Grab one of these Phyco.
Posted on 03/14/2012 1:01:28 PM PDT by PSYCHO-FREEP
If Santorum were elected he'd spend his time blaming Barry and doing nothing.
He's Vichy Republican and could care less if things turn around economically just as long as he gets the sort of concessions he wants on a few pet things he'll be more than happy. That's been the Vichy approach for sixty years and it's why, with the exception of when Newt called the plays, the Republicans have been the minority in Congress. They get in on the graft, they get the benefits of power, and they don't have to be responsible for anything.
If Lawyer Ricky or Bishop Romney are nominated you can count on four more years of all the Barry Soetoro regulations and executive orders digging in and doing more damage along with getting harder to get rid of. His voting record proves he's just another Vichy Republican that goes along to get along and won't stand in the way of anything unions and fascists want. He talks the talk now, but he didn't walk the walk when he was in office.
If a Republican is elected they'll start counting unemployment the way they did until 1994 and before the Republican is even sworn in the media will be screaming about 25% unemployment even though not a thing will have changed. Or, did you forget the "worst economy since the depression" BS Clinton and Perot cooperated on when Bush '41 was running? The fascists can't wait for a chance to play that game again and setup the Republicans to be blamed for "the depression" for another sixty years while they consolidate their power into a true one party system.
Newt is the only one with the knowledge and skill to beat that scam and the only one with a plan the will work.
Rick lost those 2 states.
I just heard something on Hannity that is rather intriguing and don’t know if this has been discussed on FR. Hannity says that there is activity behind the scenes to get a Third Party on the ticket in all fifty states.
I wondered if Trump was still angling in case Romney didn’t make it. Has there been any speculation on this that you’ve heard?
What ever you say, pay no attention to the outcome of the election in the coming weeks. It will be what every you say it is......
I think the Democrats are most concerned with getting Obama re-elected. Even if they see Romney as liberal, they’d still rather have Obama who is beyond liberal—out in the far left of the Democratic Party. In Michigan they tried to make Santorum the winner because they think Obama would be sure to beat him. It wouldn’t be at all surprising if they did the same in Ohio, Alabama, and Mississippi.
At a stop off, a small number of Newt supporters talked to him.
He said that he was going to fight at the convention. He wants to bust the rhinos control up to get back to conservatism like Reagan worked so hard to do.
Look at the smiles on the faces of the “news” media and Democrat strategists last night. They were ecstatic about Santorum winning. Santorum motivates the left’s base many of whom were dissatisfied with Obama, and unlikely to vote in the fall.
First, we need a method to discern among the following:
Dem pranker voters,
Dead voteres,
Illegal Immigrant voters,
Fake voters,
Registered Republican voters.
If I were a genious I would have known. I do know there are unions in the south. I worked at an amuminum mill in the South and had to contend with a tough Steel Workers Union.
And 2/3rds of the voters voted against Santorum.
[So,, now we can say.
Rick lost those 2 states.]
The outcome is clear, and the Democrats are rolling on the floor laughing. They have helped turn this election on it’s face.
And the GOP enabled crossover voting. So there you have the culprit.
just had a reply saying they aren’t unionized.
YES!!!!!!!!!!!! I already said as much earlier today. Dems want Santorum, open primaries suck and it allows the Dems to help elect a candidate that will never beat theirs. Rick Santorum will get NONE of the independent vote and without some of it, say hello to Obongo for 4 more years.
Actually Santorum has a better economic plan than Gingrich.
Gingrich’s blind adherence to free trade regardless of whether the trading partner had anything to offer except excess labor, or whether the trading partner was an enemy, or even played by the same rules, is part of the economic mess we are in now.
Even Reagan who advocated free trade didn’t do it blindly. Reagan used tariffs to bring trading partners to the table and convince them to manufacture here.
Santorum at least understands the role of tariffs, and why the founding fathers relied so heavily on them.
So what PF? A win is a win.
So sorry to hear about your loss yesterday. You must be having a really bad day, just like Mittens.
Newt could win!!!!!!
If it weren’t for all the cross over Dems voting
and the Ron Paul negative ads
and the Romney negative ads
and the no-audience debate
and that other FL debate screw-up was just a fluke created by the MSM to flub him up
and Santorum giving him a scathing glare
and women not really caring for him
and that trainload of baggage.
Other than that, Newt’s gonna win against Obama ... if he could just win a few primaries and at least one or two of the other guys drop out.
Yeap. Newt’s the guy.
[/s]
I don’t understand the theory behind having Republican Primaries open to Democrats. If someone would explain why, I will listen attentively.
I don’t think it much matters, unless there’s irrefutable evidence of voter fraud. There wasn’t anything illegal about “Operation Chaos”, and there wouldn’t be anything illegal about Dims voting in our open primaries. The result is what it is, and we go forward from here.
Actually, if these shenanigans continue to any significant extent, it would assist in the conservative goal of blocking Romney from becoming the nominee. If anyone’s being “punk’d”, it’s Romney, and I have no argument with that.
Why do they allow dems to vote in REpubbies primaries and vica verca?? It always skew the real outcome!!
The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party.
Beside the fact that you are flame bating me, I am actually neutral. Newt is out of it. That is plain to see. But there are all sorts of options left, that can still happen.
Wait and see what the outcome will be. There are still many states left to decide this and as we have all seen, most anything can happen.
A little education is a dangerous thing as evidenced by some of the posters here...
http://www.unions.org/union_search.php?&abbr=&abbr_key=&bizcat=0&zip=birmingham,%20al&local=&zip_key=
Birmingham has a union for just about anything you want.
Grab one of these Phyco.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. Libs will always vote in an open primary for whoever they think is the weakest kink against their messiah.
We now know that the Dems did it again in our primaries yesterday. They voted for Santorum just as they did in Ohio and Michigan. It might help for that to be part of the discussion going into the convention.
Rick's margin over Newt in AL: 32,348
Rick's margin over Newt in MS: 4,572
Newt's margin over Mitt in AL: 1,947
Newt's margin over Mitt in MS: 1,694
Newt's margin over Mitt in both: 3,641
Be careful of accusing Santorum of winning narrowly. Newt held second in both states much more narrowly (0.3% and 0.6% respectively). His combined margin over Mitt was smaller than Rick's margin over Newt in the closer state. If Mitt had bought 4k more votes Newt would have a pair of third places in his back yard to explain away.
Good points, all.
Exactly. First of all, it's unlikely that either of them would beat Obama because their concept of America (mega-government, Euro-style welfare/nanny state on steroids) is exactly like his, and he'll be more popular than either of them (if only because there are more Dems than Republicans in the US).
But even if one of them did, neither one of them has any plans to change the direction of things or shake up anything at all. Only Gingrich has plans like that, which is why the GOP Establishment hates him, because they know that they're one of the things that would get shaken up.
They're OK with Romney, and if it comes down to it, I think they'd be OK with Santorum, although they probably think he'd be less likely to win because of his preachiness and loud social conservatism.
Another poster said it all: in general, "conservative" American voters have moved to the center left and are pretty indistinguishable from anybody else, except that in some cases they favor social conservatism.
Rick's margin over Newt in AL: 32,348
Rick's margin over Newt in MS: 4,572
Newt's margin over Mitt in AL: 1,947
Newt's margin over Mitt in MS: 1,694
Newt's margin over Mitt in both: 3,641
Be careful of accusing Santorum of winning narrowly. Newt held second in both states much more narrowly (0.3% and 0.6% respectively). His combined margin over Mitt was smaller than Rick's margin over Newt in the closer state. If Mitt had bought 4k more votes Newt would have a pair of third places in his back yard to explain away.
Why would Dems vote for a candidate who’s not even on the radar? When Rick’s sweep started, he was not a real possiblilty. Newt was far more of a threat to Romney back then than Santorum.
Need to put the tin foil hats up til next election guys. It’s getting old.
Florida primary’s winner-take-all delegate situation, explained
By Aaron Blake, Published: January 31
There is a good bit of confusion about how Florida will award its delegates following today’s primary.
So, to clear things up, here’s where we stand:
A new Republican National Committee rule says that no state holding its presidential contest before April is allowed to award its delegates to the national convention on a winner-take-all basis, unless it is one of the four early carve-out states (Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada).
Many states see the winner-take-all as being preferable to a proportional format, because it provides for bigger swings in the delegate race and makes their states more important. Thus, the RNC created the new rule to make it less appealing for states to move their contests earlier in the year.
RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, left, and former RNC chairman Michael Steele debate during the party’s chairman’s race in 2010. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
But here’s the catch: Florida is already in violation of RNC rules because it moved its primary into January. And the RNC, which has already docked Florida half of its delegates for moving its primary up, says it cannot punish a state twice.
Therefore, the states that are already in violation of RNC rules for setting their primaries too early (Florida, Arizona and Michigan) were allowed to go winner-take-all.
Arizona, whose primary will be held Feb. 28, is going with a pure winner-take-all format just like Florida. It will award 29 delegates to the statewide winner — less than Florida’s 50, but still significant. Michigan, which is also set for Feb. 28, has a more proportional system.
(For more on delegate allocation rules and everything else you need to know, check out The Post’s great delegate tracker.)
Now, it’s important to note that not everyone agrees with the RNC’s position in this matter. Some members of the RNC have suggested they may challenge Florida’s winner-take-all status at the party’s August convention in ... wait for it ... Florida! The Tampa Bay Times’s Adam C. Smith had a good take on this controversy recently.
This is why, when former RNC chairman Michael Steele said on MSNBC today that Florida was not a winner-take-all state, eyebrows were raised.
“Florida’s proportional,” said Steele, who opposes Florida’s winner-take-all status. “Florida violated the April 1st rule of the RNC, Rule 15, and their delegates, whatever number’s apportioned to them, will be proportional for the candidates.”
Alas, the RNC says it’s not true, and Florida remains winner-take-all, at least until this situation can be hammered out at the convention.
RNC spokesman Sean Spicer tweeted today that any concerns about Florida’s delegate allocation method would have to be taken up with the contest committee just prior to the August convention.
Of course, unless the nominee is unclear at that point — a remote possibility — this will be a rather moot point.
But given that the rules for the 2016 primary calendar will be on the docket, there could be handful of RNC members anxious to make an example of Florida and try to ward off such future power moves.
Indeed, at the end of the day, by moving its primary up and going winner-take-all, Florida has made itself into one of the most pivotal states in the presidential race. Even though it forfeited half its delegates, it is still more critical to the delegate race than basically any other state before April.
And that’s a pretty sweet reward for breaking the rules.
The fix is in and has been from the get-go.
This was a double effort to knock out both Newt and Romney. Newt was a threat to the GOPE and the Democrats.
This is truly a potential disaster for all of us.
I heard Trump himself talk about this right after he endorsed Romney. I believe it was on Greta’s show. He was asked why he couldn’t definitively state that he wasn’t going to run as a third party now that he had endorsed Mitt. He said he wouldn’t run as a third party “if” the right person (Mitt) got the nomination. Otherwise, he might. Greta said, “But you can’t, you wouldn’t be on the ballot in any states!” Trump said he had already been approached by the “Americans Elect” party about running as their candidate, and that they were already on all the state ballots.
Personally, I don’t think there’s one chance in Hades that Trump would ever run under any circumstances for any party. He’s just a carnival barker, and a pretty good one, with no honest pretensions to be anything else.
I’ve read links on past FR threads showing that this “Americans Elect” party is funded by George Soros.
Seriously? Think about it for a sec.
Without open primaries we might actually have elections instead of selections.
The entire process is not only flawed but rigged!
Discussed here eon's ago, I think it is Axlerod's baby and Podesta over at one of Soro's &$I+hole organizations. If my memory is correct they have all 50 States and are just looking for a plug-in candidate just to suck enough EGOP-er's off the top to give to the Anointed One.
The joke is on you, because this is really happening.
Hey, a truthful blogger -- "I don't have the facts, and I can't be bothered to find them, but I'm not going to let THAT stop me!!!!"
So you don’t think that a union democrat and families, would take the time to cross party lines and vote for the weakest candidate? How about the state, federal employees, think they would? I am sure the public union people wouldnt be that organized either.......means nothing to them, just their gravy union jobs, free healthcare, wonderful sick leave and vacation time, fabulous retirement pensions. Get a grip folks, Obama has it in lockdown mode and it is going to be a supreme battle in November. A small part of me wants to see Santorum as the nominee, just to say what were people thinking.
These elections are handled under the various state laws, so it's not as though the RNC can declare that all primaries shall henceforth be closed to all but registered party members.
The better question is: Why do we still have open party primaries in states that now have Republican legislative majorities?
This is the sort of stuff that Michael Steele should've been working on, instead of traveling around the country doing book signings.
More likely that Democrats voted for Romney, he’s almost a carbon copy of their messiah
There was an organized effort by the Dems that began in Michigan to vote for Santorum. That has continued. It has hardly been a secret. In fact, it was published following Michigan that roughly 10% of Santorum’s vote there was Democrats crossing over. The Huffington Post was one of the big promoters in getting out the Democrat vote for Santorum.
Some of us are even smart enough to realize that those Democrats are not going to vote for Santorum in the general election, so we are not excited about the Democrats choosing a candidate they feel is our weakest to run against Obama.
Go to CNN. The facts from the exit polling is there. And you can scoff all day if it makes you feel good, but it is a forgone fact that the Democrats have tampered with our primary. Like it or not.
The cousin of my wife’s sister’s hairdresser was at a restaurant last night, and she overheard the waiter talking about how the chief cook’s mother was at Bingo and the woman sitting across from her said her daughter’s study group was thinking about voting for “the guy with the hair” in the primary for some state that begins with ‘A’, so she assumes it was Alabama, and Santorum must by the “hair” guy because he wears sweater vests.
So I’m convinced that, if not for this cross-over democrat vote, Gingrich would be doing at least 10% better, and would also be actively contesting all those places it looks like he’s ignoring.
I hope nobody believes this crap.
Poor Romney was robbed? Does anyone think the liberals went and voted for Rick, seriously?
Remember that its the liberal establishment that wants open primaries.
What I saw in Michigan were Democrat strategists (Joe DiSano), and liberal radio show hosts (Tony Trupiano) organizing Democrats to vote for Rick because they thought he’d be easier for Obama to beat. The local news interviewed Democrat after Democrat after voting that day. None were actual Santorum supporters. They were hardcore Obama supporters.
GULAG-BOUND: not having all the pertinent facts and I confess I don’t even have time to search for them
If memory serves me correctly, CNN’s John King last evening pointed out there according to their exit polling, about six to eight percent of Alabama voters called themselves Democrats. However, I did not find breakdown by party at the exit poll pages in cnn.com.
how many more just walked by them, refusing to be polled? If you were a prankster-voting in such a case, would you want to be examined by a pollster? Maybe some would. Maybe more would not.
Yep, the "evidence" "proves" "it". Mr Blogger remembers hearing something he can't find, has no time to look for, and which if true doesn't actually say what he claims. He simply speculates about it.
On the other hand, depending on what "it" is, maybe this posting DOES "prove it".
Now if it is true that Obama will beat Santorum, remains to be seen. But the polls show that there is some truth to that reality.
You are thinking like me, my friend. Some of the Rick
supporters are in over their heads with admiration. They
are even excusing him for his lies and ignorong his voting record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.