposition.

          • lineholder

            That old saying about how actions can speak a thousand times louder than words is very much so true in Walker’s case. He’s been in the realm of politics for much longer than people know, and he’s fought the fight every inch of the way.

            Seriously, though, jake, we aren’t doing ourselves or anyone else any favors by trying to protect Romney behind smoke and mirrors of a Conservative image that is primarily fabricated on very little substance to speak of.

            All four of the candidates on the R side have left-leaning political skeletons hanging in their closets. Sooner or later, we need to stop focusing so much on where they have been and focus more on what kind of lead they would provide from this point forward.

            What about if we started asking other questions instead? Like…of the four, which is the least likely to cave in to the demands and pressure of the left? Of the four, who has the most solid economic policy and how would benefit our country? Questions like that.

          • jakeofalltrades

            could still be classified as a conservative – though def. the weakest in the bunch. But I don’t think that’s really a defensible position anymore. He’s a moderate.

            I like your framing of the issues, but electability is a huge factor and the primary reason people support him.

          • demsaresatanic

            moderates poll well months away from the general election, Bush 1 polled better than Reagan on electability at this stage of the 80 campaign, look at who turned out to be the better campaigner. Romney is using the same tactic that Bush 1 used against Reagan. In my view Carter would have defeated Bush 1, certainly it would have been no Republican landslide.

          • lineholder

            Electability is an issue in this race, whether we like admitting it or not.

            Let me put it this way…I was doing some research one day this week and came across the following statement: “If Republicans don’t stand for cutting spending, what do they stand for?” This comment was made by a liberal, and from that person’s comments I was say that they were genuinely confused.

            The simple fact that we have to have someone in this nation who exercises fiscal prudence and common sense. If that isn’t going to be Republicans, then who will it be???

            Just in O-care alone, jake, we have regulatory measures that will come into play in 2013 and 2014 that will suppress our economy again, even more than what we have seen during the past three years.

            We can count on it that the Dems don’t want that kind of info to get out to the general public or to draw much attention to it. They don’t want it emphasized how it will impact our national debt. They don’t want it emphasized that this will reduce expendable income of the individual consumer. They don’t want attention to drawn to any of that.

            If Americans are informed about “what comes next”, so to speak, and if we can articulate an alternate path that is better for this nation, then Dems are in trouble.

            No voter in their right mind is wanting to see a repeat of the last three years!!!

            The leadership factor is just as big as the electability factor, if not more significant in a lot of ways. Because the electability factor is only for the duration of the election and the leadership factor will be for at least the next four years!!!

            I just think we’d be better off asking questions that would help to define the scope and context of the kind of leadership that is genuinely needed, and then trying to determine which of the 4 imperfect candidates we have is most likely to succeed in providing that leadership.

          • snowshooze

            And for what? PR points, we surrender all.
            My dog would beat Obama. Yet the vast majority of peope seem to think this is a tough race.
            It wasn’t until they blew it for us.
            Looks like two Democrats now. Maybe 2 1/2.

          • greyeagle

            is a liberal and certainly not a Conservative.

          • krish

            Most in media do not wan to address this! Including so called conservative talk show hosts ….giving Mitt same status as others!

        • clowngirl

          there’s also the matter of him supervising Damon capital while it was scamming Medicare for 10s of millions of dollars.

          And we don’t really know if the rest of Romney’s business record is clean either.

          Romney’s been handled with kid gloves by the press, while Newt has been savaged.

          Newt has already born the brunt of 10s of millions of dollars in negative -and generally dishonest ads — Romney’s barely been touched.

          And yet, Newt — at many points in the process so far – has polled as well against Obama as Romney.

          Romney’s not going to be able to outspend Obama 8 to 1, and he won’t have the press eagerly trashing “the one” on his behalf.

          So I disagree both on the notion of Romney being conservative — and that he can win.

          But I am sympathetic to you having recently seen your preferred candidate drop out.

          And,given the humor of your last line, I expect you’re aware of most of this anyway.

    • scottishjew

      has everyone seen the Romney “Who let the dogs out video”. Every reason not to vote for Romney is right here.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

  • jaykali

    Let it go people. You can say all you want ab Mitt but a) I don’t think it will matter bc I think he’s going to win anyway and b) I am completely unconvinced that Newt isn’t worse. For all the stuff you can list about Mitt there is plenty of baggage and problems with Newt.

    So I guess get it out of your system now bc when this nomination is over it’s going to be time to go for the Republican not sit at home ‘in protest’.

    • streiff

      Perry was a Republican before Romney and Romney’s bootlicks were the ones making a big deal that one conservative Southerner would support another.

      • jaykali

        romney is still the ‘best’ of what we got. i dont think anyone would call him a straight conservative, he is much more in the ‘moderate’ class but he’s still the most viable of the bunch.

        i read these blogs and comments over and over again that say romney isnt a conservative!!! okay but he isnt a liberal either. he’s a moderate technocrat type and he’s running the best campaign thus far and i dont see any reason to believe that gingrich can out perform him.

        and lets just remember that gingrich was 3rd choice for most hard-line conservatives.

        1. Rick Perry (who was my guy before he fell apart)
        2. Herman Cain
        3. Newt Gingrich

        and its not a surprise to me that even after a late surge he still is a longshot to win the nomination.

        • Vegas_Rick

          is not saying much. And, I’m not sure at all that it’s even true. I haven’t like Mitt Romney since the first time I saw him in the run up to the 2008 election. He’s always struck me as a poor imitation of a really bad used car salesman. You know, the guy who will tell you any lie to get you to sign the sales contract.

          You can tell by his responses to certain current policy questions that he does NOT believe in small government. Romneycare is the most obvious, but there are others.

          He was recently asked how he felt about Pres Obummers plan to use more taxpayer money to bail out more underwater mortgage holders. The correct answer would have been that it’s not the governments place to insert itself between a borrower and a lender when there is a legally binding contract envolved. Instead, he said he’d have to see the specifics of the plan.

          When recently asked if he has changed his mind about supporting automatic increases to the minimum wage, he said he had not.

          These are not conservative approaches to these issues. I think if this guy gets elected President, he will look for every opportunity to govern from the center or even center/left. He’ll look for opportunities to look Pesidential and be the “reasonable” one who “compromises” with the other side.

          I fear Mittens will be our nominee and I plan to vote for the last Republican. But that’s it.

          • renl57

            His personal history, and his eagerness to attack Romney from the *left* (uncaring that the Dems are using Gingrich’s own words against the entire GOP economic platform), tells me he’s unscrupulous, untrustworthy, erratic, and a hothead.

            For him, this is not even about conservatism. Just watch his body language. It’s an ego trip all about becoming President to prove to himself that he’s still a World Class Statesman even after his loss of the Speakership.

          • jakeofalltrades

            For Newt’s part, I think his sleaziness is in the past, and this primary is much about deciding whether Romney’s sleaziness will be in the future.

            But Romney being “too moderate” is not exactly going to hurt him in the general, with tons of Demonrats fleeing the sinking S.S. Obama.

          • scottishjew

            is the sleazebag. When have you ever seen a candidate send out Republcian congressman to bash another republican candidate at his raillies. When have you seen a candidate send out his minions to badmouth another republican candidate. Someone who does this doesnt care about the damage it does to the party.

            Romney supporters seem to ignore this point.

          • jaykali

            Or it’s not really being reported. All I know is I hear soundbites from Gingrich every day that sound like bomb throwing to me.

          • scottishjew

            then you need to widen your source of information. Here’s what Romney’s doing. Im sure it wont bother you.

            http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/why-is-jason-chaffetz-stalking-newt-rallies-for-romney/

          • jaykali

            Ya I looked at that, not exactly headlines news…

          • scottishjew

            but sleazy conduct from someone who really isnt even a Republican. But go ahead and vote for him.

          • jaykali

            We found someone who actually would make Obama look humble. GREAT IDEA! The big problem I have with Newt is its ALL ABOUT NEWT. He to me has a lot of the same character flaws Obama has in that regard. Thin skinned, prickly, has to be the smartest guy in the room. That is really irritating to me. I know Romney’s style that is more calculated and measured isn’t really a style that will make people swoon but I think it is a better long term strategy.

            This election should be a referendum on Obama not Obama vs. a personality. I think eventually when conservatives come around after the nomination it will be time to hammer Obama constantly for 3.5 years of failed policies.

          • jaykali

            I think he is probably poll-driven which isnt a great thing so the minimum wage thing is frustrating. Altho there isn’t a lot of upside to him bashing minimum wage right now, especially with the label he has of being an ‘aloof rich guy.’ I don’t deny that he is a moderate type, no one does. But what choice would he have other than to govern to the right? We act as if the TP-dominated house will vanish over night. They will finally have a seat at the table.

            My argument has been that there is no TP republican reagan conservative type in the race. Ginrich can blather on how he is /just like/ reagan over and over again but that doesnt make it true. Just the other day he said he wanted to build a permanent base on the moon which isn’t exactly a conservative thought. He is just as willing to pander as Romney.

            And Newt is a bomb thrower, I am surprised that more people aren’t really bothered by this. A big reason he has to do this is that he doesn’t have the money to do it via ads, he would have been better surved to let his surrogates do the nasty attacks for him. OR maybe instead of taking that cruise with his wife he should have been raising money.

            I gave Newt a chance a couple months ago but he has proven to be a disaster.

            It’s funny to me that people aren’t at least entertaining the idea of Santorum who you could actually make a legitimate case for. In the end I think this year you have a weak field, maybe bc it’s harder to attract candidates to take on a sitting president. But Romney is the best of that field. And I like that Romney appears like he will have the money to fight Obama head on, if you look at the dollars right now they are pretty close.

            So Newt and the gang can hang on and get these Democratic-style attacks out early, thats fine. It will give Romney more time to deal with them. Gaffes and mis-steps can be overcome when they occur in February, it gets much harder this fall.

          • scottishjew

            I would like ROmney supporters to tell me why I should vote for Romney OTHER than you think he is the most electable.

            What about his policies do you like? Does he have some faboulous tax plan? Where is he going to cut government? Anyone?

          • jaykali

            Although it’s yet to be proven perhaps that he can translate his genius in business to conservative governance, I am willing to give him a chance against the field. You are right that he isn’t big on specifics but it’s still too early to get too specific. It’s just politics sadly. I mean Obama has been prez for 3 years and doesn’t give specifics on anything. So I do think there will be time for some big plan or something to get ppl excited about. But I think he is playing a long term strategy of letting obamas failed policies sink him. We know the press isn’t going to bring up all of obamas failures but they will pick over anything republicans put out with a fine toothed comb and demagogue the hell out of it. So strategically it is smarter to play the way he’s playing it. I know that isn’t very satisfying for conservatives but there is still time for him to win people over. He has already signed onto the Paul Ryan plan. Newt Gingrich didn’t do that. I don’t think he doesn’t mention it more bc he doesn’t have to. Basically I’m saying well probably have to be patient. The way presidential politics work you don’t hear many specifics basically ever but that’s the world we live in.

          • jaykali

            I mean she is pretty persuasive to me. And she doesn’t really deviate from mainstream conservative thought much as far as what I’ve hear from her in the past.

            I think one way Mitt could win some ppl over would be to get a tea party type as his VP. I really hope it’s Marco Rubio I can’t think of anyone else who would come even close. There is no way he will put a moderate type on the ticket.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    The jersey color didn’t matter. He just wanted into the game.

    • nvrepub

      Gingrich would lose to Obama worse than McCain did (unless you think every poll is lying).

      • Finrod

        How’d that turn out?

        • demsaresatanic

          Electability argument this far away from November is nonsense. Bush 1 made the same argument against Reagan in 80, fortunately Reagan overcame that bs. Romney is a much more dedicated conservative-basher than Bush 1 was but I am still optimistic, it didn’t work for him in 08 .

  • btrb

    Shill for Romney? Not quite.

    Just trying to explain how the arcane and convoluted Mass. primary system worked.

    And I hate to break it to you, but some of your favorite Republicans were once Democrats.

    Meanwhile, the object is to defeat Obama. My own pick didn’t run. So I’ll vote for pretty much any Republican who once was a Democrat.

    Going to vote for Scott Brown, too. WFB’s dictum still holds: support the most conservative candidate who can win. As has been said elsewhere, parties don’t “learn lessons.” Instead, Democrats win.

    • streiff

      I didn’t need your good offices because those details are spelled out in the article I quote. None of it is is germane to what is shown: that Romney didn’t register as a Republican until he decided to run for Senate in 1994.

      As a Southerner I don’t think you have any information that would be of interest on democrats changing parties. Those democrats didn’t vote for Paul Tsongas in 1992.

    • Finrod

      Reagan famously said “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”

      Whereas Mitt tries to pretend he never was a Democrat, because he never really left the Democratic Party, he just registered as a Republican.

      • daveoconnor

        Yes sir! Let’s see what they were about from the end of Reconstruction till the ’70′s:
        In no particular order:
        LBJ and “The Great Society” not to mention LBJ’s horiffic conduct of the Vietnam War.
        Jim Crow and Segregation which kept the boot on the neck of millions of American with untold loss of human talent sometimes including torture and murder of American citizens because of skin color.
        Yes, “The Solid South” was a grand epoch.

        • demsaresatanic

          supervised lynchings and burned down black churches too. That’s sooo Romney.

  • clintonformccain

    If you were registered as “unenrolled” (independent) in Massachusetts in that time frame, you were automaticallly re-registered as a Democrat or Republican if you took a primary ballot for either party. There was a table as you left the polling place where you became “unenrolled” again — which is what all of us who wanted to preserve the right to vote in either primary did every time we voted.

    The law was later changed so that taking a primary ballot doesn’t change your unenrolled status.

    There are probably good reasons to not favor Mitt Romney, but this is not one of them. There are many elections in Massachusetts where the only choice is between several Dems in the primary.

    • streiff

      doesn’t mean anything to you. Are you seriously contending that there was no GOP presidential primary in 1992?? Amazing.

      • clintonformccain

        But, the outcome wasn’t really contested. There was a sitting Republican President on the ballot.

        I’ve voted in Democrat and Republican primaries here over the years. Many times, there’s simply nothing contested on one side or the other.

        • clintonformccain

          You have the option of voting in either party’s primary election.

          When the Republican presidential nomination is uncontested, there’s often little reason to take a Republican primary ballot. Most races here are lucky to have one Republican running, let alone two to require a meaningful primary. Such is life in a one-party state.

        • clintonformccain

          Tsongas was the favorite-son from Massachusetts, who was coming off a New Hampshire primary win, running against that “hick from Arkansas” and that “moonbat from California”. With Bush’s nomination assured, I easily see why Romney would have taken a Democrat ballot. Tsongas was probably a friend of Romney’s, although fighting a losing battle by the time Super Tuesday rolled around.

          • JSobieski

            I don’t fault Romney for voting in a D primary when Bush was going to defeat Buchanon . . . eventually.

  • johnt

    It makes life so much simpler.

    • streiff

      but anyone who has been paying attention has known Romney was a democrat all along.

      • paladin1

        all the real conservatives and now we wander around in circles trying to figure out what happened. It is amazing how short-sighted we have been and what we have allowed to happen.

  • drfredc

    Let’s not get confused or overly excited here. There’s a long list of well respected GOP pols who had the Democrat party leave them… Reagan was perhaps the most famous — there are been many others…

    • Scope

      He took up the mantle of conservatism, and never left it. He defined conservatism. Romney, being a Democrat, before or after he was an Independent, and then making his way over to the Republican party, was just making his way around the parties in search of a home, for his many varied beliefs on any given day, much like his other flip flopping. I guess next he will join up with the no parties group. He obviously wants the presidency so badly, that if we currently had a Republican running for re-election, I could see him running as a Democrat.

  • submariner45

    This is coming from Rick Perry’s #1 cheerleader (btw, so sorry that didn’t work out Streiff) who was Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign Chairman for the state of Texas:

    Al Gore Former Campaign Chairman

    Perry also wrote a letter commending Hillary Clinton on HillaryCare:
    HillaryCare Letter

    Oh, but Mitt Romney voting in a Democrat Primary nearly 20 years ago for a Lieberman Democrat PROVES he’s really a closet liberal (although you could make the case Tsongas was likely to the Right of George H.W. Bush )

    Of course, living in Massachusetts, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just BE a Democrat politician rather than pretend to be one?

    Anyway, enjoy the Primary, and this “dirt” only helps Mitt in the general election.

    • streiff

      I suspect you are going to find your life here accurately described by Hobbes, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

      Nothing is going to help Willard “my first name is MItt” Romney in the election. We’re seeing why he’s a failed politician: people hate him and won’t vote for him.

      • jakeofalltrades

        We both use that term: Willard “My First Name Is Mitt” Romney! Nice!

        Dumbest thing he ever said.

    • xymbaline

      What identifies the Romneybot as a ‘closet liberal’ is his record and inability to even pretend to be a convincing conservative.

      Nothing is going to ‘help’ him in a general election because he won’t reach that point. He’ll be outed as a poseur long before then.

    • streiff

      because you are obviously both of them.

      Fatal error, my man. Fatal error.

      Why don’t you take your multiple personalities to whyromney.com or mymanmitt.com?

  • Vegas_Rick

    and cognitive reasoning skills who could make the case that Tsongas was to the right of anybody.

    • streiff

      nt

  • jack0001

    it was how many years ago?
    Reagan was a DemocRAT once as well.

    The Republican candidate will have the number one qualification to be President of the US.

    They will NOT be President Obozo!

    If President Obozo is re-elected he will continute to do the following:

    appoint liberal judges
    appoint judges like kagan and sotomayor to the SCOTUS
    spend trillions of dollars we dont have
    empower trade unions and public sector unions
    not approve the keystone pipeline
    mandate that religious organizations preform abortions
    play golf
    lie
    fund spurious green energy companies
    send out more food stamps
    fund abortions in the US and Mexico
    bow to foreign leaders
    shake down oil companies after spills
    run the country like the Chicago mafia
    he will raise taxes
    the list is endless!

    if Romney is the candidate, i am going to vote for him enthusiastically and with vigor! I dont care if he was once a democRAT or not!

    • streiff

      with all snark aside, you’ve just described either Romney’s positions or his record.

      Literally. Every thing on that list, except the pipeline, is something he’s done or in favor of doing.

      Is it better to have a Democrat doing it? or a Republican?

      • jack0001

        what they are going to do.
        i am as conservative as they come but there is not true conservative running.
        we cant did up Ronnie so, we have what we have.
        i have review there positions and there is not a bit of difference between the top three candidates.
        they are all about the same,
        so, i am going to vote romney, newt, santorium, or paul,

        i am going to go it gleefully and with joy.

        they are not obama and that is good enough for me.

        the grand prize is to get obozo out of office i am going to vote republican with vigor no matter the candidate to achieve that end.

  • Vegas_Rick

    are real happy to hear that. Keep the stupid rubes voting for our guy and we’ll keep on keepin’ our power.

    That’s quite a list you got there. There’s quite a few issues on the list that I’m less than confident Romney will be any better at.

    Once he’s “forced to reach across the aisle” and compromise with his good friends the Democrats, all pretense at conservatism will vanish. Much like in MA.

    • Vegas_Rick

      I can used “Reply to this”. Really, I can.

      • jack0001

        During Silent Cal’s terms in office we had balanced budgets and low taxes! one of our most underrated presidents.

  • polarglen

    . . . how in good conscious, I could vote for Romney for President, other than the fact he’s not Obama.

    • clintonformccain

      1) He’s plausibly qualified.

      2) He’s a competent manager.

      3) He’s not Barack Hussein Obama.

      • aesthete

        Clearly not the Presidency, since he has no real ideas or plans to spend responsibly.

        Clearly not dismantling the Bush/Obama government expansion, either.

        The Presidency is not really a “management” job; it is an political, executive position. If Romney wants to be a manager, he should be running a department, not running for President.

        • lizzie

          just down-ballot.

          In fact, Romney is worse than Obama, who is the “devil you know” failed leadership.

          I have yet to see a single quality of leadership in Romney, the insecure bully with a glass jaw who has never played a team sport. All these Mitt Fits – he does not even have the temperament for the presidency.

          Plastic Vultures never win.

          This is not a “lesser of two evils” choice. This is a complete failure of the way we allow the two parties to select their nominees.

          fails “the Consent of the Governed” test, paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence.

          • acat

            Justice Ginsberg.

            Even replacing that harridan with a David Souter squish would be an improvement .. and I believe Romney is up to doing that much….

            Mew

          • demsaresatanic

            don’t they always vote the same way?

          • jakeofalltrades

          • acat

            They do vote the same way often, but not always.

            Further, Souter doesn’t seem to be nearly the hidebound liberal ideologue that Ginsberg is. He’s a liberal, but .. not in the same class.

            Mew

          • jakeofalltrades

            but that hardly matters. He is not even remotely a swing vote on that court. I do believe that there is at least one ConLaw case where he sided with the right, but I don’t have the foggiest memory what it was. I do remember it being pointed out by my leftist law professor as an anomaly at the time.

          • paladin1

            I am confused because you speak of him in the present tense as still on the court.

          • acat

            She’s still a terrible pick!

            Ginsberg has until January 2013 to retire …

            Mew

          • paladin1

            Sotomayor and then Kagan…..they both make Souter look positively wonderful.

          • The_Rebel

            with Robert Bork advising Romney. You will not get a moderate appointed to the SCOTUS if he has any real input. I know he is just a pre-election advisor, but hopefully he will have further influence when the time is ripe.

        • clintonformccain

          Obama did not. John Kerry did not. Certain of the Republican candidates this year did not, but Neil Stevens said he’d ban me if I said anything negative about any of the Republican candidates, so I won’t go in to that.

          My threshold test does not mean I think that they would be a great President or even that I agree with any of their political views, just that the sum total of their experience makes me believe they are plausibly prepared to tackle the job. I voted against John Kerry in 2004 even though I very much disliked GW Bush, simply because I didn’t feel he had the gravitas to be Commander in Chief. The same reason would have never allowed me to consider voting for Barack Obama.

  • lizzie

    Ron Paul has not attacked Romney, but I do remember Ron Paul being the first to attack Rick perry for having been a democrat until 1989.

    There is no excuse that Romney voted for Tsongas because the GOP primary was not as important in Massachusetts in 1992. Sounds like squishiness to me, and I am only a registered dem in New York because they used to have primaries where it mattered. Mike Bloomberg did change his registration to Republican because it was the only way to have a chance what with Mark Green sliming all the other dems in the primary in 2001.
    But, Bloomberg never hid the fact that he was a fiscal conservative in what had become a democratic party out of control.

    and, NYC now has the Bloombergian nanny-state to prove he is a liberal, but still a fiscal conservative, and finally an official Independent.

    Romney sounds like a total squish with this political history. Besides, even after he became a Republican, he did NOTHING to help build the GOP in Massachusetts. NOTHING.

    No wonder he flips on everything.

    So, why is Ron Paul not once releasing his cyber-war on Romney?

    I really feel bad for Scott Brown if he has to run with Romney on the same ticket.

  • joayn

    Fiorina running against Barbara Boxer. Carly, the chosen one, who didn’t bother to vote in many, many elections. No matter! Carly’s the only one who can beat Boxer because “she’s the most electable.” Yep, they ran with the premiere opportunist instead of going with Chuck DeVore, who would have creamed Boxer in the debates and would have given Californians a real choice for once.

  • Adjoran

    but why bother with a lot of detail?

    Looks like he will be the nominee anyway, doesn’t it?

  • sandiegovoter

    You had no problem with Rick Perry starting out his political career with the Democrat party.

    Ever heard of Ronald Reagan? Didn’t he used to be a Democrat?

    Seriously, Streiff. Grow the f up.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      And if not this, I’m guessing not much longer.

      • Scope

        but alas, it’s the kinder and gentler side of RS that would allow these types of posters to continue spilling their bilge here.

        • Bill S

          If so, sandle would have been gone a couple of comments into its life span. As it stands, I predict that won’t last much longer.

      • sandiegovoter

        The title of this diary is “Mitt Romney: Registered Democrat”. I’m calling on Streiff to prove his claim.

        He’s claiming that Romney is now a registered Democrat and yet the site that he links to clearly shows that in Romney’s 1976 voter registration form, no party was checked.

        How does this site prove Streiff’s claim that Romney is now a registered Democrat? Isn’t it against the rules here to post incorrect information that is more of a liberal talking point than anything else?

        Doesn’t everyone here need to follow the same rules? I’m calling on Streiff to defend his assertion that Romney is currently a registered Democrat. Come on out, Streiff.

    • streiff

      and wish to subscribe to youir newsletter.

  • Pingback: gsdfghsdkflhgksdfl

  • Pingback: getwhgdrthfyjfygujfuyg

  • Pingback: software toko program kasir terbaik

  • Pingback: Website

  • Pingback: circuit training

  • Pingback: paleo recipes

  • Pingback: leapfrog leappad explorer

  • Pingback: nikon d700

  • Pingback: rank site SEO

  • Pingback: do you agree

  • Pingback: google sniper 2

  • Pingback: Make money Youtube video

  • Pingback: lopressor

  • Pingback: pond 5 promo code

  • Pingback: sushi catering boston

  • Pingback: christian louboutin

  • Pingback: stables

  • Pingback: seocu

  • Pingback: Fletcher Hoeke

  • Pingback: real estate dubai

  • Pingback: more web design

  • Pingback: paleo dessert recipes

  • Pingback: online personalization

  • Pingback: over at this website

  • Pingback: electronics

  • Pingback: tube 8

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: legal steroids

  • Pingback: Web Site

  • Pingback: legal steriods

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: buy synthol

  • Pingback: Sell Used Cars

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: umrah

  • Pingback: estate agents glasgow

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: gay

  • Pingback: Pain in lower abdomen

  • Pingback: astral projection website

  • Pingback: rv warranty

  • Pingback: astral project chakras

  • Pingback: density

  • Pingback: watch this video

  • Pingback: managing supply chain

  • Pingback: I was reading this

  • Pingback: gutters tampa fl

  • Pingback: Suggested Internet site

  • Pingback: Clicking Here

  • Pingback: pure green coffee extracts

  • Pingback: Indianapolis Indiana homes for sale

  • Pingback: swissdent

  • Pingback: Dell Battery

  • Pingback: Stocks

  • Pingback: mortgage help

  • Pingback: link to site

  • Pingback: Click This Link

  • Pingback: Green Bean Casserole

  • Pingback: toronto plumbing

  • Pingback: tartamudez definicion

  • Pingback: tas import

  • Pingback: sushi catering boston

  • Pingback: Nikon v2

  • Pingback: tumblr followers

  • Pingback: Orlando Web Design

  • Pingback: Make Money Youtube

  • Pingback: lecteur carte vitale

  • Pingback: Remote Control

  • Pingback: haccp zachodniopomorskie

  • Pingback: abc blinds

  • Pingback: click to investigate

  • Pingback: real active instagram followers

  • Pingback: "?????"

  • Pingback: Rent a dumpster

  • Pingback: Dumpster Rental

  • Pingback: weight loss diet

  • Pingback: land of nod

  • Pingback: samsung galaxy s3

  • Pingback: logos quiz

  • Pingback: nsa hookups

  • Pingback: Youtube Make Money

  • Pingback: target baby registry online

  • Pingback: Organo Gold Scam

  • Pingback: Solavei

  • Pingback: cheapest car insurance quotes

  • Pingback: hair loss vitamins

  • Pingback: gigi spice video

  • Pingback: Harley Dyse

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: Medical Practice Marketing

  • Pingback: Medical Marketing

  • Pingback: information

  • Pingback: website logo design

  • Pingback: Get More Information

  • Pingback: over at this website

  • Pingback: strict diet