Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 08, 2008
Janice Shaw Crouse :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Pushy Pundits Forced Romney Out
by Janice Shaw Crouse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The big message out of the suspension of Governor Romney’s campaign for President is the people’s revolt against the punditry that shoved his candidacy down their throats. Conservative bloggers, radio hosts and opinion leaders have been unabashedly promoting Mitt Romney as their candidate by unprecedented personal attacks on John McCain and Mike Huckabee and their accusations that these candidates are “liberal.” They forgot all about their role as analysts and commentators and became advocates. Actually, their attitude was more than a little condescending and patronizing; they seemed to say “we know what we’re talking about so just take our word for it and go out there and vote the way we tell you to vote.”

The American public doesn’t take orders very well. They felt like they were being steamrolled. Besides, voters were all too aware that Romney is not a perfect candidate, either. Plus, they couldn’t relate to Governor Romney; it can’t have helped his chances that Americans have a visceral dislike of the idea of the presidency being for sale to the highest bidder. George Soros found that out in 2004.

It’s not really surprising, then, that Governor Romney’s campaign didn’t fly and the scarred, snow-haired hero Senator McCain will likely prevail. Super Tuesday looks to have been the “tipping point” for the GOP. McCain is the GOP frontrunner after prevailing in all the “winner take all” states; by winning four large Northeast states he collected 198 delegates. Romney didn’t win where he needed to win and was much weaker as a result.

There were numerous ironies in the campaign: With his business background, Romney should have been the economy candidate, but on Super Tuesday McCain won a lot of votes from people who cited the economy as their first concern. Romney spent millions in advertising, but did not win in the decisive states of California, New Jersey, New York, Missouri or Georgia. McCain won them all except Georgia, which Huckabee won.

At this point, we cannot dismiss Governor Huckabee, who made up for his lack of money and streamlined staff with charm, oratory, and humor. He did well on Super Tuesday with a successful sweep in the south that surprised all but a few of the pundits. He has vowed to stay in the ring and now he has the endorsement of the 800-pound Dr. James Dobson to add wind to his sails.

A fellow conservative policy wonk commented to me that he had quit reading many of his favorite columnists; he just didn’t want to read their constant “harping” that brooked no alternative to their position. This is a smart, educated, sophisticated conservative; he reads all the pundits; but those in his camp – with a few exceptions like Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Medved and Ed Morrisey – forgot their role as dispassionate, objective analysts and commentators. Instead, they became consumed with a doctrinaire political agenda and tried unsuccessfully to throw their supposed weight around. The public didn’t buy it; they rejected the “know-it-alls” and simply didn’t vote for the favorite candidate of the movement heavy-weights.

Romney has plenty of time to fight other political battles and to wage future campaigns. In the meantime, the pundits on his bandwagon ought to insist that he prove his conservative credibility. It is not enough for them to just declare that his current stance on the issues is legitimate. Many grassroots conservatives doubt his rhetoric on some key concerns –– especially abortion and so-called “gay marriage.” The voting public has been burned before by trusting too soon. Now Romney has an opportunity to win over the skeptics; by being tested, he can prove that his new commitment on the social issues is real. He can surround himself with people that conservatives trust and, over time, he can win over the people who currently doubt his conversion. In the meantime, the conservative pundits can work to restore their credibility, too.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Janice Shaw Crouse is a former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush and now political commentator for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Janice Shaw Crouse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I completely disagree
Talk radio is not an extension of the press media, it is a form of entertainment, similiar to talk tv shows like Letterman or Oprah. They are supposed to, and always have, given opinion mixed with fact. These radio personalities have no responsibility to be fair, balanced, or even honest, they are entertainers trying to maintain market share. Most of the individuals were staying nuetral for a long time, and finally took a stand. Agree or not, that is thier job. If thier opinion sways the public, so be it. Do you think Oprah Winfrey's backing of Obama had no affect on public opinion? If Oprah can choose a candidate, why can't Rush or Hannity?

Christian socialist pundit
Janice,

you may poo-poo pundits who didn't care much for Huckabee, but you are being paid for by Tim LaHaye "the Rapture author" on a daily basis. You bias, therefore, against Mitt Romney is all too obvious.

Huck is still a shmuck...maybe that is why Judicial Watch named Mr. Huckabee as one of the MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICA. No amount of sophistry, and downright nasty "jokes" against Romney will EVER fix that.

We know where your bread is being buttered. Isn't it about time you came out and admit your bias against Mitt and Mormons?

Janice Shaw Who?

Janice honey, it is not "punditry" or promotion when a talkshow host reveals and contrasts the records of politicians. It is analysis.

It is your "analysis" that lacks any facts, reality or substance.

Would someone at Townhall.com please close the window that is letting in all the liberal flies like this Janice Shaw Whoever person.

Ridiculous
Actually Janice, it would appear that you yourself are one of the 'pushy pundits.'

Several of your assertions prove that you wear your own set of rose color glasses, except that they are manufactured by McCain Huckabee.

First, you assert that 'the American public doesn't take orders very well. They felt like they were being steamrolled.' Yes, I'd have to agree with you that many of us felt like we were being told to simply accept a McCain nomination --like we were being steamrolled. I personally don't take orders very well, especially as it relates to accepting a candidate telling me that he is a conservative when clearly he is not.

Second, you assert that there were only a few pundits that did their job as objective analysts rather than advocates. Specifically you name Michael Medved. Since when has Michael Medved remained objective in this race. Michael has fallen hard for John McCain and will not admit a single weakness in his candidate and will not concede a single point to those who oppose him. Is this objectivity? I think not.

Also, since when is it the job of the pundits to remain purely objective? The role of talk radio has always been to influence --this is quite obvious to most of us.

Finally, you assert that the 'pundits on his [Romeny's] bandwagon ought to insist that he prove his conservative credibility.' Wow, coming from a McCain support that really takes guts. I would suggest that you all look into the mirror on that one before you point that finger at Romney. After all, hasn't that been the primary issue with McCain? You assertion is exceptionally weak.

In summary, it would appear that your article is an cathartic attempt to to relieve the sins of your campaign by laying them on Romney's doorstep. But the big message here is that we don't appreciate this message or McCain's candidacy being shoved down our throats.

Thanks,
Marc De Brey

no no,
I believe that Romney lost the old fashioned way; the people picked the other guy. But there is a deeper point to this column. Some people such as Rush and Coulter have been doing much more than just offering support for a particular candidate. They have been defining conservatism and for years they have been tighter and tighter definitions. They and other share a major part in the demise of the conservative movement. This is their right and I won’t even go as far as to say they are wrong; but the reality of their actions is coming to fruition now. Each claims millions of adoring fans yet apparently, they don’t represent the will of the people at large. It may be a joke now for Coulter, but when Hillary or Obama wins, it will be due in part to her efforts.

Crouse grouse
Janice, I'm tired of pundits like you shoving misconceptions and lies down our concervative throats. This piece is awful, it's biased and factually untrue. As their records prove, McCain and Huckabee are liberals, and talk show hosts have merely pointed this out. You don't belong as a contributor to Town Hall.

Free Ramos and Compean
Darwin see, Darwin do
Romney write-in '08

Not Punditry but Slef Righteousness!
See my blog for the full comment!

http://tom2theright.townhall.com/Default.aspx

You couldn;t be more correct!
I am someone who watched Sean Hannity and religiously aligned myself with their views. Now I just hate even seeing them. I think it is also a sense of betrayal. People like me thought they were honest especially because the demonized the left. But we saw them do the same things they accused the left of. There were several times when I would post comments on the fox news blogs that were never posted after "moderation"!

I found it almost funny they thought they could lead us by the nose. Mitt Romney owes his defeat in great measure to them. At one point I told myself anyone but Romney; just because I wanted to see Hannity, Hume, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest eat dirt!

Ignorance
Ignorance voted Mitt Romney out of the race! Good grief, the man is a genuis in economics , business and law and ignorant voters continue voting for the wrong people. The economy is spiraling out of control with a $9 trillion deficit and voters chose McCain!

The socialist, who has over 450 ethical violations in Arkansas, was voted for by hypocritical bigots claiming to be Christians! I am completely baffled!

I know you have heard the saying-"if your neighbor loses his job it is called a recession". If you lose your job it is called a depression". This will be happening to a bunch of people, because you did not support the ONLY MAN who could have saved your jobs and would have created millions more.

Janice Shaw Crouse=McAmnesty Hack
THis is a pathetic article. I am disgusted that townhall.com would employ such a leftist. If this were nationalreview, I would cancel my subscription. Come to think of it, I'd better check to see if she ever writes there, b/c if she does, I end all current and potential future readership, print or web, of their products.

STOP EMPLOYING LEFTISTS! We come here to read CONSERVATIVE opinions!

The Person who wrote this
appears to be mentally retarded. Please be kinder with your commentary.

Funny
Conservatives usually rejoyce at the sound of their distastful, facts-distortioning and low-blowed loud mouths when their wrath is projected towards anybody how don't agree with them. Now that they have a taste of their own medecine, they suddenly realize it could be a little sweeter.

um, NOT, poor analysis Janice
Your most salient point was that nobody liked the fact that it felt like Romney was trying to buy his way into the White House. Oh, and then there was that flip-flopping thing he did REPEATEDLY. For conservatives, 89.761% of whom vote based on convictions, it is hard to vote for someone who hasn't displayed any conviction. Actions speak a heck of alot louder than words.

But I got on a tangent there; back to the main point. Rush, et al are NOT repudiated by Romney withdrawing from the race. Rather Huckabee is shown to be a capable politician. Rush has been wondering for a couple weeks why Huckabee was attacking Romney - with whom he was splitting the conservative vote - rather than McCain (whew, I almost used a derogetory nickname there, but was able to overcome my baser impluse) who was winning the 1/3 of the party that consists of independents and more liberal leaning (okay, you can call them moderates) Republican party members.
THE ANSWER: Huckabee read the situation correctly: to win Huck needed to get all the conservative vote and to do that he needed Romney out of the race. So Huck played a game of chicken with Romney. If both Huck & Romney stayed in the race, neither was going to win. Super Tuesday would repeat thru the remaining primaries and McCain would default into the (R) nomination. Huckabee had nothing to lose by staying in the race. Romney had a significant amount of personal wealth to lose staying in the race. So Romney bailed because it was costing him too much personally (wow, what does that say for Mr. Convictions).

cont...
So in the past couple weeks Huckabee has:
1) demonstrated political savvy in attacking the correct opponent.
2) demonstrated cahones in forcing a game of chicken with Romney and winning.
3) forced a 2 man race which he has a chance to win if conservatives rally behind him.
caveats to 3)
a) okay, not really a 2 man race because Paul will be with us until the end syphoning off 5-10% of the conservative vote.
b) I know there are significant conservative concerns re: Huckabee. I share many of those concerns.

Summary on Huckabee:
1) has made it this far because he is a gifted communicator.
2) solid, bulletproof social conservative (think Supreme Court; and this is huge folks, remember the liberals have made the majority of their advances thru court. And court appointments last a long time. W made some excellent choices here.)
3) successful executive experience, ran a state for 3-4 terms.
4) has recently shown political savvy and cahones.

I would love to see a more consistent small govt vision out of his record and communications. And I would love to see a more solid circle of advisors around him. However, I think Huckabee is a much better choice than McCain...

and who would you rather see taking on Obama under the bright lights of the presidential debates.

You don't get it Crouse
Congress and the present liberal President we have have the lowest ratings and respect in history. And yet the people vote for three senators coming from our low rated congress. It does not add up. I believe there has been excessive voter rigging and fraud. There is no other way to explain it. America you say you hate congress and you vote for senators.....give me break.

Come on Janice...
We all know the only 'conservative' thing about McCain or Huckleberry is their alleged pro-life position.

In the case of McCain, however, he is in favor of expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That is hardly a pro-life position. Huckabee is simply a misguided Evangelical who wants to replace individual responsibility with new and improved government redistribution (welfare) schemes and claim it is what Jesus would do. It is not.

Adding to the mishmash of liberal/fascist ideology, both these candidates are now espousing the full acceptance of the man-made global warming theory and in so doing will convert free men everywhere into mere peons being subjected to more interventionist government which will further undermine the economy of this republic.

Both of these "stalwart conservatives" have long records which any informed voter can review on their own, without the pundits pushing them, and most responsible voting conservatives do just that.

Face it, the only reason to vote for either of these candidates is simply PARTY POLITICS. Nothing more-nothing less. It is not even a lesser of two evils scenario. And single issues of pro-life vs pro-abortion are not reason enough. Especially when the conservatives have had more than enough time to deal with this issue. Unfortunately, they have been nothing but gas bags giving lip-service to the issue since 1980.

Janice Shaw Crouse...another one that ..
Misunderstands Conservative talk radio ...
Conservatives do not take marching orders from TR...but
You apparently take your research from the MSM...
On Romney anyway..
Which makes YOU one of the pushy pundits whom has forced Romney out! :)

Starting to sound like the MSM
Where is that comment familiar that we all take marching orders? We who enjoy talk radio enjoy it because the talk is opinionated. I don't see what is the problem with pushing the candidate they want to win. Nobody said they have to give fair or equal time because they are not supposed to be objective media like how the regular news are supposed to be. It's only unfortunate that somehow people who supposively support conservative principles love to one up each other and criticize each other if they don't agree.

Gee
I hate to see all you guys in such a quandary with each other. Maybe I can help. It’s all Clintons fault.

The great thing about elections is that
the voters always get what they want most. In this case:

McCain supporters will get a liberal nominee that is indistinquishable from his democrat opponent and someone who is acceptable to the main street media.

Huckabee supporters will get "someone other than a mormon" in the White House who will select pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-big government judges for the Supreme Court.

To borrow a phrase from McCain, "its time for conservatives to get over it" and move on to other races where there is still a real conservative to support.

Even more important
Even more important is that all of right-wing media was against McCain and he won.

Which only goes to show you that "right-wing" media doesn't represent the majority who voted for McCain but instead represents a minority.

The error here is not the pundits like Rush are opinionated, but that pundits like Rush claim to speak for conservative America when clearly he does not.

You're Not Alone
Thanks Janice for honestly observing what happened. I blogged something similar in a pair of posts on http://www.quiverdaddy.blogspot.com -- the conservative push-back against talk radio and the conservative Commentocracy combined with the traditional American discomfort with self-funding candidates combined to doom Romney's effort.

He'll still be there in 2012, hopefully a reconstrtucted and consistent conservative that conservative media will not feel obliged to force-feed to flyover country.

I the meantime, we should now give every conservative vote to Huckabee to send a clear message to McCain of our expectations.

Horrible Analysis
Janice, baby doll, you do know of course that McCain didn't actually win among, you know, Republicans. He won where open primaries were held, or where independents were allowed to vote in spite of contrary rules (Florida).

Romney was continually attacked - more than any other candidate - by the rest of the candidates and the press. He was the subject of a bigoted campaign by the mainstream press, the Huckster and his accolades based on his religion. He wasn't "shoved down anyone's face". As to the bloggers and talk radio. How many people actually read conservative political blogs? I would bet no more than 800K-1M, a tiny sliver of the electorate. Even conservative radio, with 20M listeners is a small % (although it is true both groups are much more apt to be active).

As for the "opinion leaders", their job isn't pure analysis. They offer analysis as a way to win support for their - get ready here - OPINION.

You needed to whiteboard this one a little longer.


talk radio distorts america
patrick ruffini in another article talked about the "echoe chamber"

we cannot trust the biased conservative media or the biased liberal media.

also, there is no doubt that hewitt, limbaugh and hannity et.al. have joined and become the main stream media.

it is hilarious for them to attack the drive by media as limbaugh calls it for that is them .

in fact don't most people listen to talk radio in the car while they are driving to and from work or errands?




Let me see...
So basically you're saying that anyone who isn't a shill for McCain or Huckabee "forgot their role as dispassionate, objective analysts and commentators"?

Medved a dispassionate observer?
I don't think so. I agree with Marc that Michael Medved has unabashedly been advocating for John McCain for some time.

Total Crock
The support of Rush, Hannity and Laura and other boosted Romney's poll numbers and made him a lot more competitive.

What killed Romney was going back to CA instead of staying in WV for the caucus vote. Had Romney won WV he would have won GA, MO, DE and done a whole lot better in CA.

After WV and NY, NJ and CT the press did everything they could to suppress the Romney vote in the other states. CNN called every Romney state late and every McCain state as early as possible. They pumped Huckabee, especially after WV.

WV really sent a shock wave thru the Romney support. He was leading in the early DE exit polls and then lost that by as much as he was leading. CA really took a big hit from the East Coast results. Perceptions are real in consequences.

Opnion on Opinion?
Let's see here. An opinion piece on opinion piece's works only when it is backed by fact and substance. There is none here. What your agenda is here is not quite as obvious as some are saying. Can anyone see it for what it is? And let's look at the choices presented for nomination at this time:

McCain - liberal democrat in republican clothing
Romney - taking flip-flopping to a new high and corruption to new heights.
Huckabee - Hiding behind a cloak of Evangelical while his record clearly shows this to be lip service only.

What is clear is all those apathetic souls who think voting doesn't matter are getting their due. You can rail against politicians or you can use your vote, your resources and your mind to work, support and advocate people who will make a difference. Principles matter. "By their fruits you shall know them."

To trash people trying to point out the fruits of those seeking office is wrong?

McCain more conservative than Romney?
Your article is nonsense.

Incomplete list of McCain's fascist sins:

-anti 1st amendment specifically for political speech

-anti rule-of-law vis-a-vis illegal immigration

-pro federal funding of embryonic stem cell research

-anti tax cuts before he was for them

-pro energy-use restrictions to prevent a thoroughly unproven pseudo-scientific global warming claim

McCain's only marketable conservative credentials are that he does not viscerally hate the military, he is opposed to earmarks, and he is generally pro-life. These are obviously all significant improvements over anything the Democrats have to offer.

But to suggest that McCain does not have a massive hill to climb in order to prove his own conservative credentials when he vehemently supports expanding government control of political speech and personal energy use while at the same time relieving government of the duty to defend the country from uninvited aliens is completely dishonest.

He cannot support the above ideas and still claim to be a defender of liberty.

He is a better choice than the Democrats, but he is not by any stretch of the imagination a good choice.

Most perceptive article
I have read here.
You nailed it Janice but as we can see many still do not get it.

The ones here who attack you for such wisdom this article contains.
Its also amusing to read the comments from the whiners who have lost in their bid to install another phony politician that Romney has proven to be.

Our problem is all of the candidates and none of them are what America truly needs.

Money is buying the Office, and only a blithering idiot could miss it.
Or...an intentional liar that knows it and denies it.
Which American Politics is now over run with.
Just like all the pundits who tell us Huck and McCain are liberal, and then turn around and promote the MOST LIBERAL OF ALL.
Romney

eh, not so much
I'll give the author her due in saying that she has a point. The significance of that point has yet to be determined.

Look, there's a coalition between McCain and Huckleberry Hound. He's running for VP, and to stave off Mitt. He's a pawn, pure and simple, as evangelicals always are.

Mitt made an intelligent business descision by bowing out gracefully and with dignity. Now he can distance himself from the chaos that is about to ensue, and come back in 4 years with the four sweetest words in the english language.

"I told you so."


Nice Try
Commentators (Rush, Sean, Laura, Ann) are SUPPOSED to take positions and give opinions. Analysis is what the reporters are supposed to be doing. They never ONCE (as you condescedningly accused them) said "this is our opinion, just trust us"---No that is what the elected Republican establishment who have rallied around McCain have been doing.

The commentators who opposed McCain and Huckabee offered thoughtful, critical analysis and THEN endorsed Romney.



the condecension the art addresses
$ writes: 2:34


Look, there's a coalition between McCain and Huckleberry Hound. He's running for VP, and to stave off Mitt. He's a pawn, pure and simple, as evangelicals always are.

----------
ts:
What is always, is the smugness of arrogance you promote with the above.
Which produces more division.

"a pawn, , as evangelicals always are."

I am not one, but to speak so condescendingly with arrogance of your own superiority is laughable, and divisive.
Its in the air today I guess.
------------

$ writes:
Mitt made an intelligent business descision by bowing out gracefully and with dignity. Now he can distance himself from the chaos that is about to ensue, and come back in 4 years with the four sweetest words in the english language.

---------
ts:
Never read a more gullible paragraph assigning such purity of heart and mind to Romney.
Classic gullibility, yet you mock others, giggle giggle.


xiangxiang
And that's the problem: Rush, Sean, et al, from an assumed position of neutrality bashed Paul, then Huckabee, then McCain, and only in the last few days admitted that they were leaning toward Romney all along.

Had they stated their biases up front they would have been viewed as more honest brokers then they do now. In other words, had they stated up front that they were pro-Romney, their pronouncements against the others would have been tempered by the listeners. But because they presented themselves a neutral, their "analysis" was taken at face value, and in the end makes them all appear to have been operating with ulterior motives.

I was stunned when I heard Hannity twist/analyze one of Huckabee's statements in such that could only be taken to Huckabee's detriment when it was clearly not what Huckabee meant. The following day, Hannity confessed he was voting for Romney. Then it all made sense. Hannity intentionally hurt Huckabee's standing because he at the time was an unannounced Romney supporter.

I think Crouse's point is that Rush, Hannity, et al, have lost credibility because they didn't come clean in the first place. And in doing so, they got the opposite result of what they wanted.

Who IS this Crouse lady?
Memo to Crouse: pundits are, by definition, pushy. That's what they do - use their soapbox to push their views - just like you.

So sorry their views don't happen to jibe with theirs, but it is you and all the other McCain critic critics who are trying to squelch the debate.

In case you didn't know, Rush, Laura and Sean are all conservatives who push a conservative agenda on their talk shows, just as they always have for years. The problem for you is not that they have suddenly become forcefully opinionated, its that they have become forcefully opinionated about issues with which YOU disagree.

If you actually followed their program over time you would realize they have never been too enthralled with McCain, and McCain has been giving them the finger in return. Just because you and others see it in McCains, the GOP's or whomever's interest for them to lay off, there is absolutely no reason to expect they would, unless they agreed.

So get over it Toots. They are not, have never been, and are unlikely to become, McCainiacs.

it's McCain, stupid
"The big message out of the suspension of Governor Romney’s campaign for President is the people’s revolt against the punditry that shoved his candidacy down their throats. Conservative bloggers, radio hosts and opinion leaders have been unabashedly promoting Mitt Romney as their candidate by unprecedented personal attacks on John McCain and Mike Huckabee and their accusations that these candidates are “liberal.”"

What you don't get, is that Romney was NOT the first choice of those of us to whom the pundits spoke. He was the last. He was as far as we could, in good principle, compromise.

HE WAS A COMPROMISE.
Had there been no Romney in the race, McCain would *still* have been unacceptable, and the snide little guy from Arkansas would still have been unacceptably liberal. His record on crime and illegal invaders is atrocious.

Right on, Janice!
Rush and the rest of them need to get over it! I don't know if they chose to ignore the facts about Romney's record, or just plain didn't take the time to find out what the rest of American conservatives were discovering about Mitt, but any GOP candidate whose record shows such strong pro-choice, pro gay marriage liberalism as Mitt's deserves to be shut down!

Now, the question is, will these conservatives throw the baby out with the bath water by being so prideful they will turn America over to the Dems? I pray not.

I think, at a minimum
When a columnist maskes bold assertions about the intentions of voters, as Janice Crouse does here, that person should at the very least cite the polls/surveys, etc. backing up those assertions. From where does Janice come to the conclusion that voters voted they way they did due to a backlash against talk radio commentators? From the content provided, I see no evidence that this conclusion is based on anything other than personal feelings and conversations with people she knows -- assuming that the voters feel precisely the way she does.

Let me correct a common mistake: none of us, not one, has a wide enough or diverse enough social circle to generate a meaningful statistical sample. Conclusions about large populations based on personal contacts are meaningless.

Bring in the Soothsayers
I disagree with this analysis. I think too many actually abdicated their roles as opinion makers. They chose to assume Olympian perches and feigned indifference. They did throw thunderbolts any time they wanted. Then, too late, they sought to intervene after super Tuesday.
Meanwhile, ill directed concerned voters resorted to soothsayers who split the men open to read their entrails to determine who was the real conservative. Like Aztec priests, they tore their hearts out and flung the dead bodies down the pyramid.
it is well past time that we end this carnage and seek a positive vision. We have a parasite punditry that feeds off the doers.

ts
You missed the point, but only entirely.

Furthermore, you assume too much.

The republicans need no help dividing and conquering themselves.


stupidity
This article makes people who voted for Romney into people that didn't do any research on their own about the candidates. That they just slurp up talk radio and follow their every command. Well, I do listen to talk radio. I find it very informative but I also did my own research and found out that Gov. Romney was the most consistently Conservative of the field we had left to choose from. I read about his record as Governor of the most Liberal State and how he strived to work with a very liberal congress to get conservative ideas passed. Also, I didn't realize that having money that you've earned honorably and legally (with out marrying it)was a bad thing. Not to mention all the crap about him "buying" votes... Excuse me but who was able to raise the most money to support his campaign? It wasn't Huckabee or McCain. Which means there were people that believed in the direction that Mr. Romney was wanting to go. This was all before the Talk Show Hosts started saying that Romney was the most conservative of the 3 candidates up on Super Tuesday. So as far as this article goes, I want to just throw up my hands when people who claim to write for Republicans are intellectually dishonest. They are just hoping that no one is really paying attention to the timeline of events. They are hoping that no one is really investigating the candidates they are willing to put their hopes, faith and money into supporting. And if people will listen to the likes of this woman and believe her tripe... then I guess they are willing to give away their freedom for a "mess of pottage" (reference to a biblical story)and I guess that's all I have to say.

I missed? How?
$ writes: 4:35 PM
ts
You missed the point, but only entirely.
--------
ts:
I missed only in reading your hearts intent if I did miss anything.
Whats to miss with this:

quote:
$ writes: 2:34
"Look, there's a coalition between McCain and Huckleberry Hound. He's running for VP, and to stave off Mitt. He's a pawn, pure and simple, as evangelicals always are."

eh?
I think all of our problems today in communication, including my own, is group think.
We no longer can see anyone as an individual.
We have assigned all arguers their own group, and will not allow them to escape from this judgment of them.
I think we have been trained well to think in such methods.
By the "leaders" who never seem to recognize individuals, only groups.

"vast right wing conspiracy" sort of thinking.



----------
$ writes: 4:35 PM

Furthermore, you assume too much.
--------
ts
Done my best to understand you, with what you gave me to read.

-----------

$ writes: 4:35 PM
The republicans need no help dividing and conquering themselves.

-------
ts:
Nor did I think they need any help, or say they did.
The politicians are doing a masterful job all by themselves.


Utter nonsense!

Janice Crouse writes:

The big message out of the suspension of Governor Romney’s campaign for President is the people’s revolt against the punditry that shoved his candidacy down their throats.

Sorry toots it wasn't the Pundiits who shoved Romney's candicay down peoples throats, it was the revolt or lack of it, caused by people (lemmings) and people like you who did that with your left leaning hatred garbage like this column you wrote. Someone here wonderd why you are emplyed by Town Hall, and when I see the B.S. you displayed here, I couldn't agree more!

Wise up Gal!


You have got to be kidding
If anything, it was the pushy MSM that sold the idea that McCain was the most electable while Romney was a Taxachusetts Pagan Robot, Thompson lacked Fire In The Belly, Tancredo was a Racist, Hunter was a Nobody, etc.. Conservative voters have been split and it was literally days before Super Tuesday when Sean, Laura, Rush, etc. tried to rally voters around Romney as the last best hope. But I know evangelicals who'd rather spork their eyes out than vote for a Mormon and I know some folks who voted for McCain because they thought he was the most electable.

In any case, the radio talk show people are there to give their opinions in the first place. What's wrong with that?

Really now
I expected better than "At this point, we cannot dismiss Governor Huckabee, who made up for his lack of money and streamlined staff with charm, oratory, and humor."

Even someone with basic math skills can add up the available delegates and realize that Huckabee cannot be the nominee no matter how much he tries to dazzle with brilliance or baffle with ...

Some Kinda Kool Aid
The number of "conservative" writers who are now penning articles damning conservative talk radio hosts for their displeasure with John McCain is becoming suspicious. Writers that I would have never suspected of "being in the tank" for any specific candidate have excoriated "un-McCainiacs." It is an indication of who does and who doesn't attend beltway parties. Someone should have told our "non-partisan conservative types" to avoid the "KOOL-AID."

The pundit problem
The problem for the pundits wasn't the fact that they supported a candidate. Their problem was the manner in which they did so, and their refusal to face facts when presented with them because they were so headstrong in favoring Mitt Romney.

Janice-Take your blinders off
Janice Shaw Crouse writes:

".... but those in his camp – with a few exceptions like Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Medved and Ed Morrisey – forgot their role as dispassionate, objective analysts and commentators."

Please Janice, take the blinders off! Michael Medved's (M. Bear) show the last couple of weeks (at least!), should've been titled: "All McCain, All the Time." Medved has been the leading APOLOGIST for McCAIN. As I've said in other posts, Medved has been cherry-picking his stats...he quotes McPain's lifetime ACU rating of 85, but ignores his 2006 rating of 65.

The truth is, McPain has been one of the biggest LIBERAL Republican Senators in the last several years....why don't you or Medved point that out?




Janice.Shaw.Crouse
Any woMAN that uses 3 names, Janice.Shaw.Crouse, has GOT to be a Feminist! Busted!!!

They Painted Themselves Into a Corner
Once the conservative chatterati became advocates instead of commentators, and once they went overboard in their mischaracterizations of Huck and Mac, well they caused a backlash against Mitt as well as forming a pact between Huck and Mac.

How
did they mis characterize McCain?

How?

By pointing out he was behind McCain-Kennedy?
By pointing out that he was behind McCain-Feingold?
By pointing out that he was head of the Gang of 14?
By pointing out that he wants the terrorists out of Gitmo?
By pointing out that he is opposed to waterboarding terrorists for information?

If that's mis characterizing... it's mis characterizing every time you read a politician's biography...

JOHN MCCAIN

JUAN HERNANDEZ TELLS US YOUR HEARING IS BAD.

SECURE THE BORDER. PERIOD.

ENFORCE THE LAW.

NO NEW PATH.

You Gotta Vote

Please do NOT stay home. You must vote. You do not have to vote for Hillybama or McAmnesty. There are always other parties and people on the ballot. You could write in Joe Oliva. The important votes are for House and Senate seats. Conservatives MUST win seats in the House. The House is where things get done. It was the passage of H.R. 4437, an enforcement bill, in Dec.05 that sparked the illegal alien protest marches and moved this issue to the front burner. It was the Senate that tried to jam amnesty down our throats. The D's that won seats in '06 were conservatives running on enforcement platforms. One of them, Heath Shuler D-NC, introduced the SAVE Act. Call, e-mail, or write your Congressman and urge support of this legislation. Enforcement is what Americans want, not amnesty.

Amnesty is a losing proposition.
I don't think Hillary is stupid enough to step in front of this bus.
McCain is.

I disagree
This was a stupid analysis - talk radio was just trying to overcome the bashing the Romney was getting from the MSM and giving us the facts about McCain, the one they were promoting.

Romney's stump speeches were great but none of them ever made the news. The McCainiac and the Huckster were being promoted while Romney was being ignored or criticized for spending millions of his own which he was forced to do to counteract the lies the Huckster was getting away with via the free MSM coverage.

Totally off base, Crouse.

not all born-again Christians like Huck
I'm a member/supporter of CWA and a passionate born-again Christian and I'm a little disappointed in Janice (and maybe I should be with other outspoken Christian leaders in the political arena).

It seems that Janice is anti-Romney and pro-Huck and I think true conservatives and biblical thinkers should be concerned about Huck and think a little deeper than what the media says.

I was initially pro-Huck, donated to his campaign, but then I saw the true Huck and realized he's not all that socially conservative, smallish and unpresidential, and down right mean-spirited!

But here is my challenge to the Christian community: we don't need a born-again Christian in the White House; we need a COMPETENT leader/CEO who will stick with BIBLICAL (CONSERVATIVE) VALUES. It would be great to have both but I'd chose the latter over the former.

You can have a born-again Christian who is soft on justice (Huck wants to close Gitmo, Huck has pardoned too many criminals in past, Huck is soft on illegals).... OR you can have a religious man who has a stronger resolve and conscience on these matters.

Romney has never shown such a mean streak. He makes mormonism look attractive (but I beg you, look to Christ, not to family values for salvation)

Yes, I'm impressed that Huck is doing things on a shoestring budget. Yes, that's interesting (or ironic) that Romney dollars couldn't do it for him, but these are very small points in a case for Huck.

The rule of law is something every born-again Christian should be concerned about. I'm a little tired of compassionate conservatism. And now I'm tired of Christians being mean-spirited.

How could a Conserved Woman for American and get excited about Huck as the President of USA?


Huckabee is the man of the hour
Mike Huckabee: conservative alternative
For those voters concerend about a McCain presidency, a second look at Mike Huckabee should be encouraging.

Mike is strong on the 2nd Ammendment rights; he is a social conservative who is staunchly Pro-Life, he is opposed to Gay Marriage; he is for the surge in Iraq, and will settle for nothing less than VICTORY in Iraq; and he wants to get the IRS of our backs, and thereby lessen the tax burden on all wage earniers.

True, he probably can't get the fair tax passed into law, but his support for the fair tax shows his heart is in the right place when it comes to taxcs-depsite what his opponents have said during the heat of battle.

I hope those who are angry with Mike will take another look and remember the multi million dollar drumbeat of negative ads slandering Huck were neither truthful or Christian.


Some of you still don't get it!
Huckabee is dead meat and McCain will be dead meat in November! McCain can't win without conservative votes. Neither McCain nor Huckabee are true conservatives except for pro-life positions. Huckabee is a bigger government guy and McCain is a pro amnesty man still. McCain's CPAC speech was filled with "I intend..." There were few good promises only equivocations. Still, I just hope McCain can pull it off in November or we are all dead ducks--fiscally, culturally,and due to the jhadists goals, literally we will be dead ducks! The Democratic opposition has no stomach for fighting the cancer that is growing bigger every day in the middle east.

Anyone who thought that Huckabee's chance to become president was divinely appointed is completely off the mark. God would want the leader of the free world (America) to remain free.

Mitt Romney was the only true conservative left standing. Rush, et al, were telling it like it was. This article appears to have fallen out of the sky from the liberal left wing camp! Yikes, how did it make it into Townhall. Looks like an invasion to me. Personally, I felt that the MSM were the ones shoving people down my throat. They never gave Mitt Romney a chance at all. The reporting is terribly biased against all conservative viewpoints. Thank the Good Lord above for talk radio!

You pinned me on the nose
I only starting visiting Townhall.com two weeks ago. I don't think I know you. But you just wrote my story as if you were in my head. I believe Huckabee was and is the true conservative choice. I trust him. I did like Sean, Ann and Rush. I watched Fox News only for 7 years straight. I NEVER ONCE watched MSNBC or CNN during those 7 years. Now, I refuse to watch Fox. I'm finding my way through the other choices. It's actually freeing. The thought of watching or listening to Sean Hannity makes me want to vomit. I'm a little ill just typing his name. Now looking at it, umm, I think I better go

Huh?
Janice, this article undermines your credibility as an analyst.

You said: "all the pundits; but those in his camp – with a few exceptions like Victor Davis Hanson, Michael Medved and Ed Morrisey – forgot their role as dispassionate, objective analysts and commentators."

You must not have ever listened to Medved's show because he is anything but dispassionate and objective. He has been as much a shill for McCain as Hewitt had been for Romney.

And as for the pundits pushing Romney, Romney was largely ignored by conservative radio, or at least given no more positive exposure than the other candidates (and arguably more negative exposure), until Thompson and Giuliani dropped out. Its not as though Rush, Hannity et al. were touting Romney the entire campaign.

Its also wrong to assume that by not voting for Romney, the voters rejected the political pundits. At the late hour they started supporting Romney much had already been decided. It wasn't so much a rejection of the pundits as it was that voters by that time had already begun to stake out their positions on the candidates, and it was just too little too late to boost Romney's support.

Don't Kill the Messenger
To say that the MSM pundits "forced Romney out" is like a man who has lost his home because he failed to make mortgage payments telling his wife they lost the home because she discussed their situation with the neighbors. Here's news: the American people make up their own minds. In Iowa they supported Obama although the pundits predicted Clinton, then in New Hampshire they supported Clinton although the pundits predicted Obama. And, more recently, the people supported McCain although Rush Limbaugh told them not to.

If today your mailman or your weatherman brings you bad news, please don't kill him. Reporting an event doesn't cause it to happen: it already happened.

GOP Membership Suspended!
From BB a life lon member


As a long time member of the Republican Party who has held his nose like so many other conservatives while casting ballot after ballot for less than ideal candidates, I have decided to suspend my membership in the party beginning today until such time as the party returns to its core principles.

Based on reaction to Mitt Romney’s suspension of his presidential campaign today, it is obvious there will be many more Republicans choosing to suspend their activities on behalf of the party. This will be good for the party and put leaders on notice that the grassroots grunts who work tirelessly on their behalf have had enough.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/gop-membership-sus pended

Crouse is correct.
Crouse correctly says radio talk show hosts and pundits forgot they were analysts and instead became advocates in their universal adoration of Romney.

I think Romney displayed grace and maturity in his decision on the gop nomination, in stark contrast to the temper tantrums and hissy fits by pundits and radio talk show hosts.

It appears the people of this nation are rejecting the slash-and-burn fanaticism exhibited by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who are fast becoming comic-book caricatures of themselves.

Re: cornporn
You wrote: "I hope those who are angry with Mike will take another look and remember the multi million dollar drumbeat of negative ads slandering Huck were neither truthful or Christian."

I wouldn't say I am angry at Mike Huckabee. I would describe my feelings for Huckabee more akin to disgust. I am bothered by the fact that he seems to think he is the "chosen one". His reference to himself as David defeating Goliath (Romney), when he actually came out of Super Tuesday with fewer states than Romney, and his whole line about turning five loaves and two fishes to thousands to win in Iowa, as though it were a miracle he won when he had been ahead in polls for nearly a month. I'm a pretty religious guy myself, but I don't like the fact that Huckabee can't seem to find any separation between political and religious dialogue. I don't want to the man preaching to me for the next four years.

Another irritating aspect of Huckabee is how he always plays himself as the victim. The best line of the debates was the second debate before New Hampshire (where Romney ripped Huckabee a new one) where Chris Wallace asked Huckabee about his ridiculous statement that "voters want a person who worked with them, not a person who fired them" (or something like that). Wallace asked who that comment was referring to, and in the midst of Huckabee's rambling and bumbling answer he threw in the line "I've been called a lot of things, but...." I love it. Here he is, going after Romney, and when he is asked to account for his attack against Romney, he acts like he is being attacked. What a joke.


Re: cornporn
That last point also goes to the inherent hypocrisy of Huckabee. He has on many occasions attacked Romney's character. He tried to embarrass him by mocking his so-called changes in positions during a debate and he also called Romney a dishonest person. He said he wouldn't run a negative campaign and yet he did all of the above while also airing a negative ad when he said he wouldn't, in order to get free air time.

His claims that he has been attacked by Romney is a joke, and is another attempt by Huckabee to act like a persecuted Christian. Frankly, if he wants to know what it means to be a persecuted Christian, he should go talk to Romney, the guy whom he attacked. At least Romney was classy enough to keep his "attacks" to Huckabee's policy positions and not his character.

Huckabee is a farse, and frankly, I would never vote for the man.

And now he has the gall to ask for Romney's voters to support him, the "the true and consistent conservative". Honestly, I think he'll get around 5% of Romney supporters, and little more. He burned his bridges a long time ago.

Zero stars, Crouse
You don't get it, not one bit...

As a day long, and sometimes half the night talk show listener, I completely disagree with your "analysis."

Medved has been all Muckain, all the time. Hewitt was for Romney. Some of their analysis has been flawed also, especially Michael, who has been stridently defending my Senator who I haven't supported in over 10 years, shoving him down my throat as the only repubbie who can beat the dhims. I have a little less respect for his intellect because he's taking us farther down this dead end road that those who withheld their votes in '06 have put us on. Rush played a tape of himself yesterday speaking before that election in which he described and predicted what would happen, and he was 100% on target.

Heck yes, Muckain can beat Hill and Barry, if he subverts them from within, which is where he's spent a lot of time in the last few years. The problem is, after the MSM turns on him full force, he'll be not just burnt toast in a few months, but more like fine ash, blowing away n the breeze.

So what's left for us die hard conservatives? Get out and work hard to unseat dems and put up a wall, however small, of conservatives who'll block the socialist lunacy that's headed our way, no matter which liberal gets elected pres.

Too many so called pundits spend much to much time reinforcing their elitist vision with their cocktail party buddies.

Since when....
... is pointing out the difference that John McCain has had with conservatives on core issues (freedom of speech, immigration reform, judicial nominees, tax policy, global warming) a personal attack? You're not making a valid argument, you're attacking those who don't want to see their values thrown under the bus by John McCain (or the Democrats).

Amen Janice Shaw Crouse!
I stopped listening to Laura, Sean, and Hewmitt after the disgusting smearing of John McCain and Mike Huckabee. The unfair bias toward Romney was the single factor that motivated me to become a volunteer for the Mike Huckabee campaign. This election has forever damaged my view of those pundits.
Michael Medved is the only talk radio host I listen to now. Romney had a more liberal record than Huckabee or McCain but was given a free pass on his convenient conservative makeover. I have never been one for conspiracy theories, but there was an obvious agenda against ANY candidate who surged ahead of Romney from the start.

I tried calling the Medved show one day and he was so flooded with callers angry at talk radio that they wouldn't take my call.

It is miraculous that McCain and Huckabee overcame the obstacles with so little money.
Huckabee voters felt the most insulted to have pundits telling us our vote would be wasted, as if our vote would have gone for Romney. Mine would have gone for McCain or Guiliani before Romney based on his more liberal record in Mass.

Konop, where have these guys been?
I switched to independent after '96 when I got tired of being ignored and watching my money wasted on losers like Dole, Lott and compromising, liberal-lite repubbies...

My disgust for Muckain has ever escalated since the day after Columbine, when he and Kerry (I believe) tripped all over each other, sprinting in front of the cameras to propose more gun control. Worked reeeeeealy well to stop Dillon and Klebold, huh? And more recently that little sicko at Virginia Tech.

I selectively support those local and national candidates who most closely agree with my politics, although I'm tempted to call Fred and ask for my $50 back.

When the RNC calls, my wife and I politely decline to send them any money until they get off this mush-mouth, go along to get along fantasy and get back to fighting for lower taxes, smaller government and effective national security.

I will vote a straight R ticket in November and won't even hold my nose. This childish snit fit begun in '06 has to end or there won't be any thinking adults left in DC and the country will be lost for sure.

Now pundits say Romney lost from bigtory


Many talk radio hosts are claiming that Romney lost the Primary because of anti Mormon bigotry. They accused Huckabee of being a spoiler in this election. Hmmmm, I thought a vote for Huckabee was a vote for McCain. So which is it Hugh, Laura, & Sean? If Evangelicals are truly bigots who won’t vote for a Mormon then their vote would have gone for McCain, making Romney’s failure greater. If anything, Huckabee voters HELPED Romney! McCain would have won by a landslide if Huckabee had dropped out with all these so called "bigots" refusing to vote for a Mormon. Oh, the irony.

Hugh Hewitt, Laura, Sean, Rush, etc. are using this inflammatory rhetoric on their show to make people think Romney lost because of bigotry. It is unfair and irresponsible to make these claims and is creating further divide in our party. Many Mormons I talk with have said they will sit out the election or vote Obama. I blame this on talk radio for allowing this inflammatory language to continue when there is no evidence of it causing his loss.
It is interesting that 90% of the Utah vote went for Romney and only 2% for Huckabee. EVs can easily say this is ANTI EVANGELICAL bigotry against Huckabee!

The only person having any effect with his religion in this race is Romney!
He has 99.9% of the LDS Republican vote going for him! If Huckabee had that kind of bias in his faith, he would have taken this election by a landslide months ago!


Polling
Lets look at the polls:
In Utah 88% of Republican voters were LDS, with 94% voting for Romney.
In Nevada, with only 7% LDS of the total population, they made up 25% of the Republican voters, and 95% of those voted for Romney.
(Which amounted to 50% of Romney's votes).
In Arizona, 11% of the Republican voters were LDS but only 88% of them voted for the Mormon candidate.
(must have been more Jack Mormons there)

EVs actually voted more for other candidates than Huckabee. Yet Mormons get a free pass on their support of Romney in landslide numbers. I am still looking for a Mormon that voted for Huckabee. There are thousands of EVs who voted for Romney.

On an LDS political forum Mormon pundits and members are saying that God sent tornadoes to the states that Huckabee won. Disturbing Http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32588

I tried to discuss the election with other LDS family and friends and thought I would get lynched after defending Mike Huckabee.

From the moment Romney entered the race, Mormons were looking for reasons to use religion in the election. It was deliberate and calculated by making any vote for Huckabee or McCain a vote "AGAINST ROMNEY." It was a very effective strategy that could have worked if Romney didn't have a liberal RECORD.

Mitt is gone, thank God
I don't mind the pundits having a crush on Romney, but the level of invective is just offensive. I don't vote for Mormons, so Mitt is not an option. Its not personal, but an informed and experienced position formed from living in Smith-land. I also note that my evangelical brother, W, has made some very egregious errors - the budget is blown, the war has been needlessly tedious, the whole WMD thing was a disaster (lose the bomber jacket, George), the immigration issue is not even discussed in meaningful terms, health care is inaccessible and unaffordable, unless of course you are a well-paid pundit. We are not allowed to address these things without being reviled as liberals. As a Reagan Democrat and evangelical turned Republican, I am now a man without a party.

Polling
Lets look at the polls:
In Utah 88% of Republican voters were LDS, with 94% voting for Romney.
In Nevada, with only 7% LDS of the total population, they made up 25% of the Republican voters, and 95% of those voted for Romney.
(Which amounted to 50% of Romney's votes).
In Arizona, 11% of the Republican voters were LDS but only 88% of them voted for the Mormon candidate.
(must have been more Jack Mormons there)

EVs actually voted more for other candidates than Huckabee. Yet Mormons get a free pass on their support of Romney in landslide numbers. I am still looking for a Mormon that voted for Huckabee. There are thousands of EVs who voted for Romney.

On an LDS political forum Mormon pundits and members are saying that God sent tornadoes to the states that Huckabee won. Disturbing Http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32588

I tried to discuss the election with other LDS family and friends and thought I would get lynched after defending Mike Huckabee.

From the moment Romney entered the race, Mormons were looking for reasons to use religion in the election. It was deliberate and calculated by making any vote for Huckabee or McCain a vote "AGAINST ROMNEY." It was a very effective strategy that could have worked if Romney didn't have a liberal RECORD.

Re: Mormons4Huckabee
You said: "I have never been one for conspiracy theories, but there was an obvious agenda against ANY candidate who surged ahead of Romney from the start."

First of all, Romney was barely ever ahead of the other candidates for the entire duration of the campaign, with the exception of Iowa and New Hampshire. But he was overtaken in both situations when the media had a love fest with his competitors. Leading up to Iowa, it was all Huckabee all the time, and McCain and the media have had a fairly good relationship for some time now.

In national polls I'm pretty sure Romney has been ahead for no more than a handful of days, a few weeks tops. So your statement is somewhat of an exaggeration, because candidates weren't "surging" ahead of Romney, they were usually ahead of him throughout.

It is easier to compensate for lack of money when you get free advertising from the media. If Romney hadn't been wealthy, he wouldn't have been given the time of day. He started out at 3% in national polls and steadily and slowly increased. But that never would have happened if he hadn't had the resources to counteract the ridiculous "flip flop" commentary put out by the media, and his competitors.

And your statement that Romney was given a "free pass" is laughable. The criticism he received was sometimes so over the top it was ridiculous (e.g. the flap about him putting his dog on his car when his family traveled). Neither McCain nor Huckabee had to overcome as much as Romney in this campaign.


Re: Mormons4Huckabee
unclevirgil wrote: "I don't vote for Mormons, so Mitt is not an option. Its not personal, but an informed and experienced position formed from living in Smith-land. I also note that my evangelical brother, W, has made some very egregious errors...."

Okay, so lets break this down. First it is clear this poster is an evangelical, as she refers to W as her evangelical brother. Next, she says she would never vote for a Mormon because of her personal experience around Mormons (or "Smith-land" as she put it, an form of mocking the Mormons).

Interesting, so based on your previous posts, this post was made up by the Romney campaign, you know, they just crafted this clever ploy so that they could run as a victim.

You simply can't argue that Romney didn't face bigotry in this campaign and maintain any credibility.

UncVirg
No, we aren't without a party, it's just been hijacked by linguine spined "moderates," country club elitists who have resented us cons since Goldwater and then Reagan.

Stand with me and we'll take it back. There may never be another Reagan, but that doesn't mean we give up our principals.

For God's sake, don't sit it out either. We need a firewall against liberals, whether in the WH or Congress. Deny them a veto-proof majority and a 100% rubber stamp President. Muckain, sad to say, is probably 50% with the dhims, so we need enough R's to back him when he's right and oppose him when he's nuts.

religion killed Romney...
about 1/3 said they would never vote for a Mormon, and many thought his genuine commitments unclear.

Our electoral process is strange and limiting; if you cannot raise a lot of $, you cannot prevail. Most listen too much to prevailing wisdom: the "major candidates." Oddly, we are down to 3 sitting senators-- we have elected only 2 EVER; we normally send someone from "outside Washington." Though many initially ran as Rep., only a few had a chance in our system. What initially derailed McAmnesty WAS amnesty, yet he ends up the nominee! Many who voted for him in a divided field cited "electability" because that's what they HEARD on TV. Thus, in their zeal to stop Shrillary, they chose a guy whose values they did not like (after they put lipstick on that pig)! WHY?!

Because he SAID he would build the wall, and artfully spooked them with fears of terrorism... that is an disingenuous false promise and fear of nothing really to fear. The REAL threat to America is flooding across the damm border, and Amnesty Juan WELCOMES THEM! Like Presidente Jorge Bush, he made a faustian deal for Hispanic support, but half of the LEGAL Hispanics voted for tough new sanctions AGAINST ILLEGALS in Az.! Guess what-- those tough new laws took effect Jan. 1, and ILLEGALS are packing up and going back to Mexico! The message we send to ILLEGALS is CRITICAL! Today's modern service economy NEEDS EDUCATED, skilled LEGAL immigrants, NOT the tsunami of welfare-seekers-in-waiting from the south. They permeate social pathologies like a cancer, inexorably destroying the host. The left will make them voters long B4 they are citizens, and we will morph ineluctably into a monster entitlement welfare state and third world barrio; they will bring their myriad relatives in, and make us precisely what they have tried to flee from.

McCain results in a lock for the Dems
Isn't it funny. Crouse is crying about conservative radio personalities pushing one candidate over another. Isn't that their choice? They have done their analysis and found McCain to be sorely lacking.

Analysis shows that McCain isn't too bright, suffers from a hair trigger temper, and loves to wear his maverick mantle in front of the MSM as he trashes conservatives and other republicans.

He is the republican version of John Kerry. He served in Vietnam and will try to make his experience as a POW qualifications for the POTUS. He made no battle plans. He did not save other POWs. He did not rally and lead an escape. He survived. Not a hero, a survivor.

He supported the surge in Iraq. Whoop dee doo!
I supported the Giants in the quest for the Super Bowl Title. It does not make me a football expert any more than it makes McCain a military expert.

I laugh when he tries to take credit for the surge. It is a good thing that McCain was around to tutor General Petraeus huh! Where would Petraeus be without McCain's brilliant military mind.

Gore invented the internet.
McCain invented the surge strategy.

Maybe we can give him a Nobel Prize for something. Well, McCain will have earned something this November: the biggest landslide loss since McGovern.

Be a maverick - VOTE OBAMA!

**** WARNING ****
DEMOCRAT LANDSLIDE AHEAD

What Coice Do We Have
All the true conservatives are gone (Trancredo, Hunter, Thompson), and the next in line (Romney) is also out. What choice do we have?

Ron Paul is a Libertarian who has no chance. What choice do we have?

The political analists(PA) (incl those of the opposition party [OP} were grieving McCruddy's "early demise" just because people didn't like all those evil things he had done - & Huckster was a liberal, religious nut. The PAs & OPs now cheer McShady & worry about Husky. What choice do we have?

I keep reading posts about McFain being the lesser of 2 evils (Clinfoist & Bangy). What choice do we have?

Both Huckless & McTraity addressed CPAC. Both had similar talking points. Both have records violating conservative values (but Shucky cannot really compare to what McShameless has done). So, what about their CPAC panders? Hunkey was more believable! PLUS Hucky does NOT have a Juan Hernandez as a personal adviser. What choice do we have?

With all his faults & foibles, I believe Hucky would be less willing to sell-out America (as McClaim has demonstrated a willingness to do). Also, there's not a whole lot of difference between Mac & the Dems. What choice do we have?

Yep! I've flip-flopped on whom I support as conservative candidates dropped out. Now, I am considering which remaining one has the LEAST offensive, anti-conservative record. That HAS to be Huckabe!


Twisted baloney
This column is a lot of baloney, really twisted, and could only come from someone associated with an organization like Concerned Women for America--that for some reason thinks Geo. W. Bush walks on water.

All one has to do is say "I'm a Christian and pro-life" and evangelicals go crazy. They did that with Bush and we got the worst president we have had in the past 60 years. And as far as Huckabee goes, any candidate who uses his relgion for political purposes should be ashamed of himself. If you can't win on your ideas then get off the stage. (Or go backstage and play your guitar.)

Your no Mormon-Mormons4huckabee!
It was disgusting enough that Huckabee hid his shameful record per Judicial Watch--Huckabee is ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS IN AMERICA TODAY...and this doesn't even include his rabid support of illegals' kids for the DREAM Act and his close to 1000 pardons of some very serious criminals.

His Christian socialism needs have also pushed into enviro-wacko land alng with quacks like Jim Wallis and Jimmy Carter.

But he acted like he has been the only evangelical candidate--of course we will ingnore Pat Robetson, Gary Bauer, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and even Harry Truman. At least Truman had a robust foreign policy--the others are all pretenders to the conservative mantle.

So he fooled all the rubes in the so-called "Bible belt", yet the sad thing is we now have two pretenders and phonies to the conservative legacy by way of chicanery, tag-teaming, employing rope-a-dope techniques aka Chuck Norris and Rick Flair---is this a serious political contender or just entertainment?

This question can be answered unequivocally--a joke. And that is why I agree with Ann Coulter even Hillary can be more rational and conservative than these two pretenders. They are most certainly not contenders for the Reagan mantle. Better get your Spanish books to be able to speak to the hordes of uneducated illegals soon to wash across the Rio Grande and into your local school, hospital, jail and welfare center.

The McCain pundits
You can say there are pundits on both sides. Those who criticize the critics of McCain and those who comment after the fact as if they knew what was going to happen all the time. The pundits I can't stomach are those who go along to get along, so they won't be criticized by the media. The McCain pundit's see McCain as the true Conservative he claims he is. The pundit's on the other side see McCain for what he truly is. No one forced Mitt Romney out. No pushy pundits here, just the writing on the wall, and Romney being a smart man did what he had to do. Pointing out the appeal McCain has by the moderates, uninformed Independents, weak Democrats wasn't created overnight to go along with his campaign. The McCain appeal was created years ago so well, it became embedded in the minds of those who sought an alternative just in case a Democrat didn't win the Presidency. McCain has his appeal because he isn't look upon as a true Conservative by the moderates, the uninformed Independents, and the weak Democrats. If they don't see McCain as a true Conservative why should the pushy pundits.

Baloney Indeed!!
The pundits DID NOT vote like McCain has. They DID NOT say what McCain has. They DID NOT do McCain-Finegold. They DID NOT do McCain-Kennedy. They DO NOT want to close Gitmo. McCain did all of those things and the pundits just reminded everyone of what he did. THAT IS THEIR JOB!!!

This column is baloney for blaming everyone else for what McCain did. And they are going to blame the pundits when McCain looses in November. But it is MCCain's fault. He is a liberal democrat attempting to wear a conservative republican's clothes. It is NOT going to work. I'll vote for Hilary before I'll vote for McCain and I've NEVER cast a vote for a democrat in my 65 years. McCain has change that.

Baloney Indeed!!
The pundits DID NOT vote like McCain has. They DID NOT say what McCain has. They DID NOT do McCain-Finegold. They DID NOT do McCain-Kennedy. They DO NOT want to close Gitmo. McCain did all of those things and the pundits just reminded everyone of what he did. THAT IS THEIR JOB!!!

This column is baloney for blaming everyone else for what McCain did. And they are going to blame the pundits when McCain looses in November. But it is MCCain's fault. He is a liberal democrat attempting to wear a conservative republican's clothes. It is NOT going to work. I'll vote for Hilary before I'll vote for McCain and I've NEVER cast a vote for a democrat in my 65 years. McCain has change that.

a clarification please...

On the webpage it says

"Janice Shaw Crouse ... is a recognized authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns."

recognized by whom, may I ask?

Unjust
Your attack on Mitt Romney being forced on us by pundits is misleading to say the least . McCain is the one being forced down every Republicans throat, especially by supposed opinion seeking telemarketers. The telemarketers have been indorsing McCain for months even while taking opinion polls - if you don't say McCain when asked your candidate of choice - they treat you like just a wallet.
The telemarketers have a written out fact sheet they gush over but unless you buy into every thing is rosy with McCain - you are asked for a donation to the party and cut short on any comment you have questions about.
Very enlightening but rather pointless for McCain's cause as all it did was anger this voter.

Janice...
WHAT ABSOLUTE BALDERDASH!

John McCain is likely to get the nomination with a simple PLURALITY simply because he stood out as the moderate vs four or five conservatives who split the conservative and christian right votes.

If it were possible to narrow the field to two then have a "run-off" vote, you would have seen a very different result. In a vote between McCain and Thompson or McCain and Romney or McCain and Huckabee, McCain would probably lose two out of three. That is why Romney did so much better in caucases than in straight, single vote primaries.

The "vote for one" primary is a terrible system and almost guarantees picking the weakest cantidate.

We are now likely to go into a national election not only with a cantidate who appeals to only a plurality of Republicans but with a whole lot of Republicans who feel absolutely dis-enfranchised AND THEY ARE PISSED!

Religion ?
It is shameful that religion was used as a club to beat Romney out of the presidential election.
In a country where FREEDOM of religion is a guaranteed protection .......... it does NOT bode well for the Republican party to be seen
as narrow-minded and unbending while wrapping ourselves in the right all citizens to take responsibility for their actions.
This party needs to take a good hard look at all rights written and guarenteed in the US Constitution and practice what we preach.

BG
One correction, Romney didn't lose WV because he went to CA. He lost WV because McCain's people knew he was the real compeitiion in the long run, not Huckabee. So, they simply threw their votes to Huckabee to help eliminate Romney. It was a smart political move even if it was a little less than honest.

Romney is out of the race now because he has class. Huckabee is still in it because he is auditioning to be VP and because he doesn't have as much class as Romney.

Carol
She is "recognized" by her parents and by her spouse (if she has one).

She reminds of a oreacher I once knew. A lady in his church (he didn't much care for her) baked him a pie every Sunday. He would draw a spot on paper, put it in the trash can, then drop the pie on it. At each Sun nite service, the lady would ask how he liked the pie. He always (truthfully) answered, "It hit the spot."

That sounds an awfully lot like our current "conservative" politicians.

OK, Janice,
you don't like Romney. We get it. Is it because he's rich or because he's the only candidate who really accomplished anything, both in business and in politics? As for the rest, my own opinion is that the MSM did its best to keep Romney out, and the conservative pundits were in part a reaction to this. So the MSM won. They usually do. So now we Republicans have an (almost) nominee endorsed by the New York Times. Well, great (he said sarcastically).

Akkita
I don't really think religion was as big a factor as you apparently do, although it was certainly a factor in Huckabee's wins in the South and Romney's huge majority in Utah.

People are naturally more comfortable trusting people to whom they can relate on a personal level and religion is certainly personal.

At the beginning of the campaign, Romney's religion made him controversial, but as the campaign went on, people began to see him as more like themselves in his personal values and he doesn't come across as "holier than thou" as Huckabee sometimes does.

There will always be bigots, but they are far from the majority. I think that a lot of what you saw as bigotry was actually Democraps trying to create a wedge issue.

Mitt left for the good of the country
I mean if he had stayed in, there might have been terrorist attacks and islamic facism might have won. What a phony? Those of you who bought the speech need to email me, I have a bridge in arizona I want to sell you guilible people. Romney in 2012 is no conservative unless you still think GW is a conservative.

jim boo ..Your namesake died for ...
the good of the country.
You ready to do that! else...
Time to get a more appropriate tag!

A bridge in Arizona...
One of my favorite Country Songs! :)

jim bowie, As a matter of fact I DO...
I absolutely do think Mitt Romney is a conservative! I may not agree with him on every issue. I don't agree with ANYONE on every issue.

I could easily see the campaign going right down to a floor fight at the convention had Romney not "suspended his campaign". What he did was very classy and I believe his speach was heartfelt. The Republican campaign was turning into a "food fight" and the the fact that Huckabee was staying in as a stalking horse was only prolonging the agony.

Primaries should be "vote for two" with a run off vote to choose the cantidate. What we are doing now is stupid.

The elite republican media went for the
Rockefeller republicans whether they knew it or not. These little snots (the Rockfeller/Bush wing) have been hiding out incognito as RINOs and Neo-Cons since Bush 41.

Coulter, Hannity, Rush, and Glenn Beck revolted because they linked up with these nasty little characters not knowing who they were.

The Rockefeller/Bush wing is elitist, globalist, and tends towards Marxism (through government tampering with our economic system by IMMIGRATION which gives absolute advantage to employers, thus giving government more money in the form of corporate revenue and influence over business in the form of brute force/power).

The gullible "republican" media has been doing the bidding of the Rockfellers.

They got lured into a wicked little trap. And Coulter needs to realize that the Rockefeller's LOVE the democrats and are just as pleased that she get behind Hillary as they are that she might reject McCain (a Rockefeller).

Ann, Rush, Sean, and Glenn, need to read "A Choice Not an Echo", and "The Sweetheart of the Silent Majority: The Biography of Phyllis Schlafly", or they won't know what is going on around them. The Rockefeller (liberal) wing is alive and well.

Mitt's dad was one of them and ya'll haven't figured it out yet. They have their dirty claws in Huckabee already.

Romney's a good man
and an accomplished one. I'll be glad to support him in 2012 if he runs again. Unfortunately, we have a lot of Republicans (and Janice looks to be one) who identify more with a person's specific religious denomination, and so they voted for Huckabee. You know what. Why don't you go fight it out in the pews. Don't limit my choices because of your arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The people who voted for McCain are divided between those who see a war hero (which he is) and someone who can beat Hillary (which I don't think he can). I doubt that there's anyone who shares McCain's mixture of policy beliefs (throw out Russia from the G8 but Europe won't like us if we waterboard terrorists????). All this talk about change, change. So you people had a chance to vote for a businessman who could get things actually done, and instead you chose a pair of standard talk talk talk politicians. Congratulations (sarcasm again).

Robert, shut up
We have heard your Mormon and Mitt bashing for the last 9 months. You have won with your bigotry. The most insincere and perfidious man in this race is Huckster. And I absolutely hate his smarminess and his chutzpah in asking for Mitt's votes.

He will NEVER get mine. So beat it, you relgious supremacist and Christian socialist.

Ha!ha!ha! And you say Huckster is a conservative. Yep, the last of the great snake-oil salesman wrapped up in religiosity. That is why Judicial Watch calls Shmuckster ONE OF THE MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN IN AMERICA! You are a pathetic dupe!

Not all voters listen to Talk Radio
Of those who voted, I would say that a majority of those that listen to Talk Radio agreed with Sean, Laura and Rush. It's not like everyone who voted is that into politics. That just goes to show why Mitt did so well in caucuses. Those are dominated by individuals that listen to talk radio and do their research. Primaries are dominated by people that don't research the candidates, and vote on emotion. Like "war hero" stuff.

Same is true for Romney supporters
Alex writes: 2:03 PM
Romney's a good man
Unfortunately, we have a lot of Republicans (and Janice looks to be one) who identify more with a person's specific religious denomination, and so they voted for Huckabee.
---------

I do not disagree with this, but to just say that about the Huckabee supporters and give Romney supporters who are Mormon a pass, is dishonest.

Everyone gets to decide for themselves why they will or will not vote for any man.

You are no better than any one else that chooses who they vote for and why.
Romney has major problems outside his religion for traditional believers, church goers or not.

First Governor in America to install sodomite marriage.
That alone makes him unelectable, for me and millions of others.




SpicyChaiLatte
Robert is nothing but a liberal Democrat trying to pick fights with conservatives. I've read enough of his posts to know that he hates ALL Republicans. If you think he's a Huckabee supporter, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Quit whining about Romney.
I wasn't crazy about Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani, but I think both men showed complete class and dignity when they bowed out of the race. I wish I could say the same for their supporters. A short time ago, Giuliani's supporters were chastising his opponents for their "anti-Italian bigotry." Now Romney's supporters are whining about the "anti-Mormon bigotry" of his opponents.

Grow up, people! I'm used to Democrats playing the victim, but this sort of thing is very beneath Republicans.

Talent Scout, you should really read
what did and what did not happen with the issue of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the role of the Mass Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the Governor. Read about how Romney tried to stop what he saw as the Court's legitimizing gay marriage, how he tried to get the legislature to intervene (which they wouldn't), how he tried to get a citizen's ballot on the issue (thinking that gay marriage was likely to be rejected). He did what he could. Of course if some church "leaders" don't like Mormons, they're going to report that whole episode the way that suits them, unfortunately regardless of the truth.

Alex
I have read it in detail, in depth and understand it perfectly.

-----------
Alex writes: Saturday, February, 09, 2008 2:35 PM
Talent Scout, you should really read
what did and what did not happen with the issue of gay marriage in Massachusetts, the role of the Mass Supreme Court, the Legislature, and the Governor.
-----------

The court stated its desire for a new law.
That was couple years ago.
The Legislators duly elected Law Makers of the State of Massachusetts, ignored the courts decree.

The Massachusetts Legislators have never changed any law concerning marriage.
The Governor acted on his own to force it, and he done so with out a law ever changing anything.

Fact.

Anyone care that they were RIGHT?
I could not disagree more. Sean, Rush et al spoke from their personal CONVICTIONS and principles and I happen to agree with them 100% in pointing out the many ways McCain and Huckabee are NOT conservatives.

Would you want them to abolish their personal conservative principles just to jump on the bandwagon of the mainstream darling of the day - whoever it might be that day?

For the record, I make up my OWN mind about the candidates and Rush et al do not sway me one iota. They just happen to agree with me about the candidates.

Re: talent scout
You said: "I have read it in detail, in depth and understand it perfectly."

Uh, sorry dude, but you don't understand it perfectly. In fact, you don't even understand it a little bit.

Here is your first mistake: "The court stated its desire for a new law." Courts don't state their "desire." They don't say, "executive, pretty please, will you implement this law?" They determine what the law is, and its the executive's job to implement their decree.

Next you said: "he Legislators duly elected Law Makers of the State of Massachusetts, ignored the courts decree." I'm not sure what you mean here, I'm guessing you mean that the legislators, as elected by the citizens ignored the decree. Well if thats true, that makes sense, because the legislature doesn't implement the law, that is the executive's job.



Re: talent scout
Next: "The Massachusetts Legislators have never changed any law concerning marriage." Okay, here is a misconception on your part. When the court made its ruling, it said "the constitution of this commonwealth, as written, requires that same sex partners be able to marry like everyone else" (or something to that effect). The court is not saying that a new statute needs to be written in order for it to be legal. Its saying that gay marriage is already legal based on the language already in the Constitution. Thus, no new legislation is needed.

Finally,you said: "The Governor acted on his own to force it, and he done so with out a law ever changing anything." See above as to why no law ever needed to be changed. And it is the governor's responsibility to execute the law, whether he agrees with what the court says or not. Its called the "rule of law." If the executive were simply to ignore the courts when he or she wanted to, we would have a form of anarchy. And you know conservatives would be crying foul if a democratic executive snubbed the court because he or she didn't like what it had to say.

Is this clear? I'm not sure how it can be any more clear, though I know you have a tendency to ignore any argument that conflicts with your point of view, no matter how reasonable the argument. Any questions?

I agree Maverick
Its too bad Sean, Rush and any radio talk shjow host could not be as honest about Romney's liberal, socialist deeds, statements of his history as they are about McCains and Huckabee.

Look at our choices, none inspire any of us.
They have given us no man that excites the republicans or the conservatives.
Unlike the democrat candidate of Obama.
Who can inspire the left with a single word.
Change!
They do not care what changes, cause the word itself is like magic, and Obama knows how to wave it in the air.

As stated, I understand it perfectly
Bravado writes: 3:08 PM
Re: talent scout
You said: "I have read it in detail, in depth and understand it perfectly."
--------
ts:
Cause I do not want to ever lie, not intentionally anyway.
I understand it perfectly.
---------
Bravado writes:
Uh, sorry dude, but you don't understand it perfectly. In fact, you don't even understand it a little bit.
------
ts:
Perfectly
---------
Bravado writes:

Here is your first mistake: "The court stated its desire for a new law." Courts don't state their "desire." They don't say, "executive, pretty please, will you implement this law?" They determine what the law is, and its the executive's job to implement their decree.
--------
ts:
Maybe under Stalin.
Not in American Jurisprudence.
See, in America we have what is called separation of powers.
Something you seriously need to understand.
Legislators make law.
Courts judge legislated law
Governor enforces law.
We kicked the king out of America long ago.
And not to install a new one called the judge.
----------

Bravado writes:
Next you said: "The Legislators duly elected Law Makers of the State of Massachusetts, ignored the courts decree." I'm not sure what you mean here, I'm guessing you mean that the legislators, as elected by the citizens ignored the decree. Well if thats true, that makes sense, because the legislature doesn't implement the law, that is the executive's job.
----------
ts:
Exactly what I said too.
The Legislators ignored the court and never changed the law.
Romney had no law changed to enforce.
He acted alone in forcing it, without law.
Bowing to the court as if they are kings appears to me.

That makes him unelectable for the Office of President.
He does not even understand our Governmental system.

To Bravado
I want to warn you that you're completely wasting your time trying to talk sense to Talent Scout. He doesn't have any so you can't talk any to him.

MANY people, myself included, have tried to explain to him how he's wrong about this and many other subject and it always goes right over his head.
He's almost as dense as Wobbie so you'd be better off to save your efforts for someone who can think logically and deal with reality.

I just question your lack of knowledge
How American and the State of Massachusetts Government is formed
----

Bravado writes: 3:08 PM
Re: talent scout
Next: "The Massachusetts Legislators have never changed any law concerning marriage." Okay, here is a misconception on your part. (snipped)
-----
ts:
Wrong
"The court merely issued an opinion stating that, in its view, the existing marriage law was unconstitutional because it failed to allow persons of the same sex to marry,".

"The court then gave the legislature 180 days to 'take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion' -- implicitly telling lawmakers to come up with a new marriage statute."
Alan Keyes
The Legislators ignored this unlawful decree.
Romney did not.
------------




Bravado writes:

Finally,you said: "The Governor acted on his own to force it, and he done so with out a law ever changing anything." See above as to why no law ever needed to be changed. (snipped for space)
----
ts:
Then why did the court itself issue the decree to change the law?

You are wrong
--------

Bravado writes:
Is this clear?
-------
ts:
Absolutely
You are wrong
--------


Bravado writes:

I'm not sure how it can be any more clear, though I know you have a tendency to ignore any argument that conflicts with your point of view, no matter how reasonable the argument.
-----
ts:
Not my point of view
Its the American System of Government.
The problem here is you do not understand how it works, legally.

---------



Bravado writes:

Any questions?
------
ts:
Just one
When do you start classes in American Government?

For those seeking the truth
Ignore marines dad
If you disagree with him, he flys into a rage and will cuss you out, good.

Ms. Crouse:
Slobber over McCain and Huckabee all you wish;
neither has any hope in November.

My hope is that, after the GOP loses in a land-
slide, that evangelicals, libertarians and just
old-school conservatives realize that we NEED
each other to win elections, and keep socialists,
America-haters and other Democrats out of
policy-making positions.

For my part, I'll vote for Repubs for every post
but the Oval Office. I'll vote third-party or
write-in for President - NOT for the Dem.

Re: talent scout
You said: "Maybe under Stalin. Not in American Jurisprudence. See, in America we have what is called separation of powers. Something you seriously need to understand. Legislators make law. Courts judge legislated law Governor enforces law. We kicked the king out of America long ago. And not to install a new one called the judge."

First, your reference to Stalin, a dictator, is interesting. See, in order for a democracy/republic like ours to work, there has to be a respect for the rule of law. This is what prevents the consolidation of control in one body. Had Romney rebuffed the court and not followed their decision, he would not be respecting the rule of law, and would therefore be acting more as a dictator, than as an American executive. So your reference to Stalin cuts against your argument. It is by abiding by the court's rulings that we avoid a renegade dictator from amassing unwarranted control. If an executive ignores the court, he is on the path to dictatorship.

Your point about separation of powers also cuts against your argument. If Romney had ignored the court, it would have been a violation of separation of powers. Separation of powers only works if each of the branches respects the prerogatives of the other. Had Romney ignored the court's ruling he would have been overstepping his constitutional authority.

You are right that judges "judge" the law. But you are confused about what that actually means when the rubber hits the road. When the judiciary reviews a law, it attempts to ascertain what the legislature meant and what the clear meaning of the words themselves mean. Thus, in this case, the court concluded that the "equality" and "liberty" clauses of the Mass Constitution clearly include homosexuals, and that to not allow them to marry would arbitrarily deprive them of their constitutional rights (equality and liberty).


Re: talent scout
Next you said: "The Legislators ignored the court and never changed the law. Romney had no law changed to enforce. He acted alone in forcing it, without law. Bowing to the court as if they are kings appears to me."

You are incredibly dense on this point, I'm not sure how many more times I can explain this to you. The court interpreted the Constitution. The Constitution already existed. There was nothing for the legislature to enact. The court said the Constitution says this, and therefore, the executive had to enforce it accordingly. Romney had the constitution (which obviously is the law) to follow, and he did so.

The appropriate way to deal with a court who has made a decision that appears to be extra-constitutional is to amend the constitution, not to simply ignore the court.

Romney has always favored an marriage amendment.

Capeesh?

Separation of powers, means
America is not run like a corporation of a ruling king.

Massachusetts Constitution probably is the most specific in the nation on the separation of powers.

It makes it very clear that ... the judiciary doesn't have either executive or legislative power,

It specifically rejects any claim of supremacy by any one of the branches over the other.

The court told the Legislators to change the law.
The Legislators (in so many words) told the court to take a long walk off a short pier.

Romney jumped higher than a bull frog to please the liberals on the court, without any law change to do that.

The man is seriously flawed in his education of American Government.

The Basics anyway

Either that or he is agenda driven one.

I vote he is guilty of both
Each can vote as they think .

Nice Try, Talent Scout
Wrong and a total lie. But nice try anyhow.
Care to try again?

One at a time
Bravado writes: 3:50 PM
Re: talent scout
You said: "Maybe under Stalin. Not in American Jurisprudence. See, in America we have what is called separation of powers. Something you seriously need to understand. Legislators make law. Courts judge legislated law Governor enforces law. We kicked the king out of America long ago. And not to install a new one called the judge."
--------
ts:
Yes, I said this and already know I said it.
------
Bravado writes:
First, your reference to Stalin, a dictator, is interesting. See, in order for a democracy/republic like ours to work, there has to be a respect for the rule of law. This is what prevents the consolidation of control in one body.
------
ts:
This begins your education, it will take some time seeing now, where you are confused to a greater depth than first seen.

The court has no power in American, anywhere to Legislate law.
Just judge written law passed by the duly elected law makers, called Legislators.
Even the liberals on the court knew that much and is why they "ordered" the Massachusetts Lawmakers to CHANGE THE LAW.
And as we all know, or should know, ignored.
Too bad Romney does not understand what even the liberals on the court do.

You may pity him if you like, not me, I do not want such an ignorant man running this country.
The confusion he created in Massachusetts needs to be contained there, not spread it to the White House.

continued.....










Marines' Dad: When did I miss you

cussing anyone? Huh!!!

However, talentless scout has ripped me a new one on more than one occasion... not to mention a few others.

In fact, a few times I was amazed that he wasn't banned!!!



Re: talent scout
Let me elucidate (look it up ts) this for you. Here is what the court said on this point:

"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the [Commonwealth]. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983).

So ordered."

Now I know you will need some help understanding what this means, so here goes.

In the first paragraph, the court gives the new definition of marriage, under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Mass, which allows same sex couples to get married.


Re: Will
The court then says this ruling is consistent with 2 legitimate interests of the Commonwealth (i.e. the ruling does not infringe on the Commonwealth's right): to pass legislation regarding the rearing of children, and its broad powers regarding marriage (e.g. benefits associated therewith, etc.).

Again in the second paragraph, the court "declares" that the previous ban on same sex marriage was in violation of the Constitution. Notice it said "declares" and not "thinks, maybe, you know, if the legislature agrees with us."

It then stayed the ruling for 180 days for ... stay with me here ... the Legislature to "take action as it may deem appropriate." Notice, the court did not say, it will stay the ruling to allow the Legislature to "enact this ruling" or to "approve of this ruling" etc. The ruling is already enacted when the court concludes with "so ordered." Because the Legislature decided to not enact legislation concomitant with this ruling has no bearing on whether the ruling became law. Within that 180 days, the Legislature could have passed a statute that said "we hate gays and they aren't allowed to get married" and the law would have been invalid because it is inconsistent with the court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Thus, we see that there was no new legislation to be enacted. Once this judgment was ordered, it became the law, and it was Romney's obligation to enforce it.

And oh yeah, I haven't take a class on American Government, so I don't really know what I'm talking about ... oh wait, nope, I forgot, I graduated from a top tier law school. Hmmmm.

Correction
That last post should read re: talent scout.

Nothing personal Will.

Bravdo writes:
Had Romney rebuffed the court and not followed their decision, he would not be respecting the rule of law, and would therefore be acting more as a dictator, than as an American executive.
--------
ts:

What you just said is the court rules over the Governorship, blending the powers of government to all be under the decree of a judge.
This eliminates the separation of powers that the American System of Government is based in.
And the Massachusetts Constitution as well.

No such power in America as the incorporation of the three branches of government's power all subject to the decree of a judge.

Rule of Law is not what American Government is based in.
American Government is based in Natural Law, Common Law, English Common Law.

Hitler ruled by "rule of law"
Stalin ruled by "rule of law"
Mao ruled by "rule of law"
King George ruled by "rule of law"
Meaning the law was whatever the king said it was, this is your "rule of law"
Kicked out by Americans
AND

Kicked out of America, replaced with the LAWS of Nature and Natures God.
Read it for yourself in the D of I.

America was established under British Common Laws based in Natural Law.
Written in volumes by Sir William Blackstone.

Blackstone in America
Lectures by An English Lawyer Become The Blueprint
for a New Nation's Laws and Leaders

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/spring97/blackstone.html









Romney mentioned by ts
And guess who shows up
------

Anne writes: S 4:03 PM
Marines' Dad: When did I miss you

cussing anyone? Huh!!!

However, talentless scout has ripped me a new one on more than one occasion... not to mention a few others.
------
ts:
Lets remember the unfailing truth Anne.
You have hunted me down on threads to blast me for my opinions on Romney.
Not once have a said anything to you ..UNTIL you hunted me down to make a personal attack at me.
Condemning me for my opinion with insults all the while you have yelled and screamed your bitter tongue at Ron Paul and me.
hypocrite.
-------
Anne writes:
In fact, a few times I was amazed that he wasn't banned!!!
-------
Certainly not due to your lack of trying, loud mouth.
In fact I have reason to believe you attack my person behind my back with other posters here.
I just consider you to be a gossipy, interferring nosy woman.

Got anything to say about the subject I am talking with Bravado about?
Nah, you had rather attack me, if not Ron Paul.


almost 100% spot on
Thannk God I still live in a sane world. I would add only that in post election numbers Huckabee finished 2nd more times in states where if you actually add the Romney vote he beats McCain in places like Missouri and Georgia which he won He would gain 100-150 delagates. Romney finishing third gave McCain at least that many and a frontrunner status. Futhermore the total votes also prove a depressed GOP turn out due to informed yet disenchanted voter. The two man race as talk-radio put was 180 % out of phase with respect to Huck. As far as Romney is concerned every single thing you said is not only the truth but simple to prove. Which makes me wonder how anyone could argue. Radio smears the pollsters when they get it wrong. As victims of a supposed stupidty now they ignore the huge upset pulled off by Huckabee. Here now once again like "Weekend at Bernies 3" they trot out their next stiff not so social conservative. They say their fighting while they are surrendering blind to obvious hipocracy

Ignored by duly elected Lawmakers
Bravado writes: 4:13 PM
Re: talent scout
Here is what the court said on this point:

"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law.


We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.

We vacate the summary judgment for the [Commonwealth]. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983).

So ordered."

Now I know you will need some help understanding what this means, so here goes.

In the first paragraph, the court gives the new definition of marriage, under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Mass, which allows same sex couples to get married.
--------

ts:
It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

Do you not read what you post for me to read?

The Legislators IGNORED the courts 180 day order.
Capiche?

Re: talent scout
You said: "Rule of Law is not what American Government is based in. American Government is based in Natural Law, Common Law, English Common Law."

This comment is so off the mark it isn't even funny. Honestly, its said. So where do statutes fit in to your grand scheme, since they are none of the above?

Quick definition of rule of law for you from wikipedia: "The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law." Uh, so you are saying America is not based on this concept and that Stalin and Hitler were? (scratching my head).

Oh yeah, and another statement from the same article: "Rule of law is frequently opposed by authoritarian and totalitarian states. The explicit policy of such governments, as evidenced in the Night and Fog decrees of Nazi Germany, is that the government possesses the inherent authority to act purely on its own volition and without being subject to any checks or limitations. Dictatorships generally establish secret police forces, which are not accountable to established laws, which can suppress threats to state authority."

Its okay to admit you are wrong talent scout. Honestly, it doesn't hurt. Plus, you would embarrass yourself a whole lot less in the future.

talentscout:
Alex's reference to the court "stating its desire" may have to do with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's apparently having told a gay advocate that if a case on gay marriage were to come to the supreme court, she'd see that it got ruled on favorably. In other words, she apparently asked for the case to be brought to court. Talk about judicial activism! There was a movement to impeach her, but Massachusetts being so far to the left, it didn't reach critical mass. And the state legislature, a bunch of Democratic hacks if ever there was one, killed the voter-initiative measure on a procedural issue, after Romney had left office, and the lefties elected the current weasel.
....I was never an enthusiastic Romney supporter, but some of the accusations against him are way off-base. He did what he could to maintain conservative principles, but Massachusetts, for anyone with any values, is like the seventh ring of Hell.

Well Anne
Other than the countless times I've cussed Wobbie out that you might have missed, I don't think you've missed any, simply because there weren't any to miss.

But then Talentless Scout, like all liberals, thinks any refutation of his garbage, or any pointing out the truth about his idiotic posts, is an attack on him personally.

When will these idiots ever learn?

Thanks, Bravdo.
Excellent summary.

I would also say that Al Sharpton said much earlier that he didn't think a Mormon should ever be President (referring to Romney of course). If conservative Republicans find themselves in agreement with anything Sharpton says, I would encourage them to think about it some more.

Details that matter
Romney jumps it to*, and changes the law of husband and wife.
Without a single change from the Legislators.
to
*Persons A and B
Creating confusion by not allowing due process of law to begin with.

"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).


------------
Left intact cause the court has no power to change the law.

Take note:
"Given this broad concern with the institution of marriage, the State has a legitimate interest in prohibiting conduct which may threaten that institution."


COMMONWEALTH vs. JUDITH STOWELL.

389 Mass. 171

January 6, 1983 - May 13, 1983

Present: HENNESSEY, C.J., WILKINS, LIACOS, NOLAN, & LYNCH, JJ.

The right of the State to regulate the institution of marriage under its police power is unquestioned where it does not infringe on fundamental rights.

.... Given this broad concern with the institution of marriage, the State has a legitimate interest in prohibiting conduct which may threaten that institution. See Green v. Richmond, 369 Mass. 47 , 51 (1975) ("Massachusetts has a strong public interest in ensuring that its rules governing marriage are not subverted"); French v. McAnarney, 290 Mass. 544 , 546 (1935) ("The Commonwealth has a deep interest that [marital] integrity is not jeopardized").

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/389/389mass171.html

i'm sorry, talent scout you're an idiot
a party with a greivance petitioned the Mass. Supreme Court to "right" a "wrong", they ruled that laws against same-sex marriage were un-constitutional, then, gave the Legislators 180 days to, either, change the constitution, or, enact different legislation, when they did nothing, Romney, as Chief Exec, had to implement the Judges ruling, that is pure check and balance.
Now go play pick-up-stix with Robert.

Cause it is not
Bravado writes: 4:50 PM
Re: talent scout
You said: "Rule of Law is not what American Government is based in. American Government is based in Natural Law, Common Law, English Common Law."
-------
ts:
No need to remind me what I said.
I know it by heart.
---------
Bravado writes:
This comment is so off the mark it isn't even funny. Honestly, its said. So where do statutes fit in to your grand scheme, since they are none of the above?
-------
ts:
My statement is bullseye truth.
Sharia Law is islams rule of law.
The phrase in itself means nothing.
America's Law is based in Natural Law.
Sir William Blackstone wrote the book of Law American Jurisprudence is established in.

(until activist judges who do not recognize the basic due process of law.
They make a decree and call it the rule of law)


Statute
stat·ute (stach'ut) pronunciation
n.

1. A law enacted by a legislature.
2. A decree or edict, as of a ruler.
3. An established law or rule, as of a corporation.

American Law goes by the first definition

Not sure which here
Are Mormons
But most of them can be seen by their name calling.
If one does not support their churchman, off they go into wild eyed accusations of "idiot" "liberal" whatever...
---------


Bob writes: 4:57 PM
talentscout:
Alex's reference to the court "stating its desire" may have to do with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's apparently having told a gay advocate that if a case on gay marriage were to come to the supreme court, she'd see that it got ruled on favorably. In other words, she apparently asked for the case to be brought to court. Talk about judicial activism! There was a movement to impeach her, but Massachusetts being so far to the left, it didn't reach critical mass. And the state legislature, a bunch of Democratic hacks if ever there was one, killed the voter-initiative measure on a procedural issue, after Romney had left office, and the lefties elected the current weasel.
-----------
ts:
I have to take credit for using the word "desire" instead of order.
By choice, cause that is all it amounts to.
The Legislators told them to get lost and ignored their "order".


-----------



Bob writes:

....I was never an enthusiastic Romney supporter, but some of the accusations against him are way off-base. He did what he could to maintain conservative principles, but Massachusetts, for anyone with any values, is like the seventh ring of Hell.
-------
ts:
No doubt some have made off based accusations of the man, just not me.
Personally, he is a decent man in my judgment.
What I say is what I have learned.
After all he did not win in the most liberal state in the Union by appealing to the conservatives to begin with.

My complaint is the hacking on McCain(who I will not vote for) for being liberal
Ditto Huckabee
And try and shield Romney from his record.
Did not work, hes gone

Pushy indeed
The Pushy Pundits Forced Romney Out

Yeah. Right. And the moon is made of green cheese. Speaking of pushy pundits, you ought to know Janice. Your article is exactly that, but you are so out classed by those you denigrate that you are completely ineffective. Why don't you get a real job and quit boring us with your claptrap?

7 ways to John McCain and LDS
How is it all the oppositions comments about Huckabee always end back at McCain. They equate him, his record and now charactor without facts just labels. They champion an untested conservative. One who at least was a social liberal RINO as govenor of Masschusets of all states. Invoking the spirit of Reagan never afraid to pull the victim anti-mormon card in the end. Now they are shoveling the Mcromney 1-2 combo after they claimed a vote for Huckabee as one for McCain. What is ridiculous is how this resembles the tact congress took with conservatives before 06' that the pundits rightfully pointed out as unproductive. If McCain wins the battle he has lost the war to get there.

Not always
jimmyjames writes: 5:14 PM
i'm sorry, talent scout you're an idiot
---------
ts:
Reverend Jones
I know better than to answer you,(makes me an idiot for sure) but you made one statement all Americans need to know is untrue and so damaging to Liberty, I will not let pass.
------


jimmyjames writes:

a party with a greivance petitioned the Mass. Supreme Court to "right" a "wrong", they ruled that laws against same-sex marriage were un-constitutional, then, gave the Legislators 180 days to, either, change the constitution, or, enact different legislation, when they did nothing, Romney, as Chief Exec, had to implement the Judges ruling, that is pure check and balance.
-------
ts:
A court cannot grant rights.
Rights are God Given.
No such right exists as sodomy.
--------
jimmyjames writes:
Now go play pick-up-stix with Robert.
---------

ts:
I wanted to, but he had a date with your sister

Okay
Janice excoriates the other "pushy pundits" while being pushy herself! After Fred dropped out, we conservatives could see the writing on the wall...McCain and Huckabee were going to do all they could to run Romney out, and they did it. Now with Romney gone and Huckabee staying in, let's see how fast McCain turns on him...it's all about his being President for McCain and he will do whatever it takes to get this nomination. When it's all done Huckabee will not have helped himself one bit with his seeming collusion with McCain. There is no honor among thieves...or in presidential politics.

When George W
was running for President, the Mormons in Utah seemed to have no trouble voting for him, even though he had described himself as a born again Christian. Now we have these conservative evangelical Christians saying they won't vote for a Mormon. How sad. And how sad for the Beverly LaHaye Institute, that they would send this columnist out to tell us that her anti-Mormon, er, anti-Romney stance derives from the fact that people like Rush Limbaugh are pushy. Well yes they are. That's the point. How sad.

McNasty-McAmesty-McCain will not make it
Sorry Ms. Crouse,
I guess I just don't want to take YOUR orders. I am not voting for the little NAPOLEAN. The real ramming down our throats was done by people like you, NYT, and some of the pundits like Michael Medved. We will not accept anyone who is pro-AMNESTY.

Suffering in Omaha from all the illegal aliens, that Medved, George Bush, Ted Kennedy, and John McCain like to send our way to enrich our city and environs.

Ms. Crouse, do you work for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or LaRaza? Are Juan Hernandez and Geraldo Rivera your favorite poster boys? Have you ever vacationed in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico? Go there sometime.

Alex-most LDS are Republicans
Most LDS are Republicans. The reason they voted for George Bush is because he wasn't running against a Republican Mormon. Put a Mormon RINO out there and they will flock, as we saw with Romney. He was a phony.


One fact about Huckleberry
He supported legislation to let illegal invaders pay in-State tuition.

To heck with him.

Mormons4Huckabigot?
You're an idiot, and a liar.

We did not vote for Bush because he wasn't running against a "Republican Mormon."
We voted for him because he was running against two of the biggest idiots, one of them a traitor in addition to being an idiot, that the Dimwitocraps ever put up as candidates.

YOU'RE A MORON if you call yourself a Mormon, which I seriously doubt that you are, and you're supporting a religious bigot who only stayed in the race to keep Romney from winning BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION.

Don't try to tell me differently, Huckabigot has made it perfectly clear(he's admitted to it) that that's why he's still in the race.

A gorgeous article,
lacking in detail, due her respect for those who have lost.

Conservative strategy for 2012 race
The only man worthy of becoming POTUS, Dr. Ron Paul, does not have the slightest chance of becoming the Republican candidate now that Romney is gone and with him the chance of a brokered convention.

I'm a super conservative, but now I have no choice but to vote for Hillery for the same reasons Ann Coulter is doing so. As awful as Hillery is, she is not as bad as Obama and she's about on a par with the demented old f@rt, McCain. The demon chickens from hell presently circling in flight with more to come will migrate home to roost in the Democrat coop rather than the Republican coop if Hillery is elected. McCain would produce the opposite cooping effect, of course, and that is to be avoided at all costs.

So, there is hope for the 2012 race if conservatives can finally field a decent candidate, i.e., Dr. Ron Paul or one like him. Do they have that much common sense? Well actually, that is not likely for many years and only after much agonized suffering. It is amazing how intense pain focusses the mind, and the collective mind of the United States WILL be focussed. Count on it.

Another Hillary Girl?
Yep, I'm leaning towards Shrillery, too. McCain put out the most disgusting, lying ad I've ever seen, ending with "John McCain - the TRUE conservative"!!! One of the comedians said if Hillary gets elected, at least we'll get the silverware back! We here in Pennsylvania did not think we would have any influence in this primary and they say now we do - but there are no choices left. Should I write in for Mitt?

Janice has dashed off a "Penny Dreadful"
Janice, you are discrediting not only yourself but the CWA, an organization which I have respected up until now. You are out of your depth and have shown your ignorance and subliminal bigotry. Now you have joined the dreadful Linda Chavez to be avoided as complete waste of time. It appears that very few people agree with you or care to read your opinions.

Coulter is crazy.

McCain's own words.
"I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people’s elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend."

Why is this complicated? Allowing Hill or Obama to choose the next justices of the US Supreme Court is unthinkable.

Oh. What about McCain's promise to follow Bin Laden to the "gates of hell"?? I like that one too....

I never minded much what Coulter said either way, because she struck me as a particularly smart SELF publicist. But this Hillary OVER McCain is Twilight stuff.

Hang in there, Dr. Crouse
Who was it said you know you're taking the right stand when you get fired on from both directions?
After being disappointed and disillusioned in recent weeks by the bias and personal bitterness exhibited by some of my favorite conservative columnists who have become so transparently partisan in their attacks on those candidates they weren't supporting, it's nice to read someone who's taking an honest look and asking honest questions.
Keep up the good work.

ColinCody
I would just prefer you did not vote at all, rather than voting for Clinton as a way of throwing a temper tantrum. I am not crazy about McCain either; I was a Romney man all the way. But I am hardly going to vote for Clinton in some attempt to show off how angry I am.

Say what you will about McCain's weaknesses, and there are a LOT of them. But Mrs. Clinton would be significantly worse, dissembowling our military and instituting a government hostile take-over of the health care industry.

So if you find the choices too distasteful to make one, then stay home if you must. But please don't toss the keys of government to the Clintons because you are miffed that Romney did not get the nod. That is hardly productive.

JimmyJoe
I am a conservative, who for a long time was a voice in the wilderness with regards to Coulter. I always found her to be what I term the, "Political Madonna". Just like that pop star, Coulter often says outrageous things just for the sake of getting attention.

For years Michael Medved-whom I respect-has defender her every time she says something stupid. I was glad to see he finally cut that chain last week. He said of Coulter's recent, statementsl, "I am done defending her."

I share the sentiment. As for your post, I completely agree.

Are you kidding me?
Do you really think that conservative talk show audiences are that stupid? We are conservative because we study issues, know what is best for our nation and do not trust the New York Slimes, nor do we trust blow hards like yourself or McCain. Rush Limbaugh never officially endorsed Romney, Mark Levin, who has a conservative background to rival anyone did detailed analysis on the issues and the candidates. Sean Hannity expressed his reasoning behind his picks. Romney's campaign suffered from a tag team of leftist playing together to be the only conservative left standing. The media did their part to ruin the campaigns of Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney, but Romney still was able to forge ahead. Factor in his limited name recognition and you have a great campaign that would have won the nomination had Huckalooser not stayed in. Do not give me your garbage. Conservatives think for themselves unlike you McCain clones.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.