The calculators are out in full force following Super Tuesday determining how each candidate, if possible, could forge a path to the magic 1,144 delegates needed to clench the nomination. There are plausible paths for each candidate but for Gingrich and Paul, it would mean severely over performing in the next few months given their performance in the first two months.

Report from USAToday:

Mitt Romney’s prize of 212 delegates out of the Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses still leaves him less than halfway to the 1,144 delegates he needs to lock up the GOP presidential nomination.

But the delegate math is even more daunting for his challengers.

Romney has won 56% of the delegates awarded so far, and needs to garner 47% of the remaining delegates to reach the magic number, according to a USA TODAY analysis of delegate counts provided by the Associated Press.

His challengers have a higher bar: Rick Santorum would need 63% of the remaining delegates. Newt Gingrich needs 67%. And Ron Paul needs 71%.

With none of the candidates giving any indication of dropping out, Super Tuesday’s results may only prolong the nomination battle into June or beyond.

Anything can happen over the next couple months and this will likely not be settled until almost June given the way states keep splitting on their votes.

133 COMMENTS

    • It’s ironic that the GOP looked jealously at the Obama/Clinton melodrama and decided they wanted a piece of that. They changed the rules (and apparently continue to change them), and they’re already regretting it.

      • Goethe Behr

        Nah. They planned it this way. In 2008 after McCain’t got the nomination, he was hardly in the news. It was Obama vs Clinton all through the summer. The GOP wants to carry this out as long as they can. The Media is promoting the melodrama trying to make the GOP Electorate look indecisive, but the “Establishment” has already made the choice for them. Too bad that candidate is NO better than Obama. The Status-Quo will always win-out because the People believe anything the Media says. They are nothing but Apathetic Gullible Sheeple.

  1. There is no clear winner at the moment for the worst GOP bunch ever. Its very unfair that Ron Paul is being clearly sidelined by the Republican Party, when he appeals to teens and the youth. The old guard will never love Paul because of his purely democratic tendencies and true spirit of Americanism. Its a pity Paul chose a party that doesn’t recognise his efforts or accommodate him. Here is a Democratic Party candidate who happens to be on the wrong side of the fence because of lack of his failure to choose the rightful party. I still bet Ron Paul will garner many votes regardless of being sidelined, although its now certain he won’t be the presidential nominee.

    • If you want to call Ron Paul something, then call him a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican, but don’t ever call him a Democrat. The only rightful party that is deserving of him is the Libertarian party but he knows that in order to have any chance at the presidency, he had to choose the lesser of two evils.

      • Actually lets be fair and move away from the intellectually dishonest statement.. The sole reason Ron Paul is a Republican with not only libertarian leanings as well as Anti-Federalist leanings is because he couldn’t afford to run for POTUS any other way. The Federal Elections Commission has been arrayed and fortified to keep third party platforms from competitively competing financially.

        I find it odd that American GOP voters think Romney is a Republican personally, they thought the same thing of McCain in 08′ as well.

        Problem is simple.. Americans for the most part are very naive and gullible. They believe 10 sec snippets are gospel, in lieu of spending a few hours researching a candidate. Most Americans when polled believe there is no difference between a Liberal and Libertarian. Most Americans have no Idea that with Libertarians there would be no conservatives.

        “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” ~Ronald Reagan 1976~

        • Americans for the most part are very naive and gullible. They believe 10 sec snippets are gospel, in lieu of spending a few hours researching a candidate.

          Now that I will have another drink to.

    • Wake up… the ONLY reason he campaigned on a Republican ticket is that is is his ONLY chance, and his motivations are more towards conservative than liberal. It’s simple math. What’s really astonishing is WHY this should be such a big deal… O’Traitor has raked this country through the coals, and yet there are so many “sheeple” still drinking kool-aid we need to worry about ANYONE beating him? I think this is testement to the moral devaluation of the country as a whole. We ALL need to get involved to assure voter-fraud is not an issue in our areas, that we raise awareness about our future if Obama get’s re-elected, and make sure no matter who the nominee is, that we vote!

  2. Mitt romney does not have those delegates yet.

    God forbid he does. He has no more chance of winning against Barack Obama then Gerald Ford did with Jimmy Carter, than Bob Dole did against Bill Clinton, or John McCain did against Barack Obama.

    Conservatives will stay home in droves as they did in ’76, ’96, ’08.

    We can not afford a Mitt Romney, who can not get out of the the 30’s in the polls.

    He has not sold us adn we don;t want him.

    There are some listening to the media and people like rino Karl Rove throwing people under the bus. Then those people want to be on the band wagon. It is not fair. Thinking people will elect or not.

    The two man race should be Newt and Rick.

    • Not staying home. Nobody I know will stay home and suck their thumbs. We will fight. We will fight Richie Rich and his Stepford family, he is disgusting and is no Christian. His name is not Mitt. Take some time and try to find that on the ‘net. Should give you a clue… we have one creep who won’t tell truth about himself, DO YOU WANT ANOTHER ONE? Lifelong Republican and despise the GOP controllers. Will join Tea Party IF they keep focus and do not go for the Gold. Will write in Ron Paul, as will my very very angry CURRENTLY GOP family and friends. Either we stop the deceivers and one-world-govt neocons and communists in this election or be ready for Patriots to do what our CONSTITUTION and Founding documents ORDER us to do.

    • Patricia, you are right, Romney cannot get out of the thirties, but all other candidates are doing worse!! Newt is now only a regional candidate. As he is not able to fight in all states, he is not able to fight Obama. Rick is better than Newt, but he is still badly organised. How can he fight Obama when he is not able to get on the ballot of Virginia and cannot meet the filing requirements in Ohio? Ron Paul is right, Rick is a fake – Rick – the true conservative! – had to call Obama’s democrats for help in Michigan to stand up against Romney. Who ist Rick calling when he runs againt Obama??? Rick has made a fool out of himself!

    • @Patricia – Current national polls have Mitt Romney at 34%, Rick Santorum at 27%, Newt at 14%, and Ron Paul at 11%. Sure, Mitt can’t get out of the 30’s in the polls, but neither have the other candidates. So Mitt is winning. And Mitt is winning the delegate battle. Even though Mitt lost MS he won more delegates than Santorum. Rick Santorum doesn’t have the organization to get the delegates he needs.

      @Constitution – Wow! You seem to harbor a lot of hatred towards Mitt Romney. Did he do something personal to hurt you? I know him and his family and there is no better human being to have around. He is kind and honest. He has served the people of his community and church for years, all without pay or recognition. He is very much a Christian and his family is far from a Stepford family. The boys are fun to be around around, they were typical teenagers who loved to laugh and pull pranks. Ann is a very fun person to be around, she doesn’t put on airs at all. She’s not above helping out with doing dishes after a church dinner.

      @Henry – Agree. Mitt has the clearest path to the nomination. Rick can only get there if Newt gets out and ALL of Newt’s people flock to him (very unlikely scenario). Newt has NO chance of winning. And Ron Paul, he lost the day the campaign started.

  3. So long as Gengrich or Santorum can get New York or California we’ll likely not see Romney as the nominee. Sucks neither made it on to the Varginia ballot. Romney can’t win in the south against a conservative. People should wake up to the reality of it all too. If Romney can only eak out wins, spending eight times more than his opponents, then he’s got no chance against the Obama money machine.

    • I don’t see New York or California going for either Santorum or Gingrich. They’d be more likely to go for Ron Paul than either of these two.

      The whole New England area seems to be going Romney.

      • Patriots left New England long ago. The Royal Arse Kissers stayed because they knew how the westward pioneers would “welcome” them. Still applies. Clearly the descendants of the “original” families still want to bend over and bow to power. They have never had the guts to be Americans and still fight our Constitution and our Freedom.

        • This descendant of several “original” families will never bend over and bow to power.
          Ron Paul and no other. Westward Ho, Write Him In!

          • You know, I’m from New England, and I (unfortunately) cannot vote, I’m not 18 yet. However, I completely agree that Ron Paul is the best candidate in the GOP, nay, the best candidate of either party right now. However, I unfortunately don’t think he’s going to win. I respect and agree with his ideas, and the ideas of Rand Paul, and I wish that the media would actually GIVE them the time of day. However, each side is afraid to admit that he has a sound political basis, and that he may actually threaten both party. He is definitely a Libertarian, posing as a Republican so that he has even the faintest shot at the presidency. I personally feel that his son Rand is in a similar situation.

            I truly hope that the Republican wins, simply because I think that any candidate still standing (Santorum is gone, and Newt is dropping out, or already has, I’m not sure which) is slightly better. Of course Ron Paul would be best, but Romney is, in my eyes, the lesser of 2 evils here. I’m just rooting for Ron Paul for now, I’ll root for Mitt if he wins, but I’ll be hoping that Rand throws his hat into the 2016 race.

      • Bet is on the table. 1, NY floods for Richie Rich, the corporate guy with the corporate Stepford wife and family – (whatever his real name is… I know what it is but since he wants to keep it secret, you can search like I did if you wanna know or if it realllly matters to ya.) 2. California goes totally whatever, for North America Union sleaze commie Barack ( or whatever his hame is – you don’t need to know, he has proven. ) CA’s hands are held out and open for anyone to give them stuff and always go for the promises of the Boxer ilk and JB. Middle States try to keep up with the Jones’s and are cluckers. Granted there are real Americans all over the place that abhor what is being done to our country, and having a hard time surviving thanks to the greedy bowing stupid voters that have done what they have done to our country, our Freedom, our Middle Class, by electing the cuties they put stupidly over them.

        • They don’t have to feel like the Lone Ranger as the voters in Greece made the same mistakes. More to come or follow for sure.

      • But is is not good that such candidates as Romney, Gingrich or Santorum have support. It was already Bush-the candidate of the same type and he has destroyed USA and these candidates are the same if even not worse and it is not solution. It is like the last nail to coffin for USA.
        It is Ron Paul, cool, nice, sane, intelligent candidate, real American with good program, who loves USA and US nation and he should win and be president.

        • You can love the USA for many different reasons. It still has a lot to give via the dumb a$$ voters. It’s 16 trillion and counting and it looks like they (voters) are thirsty for more of the same.

  4. The fact is that only about half of the delegates attributed to the states that have “voted” so far, have been identified and given a slot. Some states are holding their presidential preference polls in the middle of a weeks-long caucus process that still isn’t finished (look at Maine and North Dakota as examples). This is all still WAY up in the air. Given the reported and documented precinct/county delegate election results that have been reported in Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Washington, the only thing we know for sure is that the “delegate calculators” that are up all over the national news are WAY wrong. Just how wrong, we don’t know yet, and nobody can know it yet.

    Here are a couple of examples, but there are many more that show the same sort of result:

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/03/mitt-romney-wins-washington-state-gop-caucus/comment-page-1/#comment-116629

  5. All of this delegate math is based on (quite possibly wrong) assumptions.

    A few of the states have completely unbound delegates. These will be people, who in most cases haven’t even been selected yet, who can vote for whoever they please in August. In several of the states the delegate selection process hasn’t finished yet. The media is simply making estimates.

    Furthermore, in most cases the delegates at the state conventions can change the rules of delegate allocation if 2/3 of those present decide too. The state conventions generally happen much later than the primaries or first round of caucuses.

    The whole process is much, much more complicated and volatile than anyone wants to admit.

    • Ryan Belcher — spot on!

      The delegate count stated here is complete false (with the possible exception of Huntsman’s….lol)!

      • By the books I’d like someone to tell me why The Mitt is even in the same class with Huntsman. We got a corporate raider vs a corporate builder. A guy that had super high approval ratings vs a guy that was a one tern governor. Then there is foreign policy…..

        I still go with RP because of the hawk vs dove issue but Huntsman had it all over Romney on paper anyhow.

        • Romney has only one qualification: money.

          And he has somehow convinced way too many people that he “earned” it.

          He was born with a silver spoon and used it to get a silver fork. Whoop-dee-doo.

          Notice that he only wants to release his tax records for the years when he wasn’t really working at all–just the times when he has been running for president and giving speeches about running for president. . . .

          • Goethe Behr — spot on!

            And how Mitt’s speeches changed according to the prevailing winds….lol.

            • I’m not against a guy changing his mind sometimes. Look how different George Wallace was as he got older, for instance. And Reagan was a New Deal Democrat before he decided he wanted to repeal it all.

              Also, there’s the big question of whether we elect people to vote their conscience or ours. That is, are they there to “represent us,” or to do whatever they damned well please?

              If someone flip-flops because he sincerely believes that he may be wrong, and that he should speak the will of the people, that’s arguably correct for a “representative.” But if he changes his “ideals” because he thinks he can gain power and/or wealth by doing so, that’s different altogether.

              And if you elect a guy like that, you don’t know WHAT he will do.

          • Mitt or Willard ( Mitt is only nickname )Romney is some kind of Robin Hood, but a little bit diiferent. Robin Hood has robbed money of richmen to give it to poor. And Mitt( Willard ) will rob money from poor, middle class to give it to the richest fellows-speculators.
            And global world war can happen too, if Mitt it means Willard would become president.
            Every person, who has common resons knows that Ron Paul is good candidate and the best choice. He is really the least evil- among all these candidates and saying openly he is the best candidate among republican and democrats. The best candidate, who intends to be president and it would be really the best solution if he would get chance and became president. His proposals are really the best solution.

            • For Monty Python fans,
              Willard is like Dennis Moore:

              “Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding through the glen,
              Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, without his merry men,
              Steals from the poor, gives to the rich–stupid bitch.”

            • Nice guys don’t always finish first. RP is not telling the voters what they want to hear, he has hit the 3rd rail, the truth.

        • Money.

          Knowing people with money.

          And doing whatever you have to do (to anyone) and saying whatever you have to say (to anyone) in order to get what you want (from anyone).

          Willard is the one percent that gave the one percent a bad name.

          • Can’t really say he did it the old fashioned way by earning it now can we? More like he obtained a license to steal it

  6. A RP counterpart bit the dust:

    In opposition to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, Kucinich and Paul have shared a few critical and underrepresented positions. But the more important commonality is their role in voicing opinions that “serious” politicians in their party are afraid to speak.

    • I’ve heard that Kucinich is considering moving to Washington State. There’s a primary out there, and he has time to establish residency.

      But, look, at this point, neither he nor Ron Paul are running for re-election. Wouldn’t it be delicious if they both ran as third-party candidates? That would turn the fall election into a replay of this year’s Republican primary.

      The Libertarian Party is already organized. Kucinich could run as a Green Party candidate, maybe.

      • I don’t think things are bad enough yet. Few believe what happened in Greece can happen here. I can’t convince my daughter nor my GF we live in a bubble and when it pops it ain’t going to be pretty.

        • Billy Malone —

          Here is Ron Paul’s statement (condensed):

          “The mainstream media got the Super Tuesday story wrong. Very wrong. Again….. In fact, while I didn’t win any state’s straw polls, my team expects me to win a plurality of delegates in at least three states, as well as outright majorities in two more of the states that have already started their process…..

          …And for that reason I am determined to proudly battle on, picking up more delegates and skewering the pretensions and historical rewrites of ALL the establishment candidates – Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich.

          And I will continue to proudly speak up for liberty, respecting the Constitution in domestic and foreign policy, and returning to a limited government that acts and spends within its means.”

          Ron Paul = return to Liberty and Prosperity!

          The Rest = advancement of Subjugation and Poverty!

          • Oh he’ll battle on alright because of his supporters. Most politicians have investors and if the investment doesn’t look good they cut their loses.

          • Billy Malone — re:

            “Oh he (Ron Paul)’ll battle on alright because of his supporters. Most politicians have investors and if the investment doesn’t look good they cut their loses.”

            The KEY is to do whatever legally possible to keep Two-Three-Four-Face (depending on the week) Mitt from getting the 1144 needed!

            In a brokered convention — the Three Stooges (Mitt, Newt and Rick) won’t be able to bus a couple of thousand people together!

            While Ron Paul supporters will show up in the hundreds of thousands on their own — DEMANDING: Stop the Frauds, elect Ron Paul!

            Wonder how our near Police State Government will stop them from voicing their cry for Freedom!

  7. Americans elect already has ballot access in 17 states, and it sounds like they will likely meet or come very close to their goal of getting on 50 ballots. This could get REALLY interesting. I’m going to try to find out if their ballot line is considered to be for an “Independent” candidate, which could preclude candidates who ran in party primaries (if those “sore loser” laws survive legal challenge, which they might not). June 26 could be a big day in 2012 politics.
    =================

    From the Associated Press
    By BRIAN BAKST 03/ 3/12 10:06 AM ET

    ST. PAUL, Minn. — They stand to gain from public fury over partisan gridlock in Washington. They’re already assured a presidential ballot line in 17 states and are well on their way in 18 more. They have support from prominent people across the political spectrum.

    So what’s missing for Americans Elect, a group clearing a path for a middle-of-the-road, unity ticket this fall? Candidates with stature, money or both.

    Amid the often rancorous GOP contest to determine Democratic President Barack Obama’s November opponent, the Americans Elect drive is proceeding quietly. But two months from now, an unorthodox online primary will begin a whittling process that should result in a nominee by late June.

    The political experiment comes at an intriguing time.

    Public approval of Congress is at a record low, and more Americans than ever – 4 in 10 in a January Gallup survey – consider themselves political independents. Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe’s surprising retirement announcement last week, citing Washington dysfunction, only heaped more focus on a push that’s cast as a possible fix to the capital’s ailing condition.

    “The soil is tilled for this,” said Elliot Ackerman, chief operating officer for Americans Elect.

    On Monday, Ackerman’s associates head to Montana to announce they’ve submitted almost triple the required signatures to qualify for that ballot.

    By fall, the group expects a nominee to have access to ballots in all 50 states, to a fund providing public campaign dollars and to a debate stage that offers priceless exposure, much like Texas businessman Ross Perot got when he shook up the 1992 White House race and won 19 percent of the national vote.

    Still, there is ample skepticism that the effort can do much more than make a point.

    Edward Lazarus, a former Democratic consultant and the author of a book on third parties in America, said past efforts to upend the two-party system have had the most success when built around a charismatic candidate or a unifying ideology. For now, Americans Elect has neither.

    “To say that we’re going to create the vehicle for somebody and anoint `the somebody’ later without any kind of ideological underpinning other than `we’re really kind of disappointed, angry and hurt’ – that just doesn’t seem feasible,” Lazarus said.

    That’s missing the point, Ackerman counters.

    “What we’re offering up is a new way to nominate. You could see a Republican and Democrat running together. You could see a Democrat and an independent,” he said. “The fact of the matter is the way our political system is set up right now, you’ll never see that.”

    Some familiar names from the business, political and diplomacy worlds are involved. For example, former GOP Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush, is on the group’s board.

    Democrat David Boren, a former Oklahoma governor and senator, provided his support in the name of giving “one-time shock therapy to the two-party system.” Now president of the University of Oklahoma, Boren said he’s not interested in running though he is trying to recruit a bipartisan pack of nationally known candidates. He and others connected to the group declined to identify their targets.

    Boren is leaving himself an out if the process goes awry. “If it produced what I would view to be fringe candidates, then I will obviously not support the ticket,” he said. “I will go back to one of the two party nominees, more likely to my own party.”

    In the eyes of the law, Americans Elect isn’t considered a third party. That makes it somewhat easier to obtain ballot space, but it also means the candidate nominating process can be messy.

    Any eligible voter with Internet access must be permitted to take part, inviting possible mischief. Already, there’s been a flood of “drafted” candidates from the serious to the devious and everything in between.

    Obama and GOP candidates Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are among the scores of options. So are New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, business mogul Donald Trump, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Perot. Then there are the likes of conservative commentator Glenn Beck, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, radio shock jock Howard Stern and talk show host Oprah Winfrey.

    David Walker, who served as U.S. comptroller general during Democratic and Republican administrations, is on the draft list, too. Walker has toured the country warning of dire fiscal conditions on the horizon for America, sometimes sounding every bit a candidate. Just don’t expect Walker to actually run.

    “There’s absolutely no question that I want to conduct an issue campaign in 2012 and to try to accomplish some of the same things Ross Perot did 20 years ago but without running for president,” Walker said in an interview. “I believe that can be done in today’s age.”

    Declared candidates or draft efforts must show a minimum level of support measured through Internet clicks and after three online primaries, the top six candidates advance to a final round. The nominee will be selected in a cyberspace convention that will wrap up by June 26.

    • Neville

      Here is an excerpt from an article about the American Elect organization.

      Black Box Voting » Mailbag » (USA) 2/12 – IS ‘AMERICANS ELECT’ A NEW WAY TO EXPRESS YOUR PATRIOTISM?

      http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/73/81885.html

      Many of us at Black Box Voting are at least as deeply disappointed in our current choosing process as Hirschhorn; probably more so, after being on the front lines in election oversight for 10 years now. Much of our current choosing and legislative process has become nothing more than a magic show, theater, and by no means constitutional. For that reason, it’s tempting to put too much faith in a new structure.

      I’m all for newly energized public self-governance, but the Americans Elect dog has fleas.

      This organization is essentially deceptive, in that its local “conferences” are led by Washington DC PR firm guys, it is financially controlled by Wall Street moguls and directed by partisan politicians (regardless of what they say, take a stroll through their bios). Americans Elect refuses to follow campaign finance laws regarding disclosure, and its bylaws allow the board to override member choices.

      The worst problem with Americans Elect, however, is that while it appears open to all of America, its online convention and voting system features 100% centralization of control and 100% concealment of what actually takes place on the server from the American public.

      They’ve kindled hope in the hearts of many good Americans, like Joel Hirschhorn; what I hope is that these sentiments will increase in power and resilience, finding their way eventually to a more worthy vessel.

    • Americans Elect is an interesting concept, but what is to keep the contest from coming down to Obama vs. Romney?? And would that be the ticket?

      Seems to me that there should have been a rule that NONE of the candidates declared for EITHER party could be chosen in this contest.

      • And what would be the problem with that, Goethe? (other than the fact that I woiuld not and could not vote for them, of course)

        Isn’t the whole (stated) point be to give the people another mechanism to select candidates? If that’s who they choose, so be it, is what I say. I have no problem with democracy at the nominating level. It is only at the republic level that I don’t trust the people at large.

        • The problem is that the purpose of a third party is to provide an alternative. I’m afraid that the internet voting could go one of two ways–either one or both major parties will railroad it, OR the nerds and teeny-boppers will give us JUSTIN BIEBER.

          • I have not studied AE in great depth yet, but their stated goal is to NOT be a 3rd ideological party, but to provide a means for the people to more directly indicate candidates they wish to choose from, rather than to be railroaded by the major-party machinery as happens so often now.

            The scenarios you suggest would be disappointing, to be sure, but would still be superior to not trying. At least we will know whether to take the effort seriously.

            And what’s wrong with having a President Bieber? He could take US-Israeli diplomacy in a completely new direction, singing “Bebe, Bebe, Bebe . Bebe Bebe Bebe, Yeah”

          • Goethe Behr

            A lot would depend on how many Delegates Ron Paul has accumulated during the Race. Even if he does have a lot of Delegates, I don’t think the GOP “Establishment” would allow any of his ideas to shape their Warmongering, Debt Creating Policies.

            I think a “sound” tactical strategy for Ron Paul would be to run as a Republican right up to the Convention, then “break-away” and announce he’s running as an Independent. An Advertising “Blitz” should then be carried out contrasting Ron Paul against the “combined” Establishment Candidates of Romney and Obama, because there really is NO difference between them. It would be Ron Paul vs. the Establishment and their FAILURES.

            “Let the Revolution Begin!” could be the Mantra. Lord knows, there’s a Whole Smorgasbord of “Failed Policies” to choose from. The only issue would be the “Money” – and that’s where Ron Paul would have to get people to “Donate for the Cause” of “Routing” the Establishment.

            • Whole Smorgasbord of “Failed Policies”

              But these guys can put Fred Astaire to shame when it comes to doing the sidestep.

    • Ooh I love to dance a little sidestep, now they see me now they don’t- I’ve come and gone and, ooh I love to sweep around the wide step, cut a little swathe and …

        • Voters hear and see what they want to see & there is plenty too see on that video. Sorry to say but I don’t think it will have much effect on the outcome because the people who vote for him are not going to view it.

          Here is another on Mitt. 1965-1975 in college????

          JD, Harvard Law School, 1975
          MBA, Harvard Business School, 1975
          BA, English, Brigham Young University, 1971
          Attended Stanford University, 1965-1966

    • People who want Willard just don’t care that he doesn’t agree with Mitt about anything.

        • Sorry. I thought I made it clear. People who are for Romney really don’t care if he belongs to a cult, changes sides ever few days (or minutes), or is a corporate criminal.

          People who support Romney have only one thing to say for him: “He’s electable.” That’s really all they care about, and as long as he is perceived as being “electable,” those people will not care what you tell them.

          If Mitt had not been able to buy Michigan and Ohio, he’d be in trouble, but his supporters are now saying, “he came from behind in both states, so he’s ‘electable.'” But to do it, he had to outspend his opponent by a measure of 8-1 and 10-1, respectively. These same people don’t get that he will not be able to outspend Obama, no matter how many of his Wall-Street One-Percenters he can line up.

          So my answer is, it doesn’t matter what you throw at him in the primary. I’ve heard the total crap he threw at Santorum here in Michigan. The guy will do anything to win, and his supporters will be there, because of that.

          • Sorry. Missed a few words there. Romney WILL be able to outspend Obama, since he has the One-Percenters–but he won’t be able to outspend Obama in the 10-1 ratio that he would need.

            • I don’t think so, Romney is too much like Obama and he has the smell of Bush on him. My $500.00 still rides on Obama.

            • Aside from policy and philosophy,
              we’re left with one important point:

              I don’t think that the United States of America
              is going to fire it’s first Black President.

            • First time I ever heard that being black is a plus. I always thought that in order to be equal, they had to be better. Hey I grew up on the South Side of Chicago so you might understand my position on race. Our high school was fully integrated, one black every 4 years was admitted.

            • And he’s bad, bad Billy Malone:
              Baddest man in the whole damned town.
              Badder than old King Kong.
              Meaner than a junkyard dog.

  8. For Ron Paul to win (and SAVE America from the brink of disaster) is to do whatever legally possible to keep Two-Three-Four-Face (depending on the week) Mitt from getting the 1144 needed!

    In a brokered convention — the Three Stooges (Mitt, Newt and Rick) won’t be able to bus a couple of thousand people together! While Ron Paul supporters will show up in the hundreds of thousands on their own — DEMANDING: *Stop the Frauds, elect Ron Paul*

    Wonder how our near Police State Government will stop us, the Real Americans, from voicing our outcry for Freedom…..

  9. Most of the above responses are more in line with my thinking, that no matter what happens, Ron Paul must soldier on. Paul is a very brilliant servant of the people and has got the style and techniques needed to out-maneouvre the 3 pretenders in Romney, Santorum and Newt, the astronaut. This is a very critical moment for Ron Paul to seek justice from the Republican Party that has always undermined him, by not levelling the playing field. Paul’s clinging-on is an important factor in the GOP race and will prevent Romney from reaching his delegates target. Americans should find inspiration from golden oldies like Ron Paul, as he is an inspiration never to give up early or surrender in life, no matter how hard. Paul’s other contributory factor is the creation of excitement in the GOP race, as currently the standings and competition is remarkable for him being the tail in terms of polled results, but the internet and we the youth feel Ron Paul is the people’s favourite. Obama has to thank Ron Paul for his soldierly manner, as this will allow Democrats to easily find certain weaknesses in the GOP leading candidates. By embracing Paul for GOP final nominee, Obama will be assured of easy victory come the presidential elections. I go for RON PAUL – THE MASTERMIND!!!

    • Sounds good but those who went before him are now history, Barr & Kucinich. People want the Patriot Act and Pork. They want big defense, big education, and a lot more jails.
      War, no problem, any lie will do. So long as the Feds have the printing press, let the good times roll.

      • I don’t think anyone “wants” the Patriot Act. Most people don’t know what’s in it, and they don’t think it has any impact–nor risk.

        If you can’t identify risks, you can’t effectively warn against them. The proponents of fear were able to point to the Twin Towers and use them, saying we “need” the Patriot Act to “protect” us.

        Even if you could point to anecdotal evidence that individuals have been harmed by it, people wouldn’t care. Generally, people think if the cops are hassling someone, he must have deserved it for some reason. So we very quickly saw the “terrorist” laws used against drug cases and a lot more.

        Same with defense spending. Aside from the pork value in the local manufacturing districts, you can’t argue that spending more than the next TWENTY FIVE highest spenders in the world makes us “safe.” There’s no way to prove it’s unnecessary.

        What’s the argument for even higher spending? “Something” might go wrong. Nobody wants to be the guy who voted against protecting us against “something” if it happens. And, of course, “something” could actually be “anything,” so there is no upside for responsible defense spending, politically speaking.

        • Bachmann, Romney, Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, Huntsman, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry

          There was only one that didn’t support the Patriot Act. Guess you might say the others are nobodies.

  10. Your tax dollar at work via Newt:

    Task Force for a Drug-Free America.[35] This task force was established in 1998 by then-Speaker Newt Gingrich to “design a World War II-style victory plan to save America’s children from illegal drugs.”[36] The task force crafted legislation specifically designed to “win the War on Drugs by 2002”.[36]

  11. They all still have a shot at the nomination, not just Romney. Nate said it himself. Romney 56%, Santorum 63%, Gingrich 67% and Paul 71%. There is not very much difference between them all!

    • There’s been talk that two of the candidates should get out to let the conservative have a clean shot at the front-runner, but I think it’d be better to have them stay in.

      Ron, Newt, and Rick ought to talk about attacking Willard from entirely different angles. That way, there would be three voices, That would help them whittle his vote. Then, at some point, shortly before the convention, the other two should bow out–and endorse one non-Romney.

      Of course, they could also all go to the convention and throw it to the crowd to decide. That would be fun.

      • I think RP should force them out if possible by hammering on their positions on the Trillion dollar war; Newt & Romney are in the same boat on this……flip flop

        When it comes to the Iraq War, Gingrich has a long history of flipping, flopping, and then flipping again. As Alex Koppelman reported in Salon last year, “As a close advisor to the administration over the past six years, and an intimate of both Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Gingrich was a powerful advocate both for the idea of invading Iraq and for the botched way in which it was done.” A member of the influential Defense Policy Board, Gingrich helped draw up war plans at the Central Command for the Middle East in Tampa, Fla. And his Oct. 16, 2002 USA Today column about Iraq was titled, “Strike Sooner Than Later.”

      • Goethe Behr — excellent observation!

        Spot on — the main goal right now is for the three to further diminish an already weakened Mitt (after his ‘Super Tuesday’ poor performance). Once this is accomplished, then they can proceed for electability on their own merits.

        In simple words:

        Mitt down — Americans’ hopes up.

        • How would they do it?

          Santorum should keep up his religion talk. Hit Mitt about abortion and other social issue stands he has flip-flopped on.

          Paul should hit him about his pro-war stands, corporate welfare, questions about funding of the Olympics.

          Newt should hit him about Romneycare, gun control.

          The media is suggesting that two of these guys should get out, to make it a one-on-one horse race, but if these guys played it right, it would be three-against-one, with the goal just to keep him from getting the delegates he needs to win on the first ballot.

          As I recall, some delegates are tied to him on the first ballot, others are tied for two ballots, but after that, it’s a free-for-all.

          • These three guys true character can be shown when we contrast their positions on the war with Iraq. Ever changing:

            During the 2006 Senatorial campaign, Senator Santorum stood by his support for the war. In a debate with his Democratic opponent, he stated that the war in Iraq was indeed necessary for the security of the nation. He stated that Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the US. Senator Santorum opposed definitive time tables for withdrawal.

            Authorization for the Use of Force

            On October 10, 2002 Senator Santorum spoke on the Senate floor about his support for legislation to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

            I believe President Bush will do everything possible before deciding
            … … more

            Iraq’s Fight for Freedom

            On March 28, 2006 Senator Santorum spoke on the Senate floor about the Iraqi’s fight for freedom. The speech was given in response to claims by opponents to the war that Iraqi’s were not fighting for themselves.

            NGIC Report

            In June of 2006, Senator Santorum spoke about a recent National Ground Intelligence Center report that weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq. The report listed six bullet points which were declassified portions of the report.

            It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.

            Appearing on Fox News, Senator Santorum discussed the report and the lamented the continued refusal of opponents to acknowledge the presence of such weapons in Iraq.

            This is an incredibly — in my mind — significant finding. The idea that, as my colleagues have repeatedly said in this debate on the other side of the aisle, that there are no weapons of mass destruction, is in fact false.

            Meet the Press – Debate with Robert Casey

            In September of 2006, Senator Santorum appeared on Meet the Press with his opponent in the 2006 election cycle – Robert Casey. The discussing focused almost exclusively on Iraq, with Iran discussed where it related to Iran. Senator Santorum affirmed his support for continuing the path in Iraq, his views that Iraq posed a threat to the US, and his view that Iraq did posses weapons of mass destruction.

            MR. RUSSERT: Senator Santorum, leading up to the war. In October of 2002, this is what Rick Santorum said, “Saddam Hussein’s regime, is a serious and grave danger to the safety of the American people.” “Given the threat posed to he world by his weapons of mass destruction programs…” Would you now acknowledge that that was not correct?

            SEN. SANTORUM: What I would say is that we have found weapons of mass destruction, they were older weapons, but we have found chemical weapons. The report
            … … more

            Fox News / Google Debate

            Voting Record

            Contract Award Overview

            Later in the year, the same amendment was introduced into the Senate by Senator Dorgan. This amendment has the same purpose and failed to achieve the needed votes by a simlar margin. Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to create the special committee.

            Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to create the special committee.

            Contract Award Overview

            In 2005, a series of accidents at military bases in Iraq which were built by US contractors such as Halliburton, prompted Congress to call for investigations into the awarding of contracts. There were two ammendments introduced to separate pieces of legislation to attempt to accomplish the goal of investigating the contract awards process. roll call 228 concerned the Dorgan amendment, and was the first attempt to establish a special committee on the awarding of contracts in Iraq. The amendment failed by a narrow margin in a 53-44 vote. Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to create the special committee.

            Rick Santorum voted against the amendment to create the special committee.

        • That’s one reason I was so upset with Paul for doing that ad against Santorum. It’s Mitt against everyone. If the two runners-up slash each other, Mitt will just slide in on their blood.

          • Goethe Behr — this post ends like a horror movie…”If the two runners-up slash each other, Mitt will just slide in on their blood.” — so not to my liking.

            However, perhaps this may explain your concerns (“That’s one reason I was so upset with Paul for doing that ad against Santorum. It’s Mitt against everyone.”) — Ron Paul’s strategists have deemed Santorum’s inexplicable current rise more of a threat, than two-face Mitt’s inevitable tanking out.

            Ron Paul — according to this move — will be assured that neither Rick nor Mitt garner enough delegates.

            • That’s just not how I see it.

              If you’ve got ONE guy who has most of the corporate money and nearly all of the establishment endorsements, THAT is the one you have to focus on.

              The ONLY thing people HONESTLY say in favor of Romney is that they “think” he can win, right? So THAT is the only thing you have to counter.

              If Romney had lost either Michigan or Ohio, a valid argument could have been made that people are wrong when they think that Romney is inevitable and invincible. That’s why I held my nose and voted for Santorum in Michigan–to try to counter Willard’s ONE point.

              I happen to think Paul’s campaign’s attack on Santorum was counterproductive. I also think Paul needs writers who can distill his ideas into “bumperstickers” that the media won’t be able to ignore. Ron Paul’s people are just squandering the opportunity.

              What bothers me is that it’s not even safe to question the man’s STAFF. Even Jesus doesn’t get that kind of blind reverence.

            • Right now I think Mitt can win the GOP part of it but no match for Obama. Why vote for the look alike when you can have the real thing?

            • The GOP Must Embrace Ron Paul or Lose

              Political campaigns typically serve one of two purposes: 1. To win elections. 2. To build coalitions. The former is as important as the latter precisely because it is typically impossible to win elections without first building coalitions. Barry Goldwater was no doubt disappointed when he lost. Ronald Reagan was no doubt happy Goldwater ran.

              In 2008, Ron Paul ignited a movement. Between then and 2012, Paul has amassed an army. Paul and his supporters’ growing numbers, whether in actual warm bodies or vote totals, have doubled, tripled and even quadrupled depending on how you gauge it. Paul and his movement now influence the Republican Party, it’s direction and it’s rhetoric in a way for more significant than anyone ever expected. And this has been true since the beginning of this election—where when many thought Paul might win Iowa and other early contests, they attempted to slander Dr. Paul or even make voters fear him (“he can’t win,” “he’s too extreme,” etc.). If that didn’t work, they tried to ignore him, with the media talking incessantly about eventual 2012 nobodies like Tim Pawlenty after the Iowa Straw Poll—even though Paul almost beat Michelle Bachmann for the top spot.

              Whether they have feared Paul or tried to ignore him, the message of constitutional liberty has so pierced America’s political discourse that at this point it simply will not go away no matter how much Paul’s critics would like it to.

              What the Republican Party is desperate for is a coherent conservative message that can excite its base. What the Republican Party is desperate for is a substantively conservative message that can also have broad appeal to independents and disenfranchised Democrats. What the Republican Party is desperate for is a candidate with a message that can beat Barack Obama.

              What the Republican Party is desperate for is Ron Paul, who has built a movement, stuck to his conservative principles, appeals to independents more than any other Republican, and who defeats Obama in most head-to-head polls. In being the only candidate to represent the oldest constitutional ideas imaginable, Paul also represents the freshest and most promising political brand on the scene today.

              What Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are now fighting over is who might get to be the leader of the shell of a GOP left behind in George W. Bush’s wake. All of these guys are yesterday’s news, as is their version of the Republican Party — no new ideas, no respect for the Constitution, nothing but sheer partisan bluster. As 2008 proved, Americans want nothing to do with that Republican Party anymore. No matter what else happens in this election, that GOP is through.

              The 18-30 year olds who vote for Ron Paul overwhelmingly in every contest right now point the way toward the future. The coalition Ron Paul has built represents the only coherent philosophy the GOP even has at this point, and it represents the only conservative philosophy capable of winning elections with broad support.

              If the GOP wants to win in 2012—hell, if the GOP wants to win period—it better learn to embrace the popular limited government philosophy of Paul. The biggest losers in this election are the ones you will probably continue to hear the most about in this election. But the biggest winner is already Ron Paul—whose influence and movement you will continue to hear about today, tomorrow and in the future.

              http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/03/08/the-gop-must-embrace-ron-paul-or-lose/

            • Showing my age:

              A time to gain, a time to lose
              A time to rend, a time to sew
              A time to love, a time to hate
              A time of peace, I swear it’s not too late!

              But time is indeed running out.

            • Willard, pfffft.

              I can hear him now, “The president didn’t go far enough. If I’m elected, I’ll expand Obamacare to cover your pets–why should they suffer?”

  12. Suggest you go to:

    March 19 GOP debate details released from Oregon Public Broadcasting

    Net Blog view the videos posted and hope RP is wrong this time around but I don’t think so.

  13. If a candidate such as Newt Gingrich drops out, who is awarded his delegates? Will they go to the candidate he endorses?

      • I just noticed that Jon Huntsman’s two delegates are now ‘zero’ in CNN and RCP but not in the WSJ delegate tracker website. If Ron Paul goes independent and Newt Gingrich drops out, a significant amount of delegates will be freed; just enough for Santorum to catch up to Romney.

        • Jon Huntsman: Boy on paper this guy looked great. What happened????? Got more money that Romney did a hell of a lot better job as governor than Romney, and left everybody in his dust when it came to foreign policy.

          • When there were 8 candidates on stage, Huntsman caught my attention even though the media was ignoring him in the debates. But then he started repeating himself to the point where I knew exactly what he was going to say. Like, in response to any question, even those not related to foreign policy, he would not fail to say…”Folks, we not only have a budget deficit but also a ‘trust’ deficit” and “we need to stop nation-building overseas when this nation so desperately needs it”. His message was perfect, but he did not have any practical solutions. He would make a strong running mate though.

        • Won’t matter. Romney will have a lock on the big states, like New York and California. The best case scenario would be to keep Willard from getting the nomination BEFORE the convention, and then hope it goes a few ballots. After the first and second ballots, I don’t think even his delegates are committed to him.

          • So, if none of the candidates secure 1140 delegates before the convention, all of the 2k+ delegates vote to pick the GOP nominee, and the pledged delegates cannot vote for anyone else but their respective candidate. Am I right?

            • It’s my understanding that “pledged” delegates are committed to voting for the candidate ONLY ON THE FIRST BALLOT. After that, they do what they want. (“Super Delegates” will likely vote for whoever they think will win.) So if Willard does not get the nomination on the first ballot, where is he going to GET more delegates?

              If it goes more than one ballot, bring some popcorn, cuz it’s gonna be one helluva show.

          • Goethe Behr and Roy Benjamin,

            Some of the states that bind delegates bind them to only the first ballot, while others (e.g. Georgia, I believe) bind them for the first 3 ballots.

          • I look forward to a 4-way second ballot where only the popular vote among the delegates count; NO winner-take-all, hybrid, etc…..The candidates will have to appeal to each of the 1800+ unpledged-delegates and I don’t believe that the super-pacs or any of the fact-free, negative TV ads will influence the delegates’ vote.

    • Darryl —

      LOL…it’s too long for most employed to watch it.

      Real Americans have been reduced by our Government to work two jobs just make ends meet! That’s why Real Americans have no time to spend to actually comprehend who is best for our Nation — they are too busy working to feed the NON-PRODUCERS (Politicians, Illegal Immigrants/Invaders, Welfare beneficiaries, etc…)!

      Post a 4 minute-or-less video — if you want to reach the productive Silent Majority!

      • Let me tell you, I’ve been retired since I was 40 and have no real hobbies. Right, have less time now than I did when I was working or so it seems. Somebody always has something I you can do for them because they think you got nothing but time. I got 10 min of the video and the phone rang.

          • Fat chance that is with pay what you own plans. Pork, pork, they want pork. They want an x-ray, then a cat scan, then a MRI followed by a PET scam and that’s for just not felling as good as I did yesterday.

          • Darryl —

            Today’s Headline:

            “In ‘highly unusual’ move, Marines asked to DISARM before Leon Panetta speech!”

            Not sure, but can a Marine (unless placed under arrest) be disarmed in hostile territory, even by the Four ‘Starest’ of Generals…?

            (Some can put a spin that Panetta is so liked by the troops, that he does not trust his own soldiers with weapons in his presence….).
            ——————————————————————————————–

            Curious if someone knows the answers:

            1) Was it ILLEGAL — a breach of military law/conduct/rules — to DISARM the US Marines in a HOSTILE combat territory (in order to be herded without arms to listen to a speech from Citizen Panetta)?

            2) Name and rank (or civilian status) of person RESPONSIBLE for disarming the US Marines?

  14. The belief that because Obama is a great Orator, does not mean he is a good Debater.

    1) As Orator (meaning: during an uninterrupted monologue) Obama’s reading of the tele-prompter is superb — he has the hand gestures down pat, the movement of his head to stare at an upper left, or right, diagonal, while taking a pause to underscore his point and thus allowing time for applauding, before he stares at the camera again and delivers the next segment of his PRE-WRITTEN Speech. His mastery of delivering dogma as “truth”, is only second to Goebbels propaganda abilities.

    2) As Debater (meaning: the ability to prove whose ideas are valid vs those that are illogical) — Obama is lost without the tele-prompter. Unless the questions were submitted beforehand, and his answers scripted, he gets annoyed when asked something he did not expect. When stumped by a question he does not know the answer, Obama becomes peevishly angry, he whails, clutches his hands, shakes his head, and responds with the COARSEST of Cliches! Then, he stumbles and bumbles his way trying to correct his outbursts by spouting irrelevant dogma! Pathetic — is the only proper word describing his debating “skills”.

    ———————————————————–

    For those that believe BO is a great orator — you are 100% correct!

    For those that believe BO is a great debater — you are 100% wrong!

    ——————————————————-

    Note this — when BO ran in 2008, he had NO record to be debated.
    Now, he has a horrible record as president — so anyone (without skeletons in the closet) will DESTROY this small-minded, perfidious clown!

    Ron Paul — who is a CONSTITUTIONAL Patriot — is best equipped to dismantle BO’s socialist dogma in a one-on-one debate for the Presidency!

    The rest have the ability (since a logical high-school kid can make Bama look silly in an unscripted debate) — but don’t have a clean closet (and Bama will attack their skeletons, since he can do nothing else).

    So, unless you do your best to elect Ron Paul — you’ll be party to the ignominious reelection of BO!

    • I disagree. I don’t believe Obama is a very good orator. In an effort to sound folksy (including using the word “folks” all the time) and droping his “G” from words ending in “ING,” I think he comes off as not totally genuine. College professors speak like Newt. And, they should.

      Secondly, a great orator has great oratory. In all these months, we have not heard gold fall from his lips. There’s no, “Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You,” or “Ich Bin Ein Berliner.” Again, I think that is by choice, since the American people have shown that we want our president to sound stupid, and nobody did it as well as Bush, and he was re-elected. Bubba also talked below his ability.

      Americans want to believe that WE could be elected president, so we want to be able to think we’re smarter than he is. That’s the only way I can explain the electoral choices we have made.

      Also, I disagree that Obama is not a good debater. The man is cool. While McCain was nervous and erratic and coming up with one dumb idea after another, Obama was cool and calm, and said we need to keep our head. When I think of Obama in debate, I think he could very easily have spoken Reagan’s words, “there you go again, Mr. President.”

      And that’s the other thing Americans want–to feel that whoever is president is like Fonzy–Mr. Cool. So in a debate, if you hit him with some detail, he’ll smile, look down, and convince the audience that it’s either a petty point, or that you have it all wrong.

      He will make Romney look like a robot, whose best retort will be, “oh. . . .yeah??” Against Newt, he’ll look like the guy we’d like to have a beer with (even if it’s an imported beer). And against Santorum, he’ll look like an adult, and a sane man.

      The only one who would give Obama any trouble in debates is Ron Paul, but the only way that will happen is if Paul runs as a Libertarian.

      • Goethe Behr— good post!

        My take is that so far BO has faced the same phonies as himself (plastic politicians) — so his tricks work (people are trying to decide which one is least disingenuous).

        Facing a genuine person — Ron Paul — will be a shock to BO. People can tell who is real and who is fake — substance, even delivered in a stumbling manner (which endears the person even more to the people, since they identify with him) will destroy BO’s slick dogma (by comparison the people will perceive BO as a used car salesman).

        In simple words:

        A sharp, polished Phoney (BO) has no chance winning over the people, when facing a good, real Person telling the truth.

        • I really wanted to believe that RP’s message was great by the messenger could have been better. Bob Barr’s and Dennis Kucinich’s message had a lot in common with Ron Paul’s. Both great messengers but neither is around anymore in politics.

          This country has been in over 137 wars in its 236 years of existence. As most of those wars have dragged on for years, there are very few years that this country is not at war with some country. My point is there just may be no room for a dove in the USA as Americans love death, destruction, and debt.

          • Naw, the American people want peace. Look at the overwhelming rejection of the Iraq War until we had boots on the ground.

            The American people are live-and-let-live, but corporations make big bucks as “contractors” for war, and “Corporations are people, my friend”–with most of the money and all of the power.

            Don’t bad mouth Americans. Just try to wake them the hell up.

            • corporations don’t vote, people vote and if they vote for a hawk they get war. When the hawk starts a war he is usually wins re election. This has been going on since the country became a country. Now if you want to say the Swiss live and let live, I can drink to that but I’ll go to bed thirsty before I’d admit the USA is a live and let live country.(137 wars and counting)

            • Corporations buy public opinion, just like they buy votes (and now, unlimited purchase of votes).

              We’re all busy just getting by. Since the 1970s, worker income has stagnated and decreased in real dollars. Corporate income has skyrocketed, by contrast.

              We’re just getting by, busy surviving. So if someone says there’s DANGER out there, we say, oh, ok, yeah, whatever, and we don’t scream when the troops march without a declaration of war. Now that we have a voluntary army, who cares? We’re too busy surviving because in real dollars, our lifestyle is slipping away from us.

              That’s not all, of course. We get pissed because of our losses, and then “they” tell us some foreigner is to blame, and we don’t scream when our troops march into one country after another.

              But we, as a people, are not fans of war. It’s just not who we are. In today’s world, there are no “wars” because there are no declarations. There’s just someone way off in Washington sending troops way off somewhere else. And not only don’t we have to worry about the draft, we don’t even have to worry about paying for the wars, because we don’t realize they’re all going onto the credit card.

              “Don’t worry your little head about it, just go shopping.”

            • Most of the few people I chill with don’t vote but are well versed on what’s going on. The few that do vote don’t go for RP because “he is too soft on defense” and still believe the world is flat. (never been outside the USA).

            • Billy Malone

              My dilemma is that most of the people in my circle don’t bother with or even try to inform themselves and generally could care less, they only listen to MSM news for entertainment if anything at all and generally parrot what comes from the status-quo mouthpieces. They spend their free time indulging, consuming, eating, playing and inevitably whining. Even though several have been outside the USA, they have a devil-may-care indifference and are too well-adapted to the pot to realize how dangerously hot it is. They have a clue but are too complacent and self-indulgent to act on it.

            • I hear you loud and clear as I have a daughter that would fit right into your circle of friends. She just left me with her Rottweiler while she and her family of 4 took off to Daytona Beach for 5 days. Just opened her bank statement, $80.00 in her checking account.
              Late payment fees, overdraft fees, etc., etc. Even a low balance fee. Never voted in her life & never intends to. Oh but her house is much bigger than mine and her car is much newer than my ’97 Chevy.

              Yeah, I hear you

  15. Ron Paul has shown that he is massive, with his crowd-pulling magic wand compared to Mitt Willard. Santorum stammered when giving reasons y he was bowing out of GOP race but Santorum campaign insider sources gossiped and finally leaked info that Willard was not his threat, but Ron Paul. Even Mitt too still thinks that his foe is Ron Paul. I would be very foolish to say that Mitt is bettera than Dr. Ron Paul, but the true is the reverse. RP is a former Air Force surgeon who knows the welfare of the servicemen in uniform. Mitt has shown that he is an opportunist and greedy capitalist. He pounces on useless debates involving Ann Romney, another clown. Romney has defied and trampled upon women’s emancipation and rights a number of times, including his already elbowed buddy, Hermain Cain. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to prove that Mitt Romney is sponsoring “big oil” ads that are meant to hike gasoline prices and derail President Obama’s campaign. Romney is trying to be a saint in public but behind closed doors he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, which begs the question; Does Mormonism have to do with his flip-flopping character? It will not come as a surprise too if we were to hear that Mitt is also sponsoring the Birthers. However, war veteran and youth favourite, RP has pulled all heavy wagons, defying Mitt’s senseless and directionless camapign. Republicans should decide now and do what is right for Americans by suspending Mitt Romney for colluding with oil companies to hike gasoline prices. Romney should also be investigated if he’s not linked to the Rush Limbaugh rantings and controversy. Above all, his finances and amassed wealth should be investigated and proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are clean. The GOP has to suspend Mitt forthwith and give Ron Paul what they have always denied him.The world cannot wait and just accept to be led by a corrupt president in Romney. It doesn’t help matters to nominate Romney but only after a month or two he is forced to step down when his old past begins to catch up with him. We have not forgotten as yet when he was asked to come clean on his tax contributions he refused to listen to the people until he only did it to save his then dwindling campaign. What more if he becomes president of the US and ignores the people’s cries till the end of his term. Ron Paul and patriotic Americans should attack Mitt Romney and force him to give reasons y he is always against women. US NGO s have funded projects worldwide that are pro-women, unfortunately under Romney we will see a rise in abuse of women worldwide. Ron Paul should take the GOP to court for the fraud that was proven by the logarithms many a times.

  16. Since the GOP campaign began, I’ve followed the public life of 4 men, Dr Ron Paul, Mitt, Newt and Santorum. However, I’ll for now settle on Dr Paul and Mitt. When RP speaks in public, the pitch of his voice is consistent, relaxed, convincing, electric, energetic, authentic and honest. However, when Mitt Romney opens his mouth, one can clearly conclude that his talk is some kind of a marketing strategy and empty-talk. Instead of being honest, his face will change often-times during his speech, a clear sign that whatever he’s talking isn’t the truth. Whenever he starts talking about oil and attacking Obama about hike of gasoline prices, the pitch and inconsistence of his voice clearly spells out that even a lie detector would catch him hands down. The Mitt Romney you all know is a fake. He fidgets in public, unable to gather confidence and strength to contain himself. This is a man who aspires to lead America and my word, if he gets the chance he will clinch Chris Rock’s title of America’s Funniest Man. Also, when Mitt waves his hands upon fooling any gathering, simple psychology tells of a heart-broken man who is at war with his wife and family as they convince him to drop out of the race as its clear he won’t defeat President Obama. The pattern of the movement of Mitt Romney’s hands signifies a trembling, unstable heartbeat of an angry man, I wonder y a man who can’t control his emotions and temper in public will make to the highest office. Mitt Romney’s sometimes casual dressing is a foolery meant to hoodwink unsuspecting Americans that they belong in the same boat. This is in contrast to lone soldier Ron Paul who is not influenced by circumstances or environment to change his true self. Romney is a fake because he does what he does only to score political points and project himself as The Messiah. The voice of Mitt Romney sounds of a man knowingly heade for shame and disaster but can’t accept his failures. His voice and talk cannot be trusted at all. When Dr Paul speaks one is forced to rise up and get on their toes, or fly without wings. The way Mitt Romney way speaks voices. He walks like a forgotten loner, an outcast, a man who doesn’t know his destiny. Romney’s legs speak volumes as he walks. This time u won’t need a lie detector at all. His leg movements are a sign that he lacks leadership skills, mastery, can’t take decisive action. The opposite is true for Dr Paul. When RP walks by, u can clearly see the movements of a leader who was born to lead. When Romney twitches his neck, it seems more like he is hiding a kind of illness but doesn’t want to come out and confess in public, but when RP twitches his and smiles, no deceit is written in his face. He is always confident. When Romney starts talking about his wealth, one can sense that the man is hiding something how he amassed it. He seems like he is shivering to a certain extent and can’t stand straight beside rantings y everybody is against his riches. With this information beloved Americans, it is up to you to make up your minds. Psychology will always reveal the hidden secrets of all Robin Hoods and crooks, but also it will propel the honest ones in the likes of future president Ron Paul! Oh, my foot!

Comments are closed.