Romney’s “Huge” Win?

Flopping Aces ^ | 01-06-12 | Michael Henkins

[Starman417]

"A Big Win for Romney in Iowa" Karl Rove

"Romney's huge win" Dick Morris

"A big win for Romney" Carter Eskew

"Media Downplay Big Win For Romney In Iowa" Editorial, Investors Business Daily

Come on man? Investors Business Daily too?

The first three headlines I expected. If there were to be a vote on who would be the face next to the entry for “Republican Establishment” in Merriam and Webster’s dictionary 2012 Edition it would be Karl Rove. Dick Morris is the "Smeagol" of Washington D.C. political pollsters and insiders. One never knows if he is being serious or just trying to get headlines to regain his “precious”, relevancy. Walter Eskew works for the Washington Post, that in itself is enough damning evidence but lord knows Jennifer Rubin could have had a gun to the back of his head as well. The one that surprised me is the usually sane Investors Business Daily editorial. Et tu IBD? Et tu?

Let us get down to the bottom of this pom-pom waiving for Mitt Romney. The “Republican Establishment” knows the support for Mitt Romney is weak and tenuous at best. They need this to be a “Big Win” for Romney not because Iowa is important, hell none of the votes actually count from Tuesday, they are non-binding. They are really setting up the win in New Hampshire to be more significant than that will actually be as well. Everyone knows Romney will win New Hampshire. Why do you think everyone from K street lobbyist to National Review has been planning road trips to Manchester. That's when they all declare that Romney is officially inevitable. A massive wave of Romney love sweeping across the nation and all other primaries are foolish to ride against the Romney tide.

[Leep]

Good the Rinos are out of the closet While elephants have long memories.

[Ohioan]

Over-the-hill political "pundits," desperately trying to seem relevant.

We need to have a full, frank & courteous debate of all important issues, while a deliberative process plays out. Anyone who seeks to stampede this process is not doing the Republican Party or the American Future a service.

Consider if your will, the calm deliberative approach of George Washington, whose whole life defined what a true leader should be: Washington's Farewell Admonitions.

Consider, by contrast, how Karl Rove mucked up Republican prospects in 2006, setting the stage for the disaster in 2008: A Conservative Dilemma, 2006: The Rove Directed Republican Disaster.

I am not attacking Gov. Romney, merely standing against the attempt of some of his lightweight supporters to stampede the gullible.

William Flax

[tallyhoe]

Rep West says Romney is s center left candidate!!! Santorum is center right. He didn’t say anything about Newt but I would gather he is a true conservative!

[geologist]

Newt is an internationalist, a one world government proponent and that definitely is NOT conservative. Look up his true beliefs, over the past 30 years. He is posing as a conservative but is not one. He did balance the budget, but notice he did not last long ...

[Diogenesis]

American FLIP FLOPPER, the Chameleon-Teflon Milt:
"I bet you $10,000 that I will be as conservative as Kennedy or McCain."

"Vote Count Error? Did Rick Santorum Really Win the Iowa Caucuses?
DES MOINES, Iowa - Edward True, 28, of Moulton, said he helped count the votes
and jotted the results down on a piece of paper to post to his Facebook page.
He said when he checked to make sure the Republican Party of Iowa
got the count right, he said he was shocked to find they hadn’t.
“When Mitt Romney won Iowa by eight votes and I’ve got a
20-vote discrepancy here, that right there says Rick Santorum won Iowa,” True said. “Not Mitt Romney.”

"Several UNREPORTED news reports have it that Romney
did not win the Iowa Caucuses.
Barring any objective, verifiable proof that shows more than 12 votes mistakenly
being credited to Santorum, Romney lost."

"Could Typo Rewrite Caucus History? (Santorum may regain win)"

[Ohioan]

I think that Newt still has some potential for good; but his hysterical remarks on foreign policy, coupled with his mishandling of impeachment of Bill Clinton--trivializing the issue by focusing on a minor incident, involving a young woman, rather than Clinton's abuse of power as Commander-In-Chief--give me great concern.

If he is really in favor of World Government, as you argue; that, of course, makes him totally unacceptable. American Independence was a conscious decision by far better men; and anyone who has sworn fidelity to the Constitution, and still advocates reversal of that decision, is a Traitor, not a Conservative.

William Flax

[geologist]

Here are a couple of links regarding Newt’s past and present ...
Necessary for anyone wanting to be informed ...

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd450.htm

this part two,

at the bottom of the article there is a link to part one. It is shorter as it is his college years mainly. The part 2 is his record in Congress, etc.

and

http://www.esquire.com/features/newt-gingrich-0910

this one is a rather lengthy about his second wife’s 18 years of being married to him.

These are worth you time and consideration.

[tallyhoe]

Paul is an isolationist and is it Newt’s fault government overspends as usual. Did you know Ron Paul took ear marks? Is a nut case and has no chance of being elected to anything? Maybe his own congressional seat but if he keeps this weird talk up they might just bounce him!