Honestly, just me personally, if I was Mittens I wouldn't want Bob Dole of all people to pimp my supposed electability. It's like if Obama dug out Dukakis from his living grave and got his endorsement. You don't want that image.

Still, Dole's story about Newt and the empty bucket visiting Dole's HQ back in '96 was awesome.

Fun Fact: Dole is the only person in American history to lose elections as both running mate and presidential nominees.

Didn't Mondale lose as VP under Carter in 1980 and then was just edged out (525 - 13)in 1984 as the Presidential candidate?

But he was elected Vice-President in '76, and lost re-election as VP.

But yeah by my wording, you are correct. I probably should've written instead that Dole is the only figure in American history to be nominated for both positions yet never elected to either office.

(We could debate sometime that argument out there that Dole's VP placement, done to please the Reagan conservative faction of the GOP, help cost Ford the '76 election.)

You could debate it, but it wouldn't have mattered.

There was absolutely no way a Republican was winning in '76 after Watergate. We would have elected a peanut farmer before we did that.

Oops.

It's over. The Georgian bacon has gone cold and will now be thrown into the garbage.

Who knew it would be Santorum of all people who knocked Mittens on his ass flat over HCR? "Not worth getting mad about"? My plan, that I've been disowning for several years as a bad national model, works?

I can't believe this, I agree with Ricky: Mittens has given that issue away for the fall.

Hey remember my predix of Rubio as VP? The way those three pandered to Rubio (Mittens: "a terrific Hispanic leader"), it's like they're talking about the Cuban Jesse Jackson or something, the local ethnic cadre who they want to kiss their ring.

Also, Paul was funny about that Cuban answer. If there was justice, he would be the GOP nominee. Granted, he would lose. But that said, he could be a Goldwater, someone who broke the dam of political/philosophical change to the GOP orthodoxy and instituted long-term changes.

Imagine those debates where he would stick it to Obama over civil liberties and striving (if more sane compared to Dubya) for more war in the Middle East, and even the War on Drugs. I would pay good cash to see a guy I'm voting for squirm on those issues.

funny pic i saw online

You know I know everybody, including Mittens, ridiculed Newt's moon base idea. Sure it was part of his self-ego bloated fantasy. Yes it's not happening because of costs and all that.

But the basic notion appeals to me since I'm a space fan and I hate how irrelevant (and let's admit it: lame) NASA has become. Plus it could be the desperately needed enema down in central Florida's economy, which has uemployment over 10%. A permanent solution.

More than anything else, it's an fascinating idea. It's cool, if unrealistic and easily mockable. But dammit, IT'S COOL! (Remember last two times it was proposed by Bush Sr. and Dubya) What ideas has Mittens given for his possible administration besides Anti-Obama this and that? His wage idea was great, but he's dropped it recently last I checked.

No on that moon base shit tonight, Mittens replied that he rather have those Federal billions instead go to housing. Government housing apparently. Maybe PB is right, maybe Mittens is a Democrat in closet denial after all.

Believe it or not, constructive ideas aren't an evil liberal thing. T.R. is seen as the first "Progressive" President, and he was a Republican. Regulate unsanitary food and medicine? Be responsible and preserve our forests and coastal shores? Break up some Trusts who've gotten bigger and more powerful than the nation?

No wait, he's an evil socialist after all.

heres a few more plz share these around lol





look at romney's pic

So this random thought came to mind when reflecting upon that Mittens statement from the debate last night that he never voted for a Democratic candidate when there was a GOP candidate on the ballot.

Why is Mittens embarrased (or acts like it) about voting for Tsongas in the Democratic presidential primary in '92? Certainly a Massachussetts Democrat worried about deficit spending, he would've possibly been considered an attractive choice for cross-party voters. It's not like he voted for Ted Kennedy, as McCain and later Newt made it out to be.

Mittens could've argued that yeah he voted for the other party, but it proves that he's more concerned about issues than mindless partisanship. Better than anything else, it would be true, something the records can't disprove. It's not dodgy like his stance on abortion or HCR or whatever.

Why is that a liability?

EDIT - A break from Mittens Bashing, bigtime lose Rick Perry is back in the news:



http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-poli...00-2128522.html

I caught that too, Ronnie. Short answer: He's pandering to the partisan loons who would vote for Idi Amin if he were a registered Republican .

Still, I'm rooting for him to KO the Pillsbury hypocrite from Georgia, by way of Pennsylvania. He's an angry, lying, hypocritical scumbag. If he were to win the nomination (by some miracle), Obama will win at least 35 states come November. And you can write that number down.

Bob Dole? Wow. He'll be on my 2013 dead list.

I wonder if the Viagra still works for him?

Did anyone watch the FLA debate last night? By all accounts, Mitt did much better tho this morning they are showing National polls with Newt in the lead (FWIW). And the Clown show continues...



TIS

i have mondale on my 2012 list.

Poll shows Romney surging in Florida

By Brian Montopoli, CBS News

Mitt Romney leads Newt Gingrich by nine points in a new poll of likely Republican primary voters in Florida, the latest sign that the former Massachusetts governor has reversed the momentum Gingrich gained following his South Carolina primary victory.

The Quinnipiac University poll, released this morning, shows Romney leading Gingrich 38 percent to 29 percent, with Ron Paul following at 14 percent and Rick Santorum at 12 percent. The poll reflects a clear surge for Romney: In a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, Romney led Gingrich by just two points.

Romney's increased support comes from men in the Sunshine State, who've gone from backing Gingrich 37 percent to 33 percent to backing Romney 36 percent to 29 percent. (Romney's ten point advantage among women has roughly held steady.)

In polls taken immediately after his primary win, Gingrich was leading Romney by as much as nine points. Now polls are consistently showing Romney with a lead in the high single digits.

Gingrich's best hope to close the apparent gap was probably last night's Republican presidential debate. But after shining in both debates last week in South Carolina, Gingrich has been on his heels in these debates, and Romney was widely seen as having put in the better performance last night.

Florida is a "winner-take-all" delegate state, which means the state's 50 delegates will go entirely to whoever comes out on top in the primary.

Yes TIS, I did. Romney did well, especially when he jibed Gingrich for also having mutual fund investments in federal corporations. However, what continues to be interesting to me is the way Brit Hume during his comments about the debate continued to jab at Gingrich. He appears to have a real animus for Gingrich as does Coulter et al.

I've heard Coutler's comments on Newt and am not surprised by Hume. Really, the GOP does not have a selection this year, let's face it. They would rather have Mitt then Newt. I think they are realizing they have to at least try to rally around Mitt because nobody seems to want Newt...or more than they don't want Mitt.

Re the debate: I gotta say I would never vote for him but I do find Ron Paul likeable on a certain level. I laughed when he mentioned "age discrimination" when they questioned his age/abilities. And when he said some politicians should be sent to the moon.


TIS

My brother was very impressed by what they had to say during the debate about their wives. He said that based on the candidates' answers to the question about their wives, he wants to know why they don't step down and let their wives run!

I like Paul also. But, as politicians tend to do, he simplfies complex issues by ignoring their complexities and possible negative outcomes.

Romney Converted His Father-in-Law After He Died



http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/0...l#disqus_thread

I know the LDS have been caught going into graveyards, converting Catholic and Jewish graves (especially Holocaust victims) into the Church of Salt Lake, but I personally never suspected Mittens' own clique doing it themselves. Might explain the LDS' healthy membership growth rate.

(Hey Pizzaboy when you die, can I convert you into Scientology? You'll get to hang out with L. Ron Hubbard and shit.)

(This is a repost what else I supplemented to the Mittens-conversion report on another message board.)

Selected passages from the wikipedia page on LDS' baptism of the dead:











Technically, theologically speaken, the Romneys did nothing wrong. But that said, this news could come off as just too weird for the mainstream. You know the Evangelicals who don't trust Mittens (or prejudist, your pick)? Yeah they're given another reason to not want to like the guy.

But the mainstream will be reminded (or informed) of the converting of thousands of people across different religions to the LDS, and of course that old PR nightmare over the Holocaust victim post-mortem conversions especially. Reading that wikipedia page, I totally forgot about that one sect who converted Obama's dead mother.

Then there is the last element of that entire story: The fact that allegedly, Mittens' father-in-law was an atheist who stayed an atheist while the rest of his family converted to Mormonism, and allegedly gave no wishes or desires to be baptized into that faith after his passing. There would be a debate about the ethics and supposed morality of such a post-mortem move on somebody who may've not wanted it.

Mittens has another problem perhaps. Not a screw-up of his own making like his Tax mess, or running away from old policies like HCR and abortion. No he would be a victim in this one, and if that smear hits...it's going to be ugly.

BREAKING NEWS!!!!

Roseanne Barr to run for Green Party presidential nomination

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/01/26/roseanne-barr-will-seek-green-party-presidential-nomination/

Seriously? LMAO Now we need Ron Paul to run as a third party and really add to the show.



TIS

Sorry to interject here but, as a member of the LDS Church, the above is misleading to say the least. Not sure where you got the "going into the graveyards" bit.

Here it is in a nutshell. The names of deceased persons are submitted to the LDS Church, usually by living family members or close friends who are members of the Church. Certain ordinances are done for them in LDS temples, including baptism by proxy. The belief is, it gives those who never had a chance to hear and accept the Gospel while they were alive, an opportunity to do so while they are in the spirit world or afterlife. Or to accept it after the fact, even if they had initially rejected it in mortality. Since you need to have a body to be baptized, obviously it has to be done by someone in their behalf who is living. They can also be married to their spouses and sealed to their families via proxy.

The idea that the LDS Church is somehow forcibly converting anybody is ludicrous. The work in the temples is done for them but that certainly doesn't mean they lose their free will, with which they can accept or reject it on the other side. It basically comes down to this - if what the Church is doing is true, than it's a great service for the whole world. If not, then it really has no effect for good or bad anyway.

Certain enemies of the Church know this very well and yet choose to take offense anyway. It was they who made a big stink about the Church doing proxy baptisms for deceased Jewish people, including Holocaust victims. But the Church and Jewish leaders came to an agreement on that. And, for the record, the Church doesn't count the dead among it's membership rolls.

Anyway, not trying to proselytize here. Just setting the record straight. Which I imagine we'll have to do a lot more if Romney is ultimately elected.

Ivyleague - thanks for the corrections. The "graveyard" bit I apologize for being rhetorically ignorant.

However with regards to "setting the record straight," remember those polls when Dubya was President that 10-15% of Americans thought the government was behind 9/11? Now you have 10-15% who apparently think the current President is a Muslim. I'm sure the same retarded insane 10-15% will believe what they want to believe about a President Romney.

Because the most successful political smears work on general public ignorance. That's always been the case.

I posted that article and allegation at another message board, and the local liberals there kneejerked in disgust, but then claim they're above using one's religion against a candidate. I wish we Internet users were there together in the flesh so I could give them a long, bland stare. Really? Bullshit. I can clearly see that public front used to attack the LDS later this year, in the form of the Holocaust victims. Nevermind the inevitable extention of already existing jokes about polygamy and "magic underwear."

But to defend those liberals, I'm damn certain Newt will beat them to it. A animal is most dangerous when it's bleeding.

The liberals that you're speaking of are phonies, Ronnie. When it suits them, they can get just as ugly as their far right counterparts.

What in the world is fair? I take advantage of the capital gains tax rate. I still pay quite a bit in federal income tax. What's the standard by which fairness is measured?

A cold beer after a hard day's work.