Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
He will be an excellent president.Seriously.
They practically came out and said he is the only serious credible candidate in the primary.Where have I heard that before?
So Romney is now the liberals favorite. Once he gets the coveted NYT endorsement he's a shoe-in.
There's not a man or woman in the running for President who possesses "sobriety, wisdom (or) judgment."Our choices comprise a thoroughly rotten potpourri of fools, frauds, and barbarians.
I hope he has an answer to all the 'mud' that the Obama campaign will throw at him. That is what most people who are ABO (anybody but Obama) are unsure of.Yeah, he is the Democrats' Republican.
Andy R. said...They practically came out and said he is the only serious credible candidate in the primary.Where have I heard that before?The Register isn't exactly a Conservative rag, they regularly endorse hard Lefty Tom Harkin.
Who was the last winning endorsement for President the Register made? Didn't they go for Hillary over Obama and Romney over McCain?
Romney’s strategy on taxes is unique among the Republican contenders in calling for reforms that would benefit middle-income Americans and not just those at the top of the economic pyramid.The biggest reform to benefit middle America would be to assist the public in having more confidence in the economy. That means jobs, assistance against banks on mortgages, moving all retail contract to month to month contract for paycheck to paycheck people with no late fees, no service termination fees. That is what will bring freedom to middle American via the stock holding classes.
“So Romney is now the liberals favorite.”The Register endorsed Romney for the *Republican* primary. Folks here in Iowa would be astounded if it endorsed Romney in the general.In any case, Romney will be a no-nonsense president: Problem focused, hardworking and a renewed emphasis on merit, American Exceptionalism and family values. I doubt we’ll be seeing the coarser elements of American culture being celebrated in the Romney White House.What’s not to like?
So Romney is now the liberals favorite. Well, he's the only one who isn't a total joke, so it's hard not for him to be the favorite. Even though he will be the toughest opponent for Obama, I think most liberals still hope he wins because any other candidate would be such a total disaster for the country.
"What's not to like?" Ask Rush.
"Sobriety" is dog whistle for "Mormon".
“Yeah, he (Romney) is the Democrats' Republican.”No he’s not; Huntsman is.Thank Moroni that didn’t fly.
This bit from last year is why a lot of people are nervous about Milton.Not many people want ZeroCare "fixed"; people want it killed.Andy R. said...So Romney is now the liberals favorite.Well, he's the only one who isn't a total joke, so it's hard not for him to be the favorite.Especially since everything the "Liberals" stand for has turned into a joke recently.
Go figure. Romney said , "I am a progressive" in 2002. The tiger still wars his stripes when talking about and defending Romneycare.
Strange that Cook is the one I'm in closest agreement with on the thread, though our reasons for thinking them fools, frauds, and barbarians probably differ wildly.
This is the whole reason Mitt can win:He will do little more than "preside".
Romney is a competent pragmatist with conservative principles.If you think he'll be too quick to compromise those principles in the interest getting things done, elect a conservative congress.
Conservatives vs. the establishment. Incredible. How much evidence do they need that Anybody But Romney is the will of the people? But, as edutcher pointed out, they also supported the man who put "alternative" medicine in government - Mr. Bee Pollen himself - Tom Harkin. Oh joy! My trust for this paper just went way, way, up!!!!"Sobriety, wisdom and judgment." Is that how talking out of both sides of your mouth is described now? Oh, wait, I forgot - YOU'RE BOOMERS! So of course that's how it's described."He will be an excellent president."As long as nobody's willing to ask him anything deeper than "Do you want the job?" Ann - making a "rational choice" - thought the same of GodZero and look where it got us. What's wrong with you two over there? She's a goddamned professor and can't spot the obvious. You're supposed to be a conservative and sound like you're already in Romney's pocket. Is that how it works now?Let's see - we can't talk about Jeremiah Wright but can we talk about Romney's lifelong membership in a "church" that didn't even acknowledge me as a person until 1978? A little late to the party, there, don't you think? Why, Mr. Romney? You were born in 1947 - making you an adult well before the "prophesy" that finally changed things - why didn't you leave the "church"?And what about the great Granite Mountain vault where we're all "prayed in" as LDS members? Come on, people - we're not children:Why must I be forced to live 4 more years under another died-in-the-wool weirdo because the rest of you are too squeamish to act like adults and tackle the fact he's a died-in-the-wool weirdo? Obama was no more of a 'rational choice" than this bozo - it was self-delusion and cowardice and this is looking like another episode of that all-time favorite program of elitists "HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!!"You people really need to stop voting and leave the country to those of us not as "smart" as you are,...
"Folks here in Iowa would be astounded if it endorsed Romney in the general."Exactly. I'm sure they'll be endorsing Obama come October.
"Folks here in Iowa would be astounded if it endorsed Romney in the general."Exactly. I'm sure they'll be endorsing Obama come October.______________As will most of the people claiming to support Romney now. They'll cheer him on right until he gets the nomination, and then they will go vote for Obama.
Does Iowa really matter anymore? I heard this morning the caucus will get a total of 120,000 voters? That is not a meaningful number IMO.wv = caryoun [as you were]
"... They practically came out and said he is the only serious credible candidate in the primary..."Well he is. It's a shame the Democrats don't have an equally serious candidate.
"... I think most liberals still hope he wins because any other candidate would be such a total disaster for the country..."Agreed. They already voted for the total disaster in 2008. No reason to vote for complete chaos this time.
EDH said...Romney is a competent pragmatist with conservative principles.If you think he'll be too quick to compromise those principles in the interest getting things done, elect a conservative congress.That's the intent.
"... Strange that Cook is the one I'm in closest agreement with on the thread, though our reasons for thinking them fools, frauds, and barbarians probably differ wildly..."Indeed. Unless the candidate is promoting full bore collectivism, none will be good enough for Cook.
Leave it to we conservative atheists to be the only ones talking like adults:"I’d repeat again that I’m genuinely undecided but that would just feed those who’re convinced I have a secret bias in favor of a particular candidate that I refuse to reveal,...as a commenter at Ricochet put it, this is the real Romney. If he now says he wants to repeal the whole law, it’s only because he knows he has to satisfy the conservative base."He'll say anything, and that means "He will be an excellent president."?No - it means he's already a practiced liar and we know that BEFOREHAND - so can the rest of us conservatives PLEASE agree we don't want or need another one?Seriously - haven't you had enough?
"Let's see - we can't talk about Jeremiah Wright but can we talk about Romney's lifelong membership in a "church" that didn't even acknowledge me as a person until 1978?"The LDS Church has always acknowledged all people. That God chooses certain groups of people to have his authority is not unusual when you consider the ancient Israelites (only Levites had the priesthood). Would you disagree that he cared about the other tribes too?
One would think sobriety would be the minimum expected of a Mormon.
Romney is malleable -- that's not a bug, it's a feature.The next Congress - both House and Senate, will be Republican. He will continue to be molded by the tea party.Unless he can solve the housing market and the eurozone in one fell swoop he will not be an excellent president, but he will be a good one.Sobriety? Why don't they just pile on and call him steady, dependable, and decent?
Yes ... and Mitt now agrees that his Dad was "brainwashed by the Pentagon."I will have to do something more than hold my nose to be able to vote for him now.
The paper's brief assessments of the other candidates at the bottom are priceless...Bachmann....Yak yak yak. Couldn't get this broad to shut up. An impressive fireball who vomits up phony data. Gingrich...An intellectual jerky flibbertygibbet.Paul....Not a nut but he has nutty ideas!Perry..."He would administer the Texas tonic." I guess that would either give American diarrhea or make smoke pour out our ears.Santorum...A moose killer. "Minister-in-chief."
That God chooses certain groups of people to have his authority is not unusual...Do you get that? God ordained your second-classness - we can't help it. It certainly doesn't mean He doesn't care you. Hey, go argue with Him!
I don't know about "sobriety", but the Current Occupant is certainly lacking the qualities of "wisdom" and "judgment".
The other night I looked up the differences between how Romney wanted Romneycare to be implemented and how it was implemented by liberal Massachusetts. Now I like him even more. Romneycare was not the same as Obamacare. And almost nothing like Obamacare had it been implemented as Romney designed.
All the nuts want to limit leviathan. Only the wise and sober understand that well, the way it is is the way it is and you've gotta work within the way it is. Not like those nuttier than a fruitcake Founders!
Freeman Hunt: The other night I looked up the differences between how Romney wanted Romneycare to be implemented and how it was implemented by liberal Massachusetts.There were changes because he was willing to make compromises to get his plan through the state legislature. I have to assume the same process will happen to any plan he espouses as it works its way through the national legislature.Expect a lot of nice plans that end up like Romneycare. Pardon me if I don't place any of the blame on the executive in charge.
LilEvie: Romney is malleable -- that's not a bug, it's a feature.The next Congress - both House and Senate, will be Republican. He will continue to be molded by the tea party.He's made it very clear in the debates that he intends to work with Democrats. The Tea Party caucus isn't that large and contains plenty of members who can be turned.
Meade: He will be an excellent president.Seriously.Of course! Until he gets the nomination, at which point he'll be portrayed as the next Hitler. And we've all seen how poorly he handles attacks.
"Until he gets the nomination, at which point he'll be portrayed as the next Hitler."Yup.
Gingrich is now officially a lunatic.Is there anyone else left besides Mr. Inevitable?
As a far left Madison liberal, I don't think Romney would be a bad president at all. I'm sure he would reach across the aisle and work with Democrats on things like cap and trade and health care. I doubt he would pick fire breathers for the Supreme Court either.
"All the nuts want to limit leviathan."The only nut who wants to limit Leviathan is Ron Paul.Do you want to drastically reduce our Defense and Intelligence Budgets and rein in their influence on policy decisions? Do you want to restrict the extreme police powers being claimed (or legislated) by the government, such as being able to imprison anyone indefinitely in military detention, including American citizens, (not that it would be less bad if Americans were exempted), and prohibit their having access to legal counsel? Do you want to block the government's plans to introduce clouds of drone aircraft into American airspace to surveil all Americans everywhere all the time, (the plans include suggestions to equip the drones with non-lethal weapons such as tasers and bean-bag guns)?If you do, you want to restrict Leviathan; if you support any of the above, you support Leviathan.
Freeman Hunt is right. Governor Romney was working with a Democrat-controlled legislature who often overrode his vetoes. Let's see how he does with a Republican congress.Also, Romney makes a very important point about federalism and the states being laboratories of legislative experiment. Perry's misleading statements to the contrary, Romney was and is profoundly opposed to a federally mandated, top down approach of Obama Care. Do I wish he would distance himself a little more from the Mass. health care legislation? Sure. I also wish Newt would distance himself from advocating for Fannie and Freddie, but as we saw from the last debate, neither of those things are going to happen.
Freeman Hunt said... The other night I looked up the differences between how Romney wanted Romneycare to be implemented and how it was implemented by liberal Massachusetts. Now I like him even more. Romneycare was not the same as Obamacare. And almost nothing like Obamacare had it been implemented as Romney designed.-------------Why doesn't he come out and say that?
One can certainly criticize Barney Frank for any number of failings--as one can for every member of Congress--but he made a forceful argument for government's appropriate functions on Amanpour's program this morning. I didn't see it, but Crooks and Liars presents a clip and this quote from his opening statement:"Yes, we have too much government, and yes, we have too little government. There is this mistaken view that says, you know, we have a fight between the people's money and the government's money. It's all the people's money. The question is, as people, intelligently, we have two sets of needs. We have needs that we best pursue individually, with money for ourselves and our families. And we can make personal choices. But then there are things that we have to do together."I understand the appeal of tax cuts, but in all my years of government, I have never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I have never seen a tax cut build a bridge or clean up toxic atmosphere."The point is that there are some things where we are inevitably together. We are interlocked in the economy. We're all subject to the same environment, we all have the same public safety needs. And there, I think, we have sometimes had too little government."On the other hand, and my conservative friends who claim that they are for small government are the ones who tell us that an adult shouldn't be able to gamble on the Internet. We have the leading judicial conservative, Antonin Scalia, absolutely in a snit because you can't be sent to jail if you have personal sexual relations of which he does not approve. We have a series of interventions by the conservatives in those choices that should be left to individuals."So my conservative friends have it absolutely backwards. I do want there to be regulation so that you don't have the kind of manipulation in the financial area that leads to crises. And I do want to be able to clean up the environment. No matter how rich you are, you can't get your own air to breathe."On the other hand, as I said, there are overreaches by the conservatives. And by the way, they include militarily. I think we have a wonderful military, full of able young people, very well equipped, and they can stop bad things from happening. But they're not really good at making good things happen in foreign societies. And it's on the whole my conservative friends who want us to be rebuilding other societies where we're not very good at it. So the answer is yes, we should have more government where we need in an interactive way to protect ourselves against abuses, but there should be more personal choice. And so that's the -- that's the current situation."And so my answer is yes, I want more government involved in economic regulation and environmental cleanup and for reasons of public safety. I want less government telling me what personal choices to make as an individual."
"He's made it very clear in the debates that he intends to work with Democrats. The Tea Party caucus isn't that large and contains plenty of members who can be turned."He can't give away the store without the R's that should control both houses. If the R's mess up this time, they will deserve to be out in the wilderness for a couple of decades. They basically have one more chance to get it right.
a supporter of the sober candidate, Mitt Romney. And, of course my obedient husband concurs.
"Gingrich is now officially a lunatic."Even assuming he could that, he wouldn't. Gingrich is a rank con man, a slicker who is merely pandering to the more cretinous among the electorate...he's simply trolling the trolls for their votes.
"... I understand the appeal of tax cuts, but in all my years of government, I have never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I have never seen a tax cut build a bridge or clean up toxic atmosphere....'hahahaha!Wait...catching breath...Hahahaha!
the more cretinous among the electorateThat condescension is to average Americans, right? The folks who are sick of getting jacked around by "smart" guys? Keep pushing it, Cookie:You're gonna find your socialist ass blubbering at the barrel of a gun eventually,...
Anyone who devotes that much space to something said by Barney Frank for gods sake .... seriously???
The Des Moines Register is the 23%.
"That condescension is to average Americans, right?"No, it's a description of that portion of the electorate who respond favorably to such inanities as Gingrich's lie that he will arrest "activist" judges and will ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with.
"Anyone who devotes that much space to something said by Barney Frank for gods sake .... seriously???"Yes...seriously.
Robert Cook,No, it's a description of that portion of the electorate who respond favorably to such inanities as Gingrich's lie that he will arrest "activist" judges and will ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with.And what do you call socialist suckers who bite down hard on such such inanities?I call them suckers,...
There is neither evidence for Romney's conservatism nor Obama's fabled intelligence.
While I will be strongly supporting President Obama for re-election, Romney is not that bad for a Republican. If elected he will appoint David Souter like candidates ("sobriety, wisdom and judgment") to the court. He will also be good on the environment and healthcare.This election is shaping up to be a "win,win" for progressive America. The Tea Party lost and liberal moderation won. Yea!!
".... This election is shaping up to be a "win,win" for progressive America. The Tea Party lost and liberal moderation won. Yea!!..."Bawhahahahahahaha!Gasp.......Hahahahahaha!
I really wish you environmental morons could live in a pre industrial society. LOL!
Think of it this way: Romney is the likely Republican choice of:Garage, Robert Cook, Jay Retread, Cedarford, Alpha Liberal, the Madison protesters (including the obese hunger striker, the guy who assaulted Althouse, the ones who defaced the military monuments and the ones who screamed obscenities at a 14 year old speaker)Also the OWS people (including the guy who poops on cop cars), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, John Edwards, and Meadehouse.
Well thanks to Meade and Ann for not being crazy Teabaggers.
"... Well thanks to Meade and Ann for not being crazy Teabaggers..."LOL! They live in the Peoples Republic of Madison for Allah's sake.
Hoosier Daddy,I really wish you environmental morons could live in a pre industrial society.I really wish we could make that happen. That, as soon as they start spouting such nonsense, they'd get their wish and be forced to live that way. Of course, that's not their wish, any more than giving the government more money is their wish - it's their fascistic wish for OTHER PEOPLE to be forced into doing these things - which, in my opinion, is more-than-ample reason for confining them. I mean, there's no reasoning with them. And this constant back-and-forth, one step forward, two steps back bullshit gets tedious; not to mention we make no progress whatsoever as long as we're forced into tolerating their interruptions. So give them their wish for us all. That's what they want and deserve. Sure, they'll call it totalitarianism or some such, but they call anything they want totalitarianism - when it's directed back at themselves. And, personally, I'm sick of listening to their dreams of how to torture us, aren't you? The results of the last election (2008) proved how far they'd go. I think, for America, that's far enough. The 60s are over. Let's lock 'em up.We have the right to a real life as well, you know,...
"Well thanks to Meade and Ann for not being crazy Teabaggers."Yea, we wouldn't want anything as radical as fiscal sobriety, when we can have the purely rhetorical kind instead.I do have to admit that Romney is clean and articulate, and his pants crease is gonna give Obama's a run for the money.
Robt. Cook wrote:No, it's a description of that portion of the electorate who respond favorably to such inanities as Gingrich's lie that he will arrest "activist" judges and will ignore Supreme Court rulings he disagrees with.After Mr. Cook quoted with approval Rep. Barney Franks' words:I understand the appeal of tax cuts, but in all my years of government, I have never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I have never seen a tax cut build a bridge or clean up toxic atmosphere.Firefighting and bridge building are local endeavors that are not the responsibility, other than in special inter-state cases, the responsibility of the Federal government.I have never heard of the Federal government "cleaning up a toxic atmosphere". Is this a frequent occurrence? Mr. Cook should learn to recognize that "inanity" is not a partisan term.
Of course, that's not their wish, any more than giving the government more money is their wish - it's their fascistic wish for OTHER PEOPLE to be forced into doing these thingsWell yeah, thats how liberals roll. For thee and not for me. Liberals are all fine for clean environment as long as it doesn't infringe on their lifestyle.
uh oh Condi for VP!I hope to God Hillary will not acquiesce to become Obama's VP, she who should have been president. Maybe he will be made to give up the top of the ticket.
"... I hope to God Hillary will not acquiesce to become Obama's VP.."Oh I think that would be awesome. Biden the Dim replaced by I dodged sniper fire Hillary@!LOL
Do the Dems have anybody on their bench who hasn't lived a life on the backs of taxpayers? Someone who has built something from nothing without the use of government to extract it from others?
Bagoh20:No.Their health is the weakness and disease of the workers and citizens of the United States.
Crack - "How much evidence do they need that Anybody But Romney is the will of the people?"===========By "will of the people" you reference some Fundies and right wing nuts that are important to the Republican Party like the government employee unions are to the Democrats.But they, like the unions, are less than 7% of the overall US population and in no way reflective of the will of the People in a general election.It takes a lot of pounding to get this into the heads of the rightwingers: Newt is 11 points behind Obama and looks to be back 20-22 points were he was a few months back once he is vetted. The Conservative Goddess Palin was 26 points behind Obama when she said she would not run. Cain was ahead of Obama for one week before all his flaws came out and he was 10 points behind when he quit. They don't even bother polling for Obama against Huntsman, Santorum, Bachamann, or Paul. Perry is 11 points behind Obama and each week, a new gaffe comes up (Perry didn't know how many Justices are on the Supreme Court..just that he likes 4 of them).Romney is in a range of a few points ahead or behind Obama, depending on the week.
"They don't even bother polling for Obama against Huntsman, Santorum, Bachamann, or Paul."What's flawed about that logic is to imagine for example that it was Huntsman versus Obama. Do you really think Obama would just walk away with it?The primary system picks a nominee, but the result does not mean that the ones not picked couldn't win the general. That's the frustration of it.Everybody who didn't get their first choice nominated still gets a vote, they don't just stay home.
Cedarford, Obama won 53%-47% against McCain/Palin in 2008. He is far less popular today with virtually every democrat constituency than he was in 2008.
Crack: I really wish we could make that happen.I think its on the way. The financial mess in Europe will cascade. Riots and anarchy. When the walls come down, these people will be "like a wounded gazelle on the Serengeti".And when the dust settles and we start to rebuild, Crack will be a minister spreading God's Word to those without Hope. I've seen it ;) Okay, not really. But isn't that the way life usually plays out?
Let's see - we can't talk about Jeremiah Wright but can we talk about Romney's lifelong membership in a "church" that didn't even acknowledge me as a person until 1978?Wow, Crack plays the race card. Surprising.
So, the repubs will end up nominating someone who possesses all of the qualities they have been railing against for the last 10 years... "...graduated as valedictorian at BYU and finished in the top 5 percent in his MBA class at Harvard, where he also earned a law degree."Ah, sweet principles...
"I really wish you environmental morons could live in a pre industrial society."If things keep going the way they're going, you may get your wish!
Phil 3:14,Wow, Crack plays the race card. Surprising.Now how wrong can you get an argument, Phil? Are you denying the truth behind what I've said of Mormon doctrine and history? If not, then how am I "playing the race card"? I swear, some days, I wonder about you guys,...
Post a Comment