Romney makes midcourse communications correction (Re-hires anti-Palin smear peddler Kevin Madden)

Your hatred is going to consume you, sport.

Because Congres can only BLOCK Judicial nominees. The President appoints them. We BOTH the the Executive branch (No More Holder) as well as Congress.

What in Mitt Romney's record of filling judicial positions gives you any confidence? His promise? There is a reason he's known as a flip-flopper - he'll tell whatever he thinks you want to hear.

It's not like Romney is going to give us a Scalia or Thomas or Alito. There isn't likely to be a big difference between Obama appointees and Romney appointees. For the sake of our nation, pray that there are no vacancies in the USSC during the next four years until we can get a real President into the Oval Office.

Yeah. It's getting to where one needs a pretty strong stomach to hang around here.

There are some folks here who seem to be excited at the prospect of there being some sort of popular uprising that will over throw the Obama government if he gets reelected, then there are the others to whom you have responded who are so divorced from reality that they are unable to discern the differences between Obama and Romney. It's such an asinine assertion that it is offensive--demands the complete absence of reason.

Up until about a decade ago, hatred of ones opponents, real genuine hatred of the sort we are seeing here, now directed at Romney, was unheard of in the conservative ranks. Conservative's don't hate their opponents, they hate their agendas and their tactics, and their actions, but never did I or any other conservative I associated with "hate" our political opponents--that was an emotional reaction, we left that to liberals who are emotionally driven.

Nowadays we suddenly have all of these Perry-haters, Romney-haters, Gingrich-haters (you know, it occurs to me that most of those labels can be attributed to the same core of panty-wetters who are on this thread) all of whom seem more determined to destroy anyone of whom they don't approve than to get their own candidate elected.

I think it comes from an influx of Paulbots/Libertarians and those of Palin's supporters who have become enamored of her to the exclusion of reason--that small cadre of Palinbots--(I like Palin and believe her to be one of the hopes for our future, but I am not obsessed with her to the exclusion of reason).

Whatever it is, it has led to these continuous posts of hate intended, not to inform anyone, but to smear and attack Romney in the unreal hope of some miraculous Convention conversion. I prefer to stick with the real world.

And Sud, your desperation, fear, and panic is poised to consume American freedom in the name of ABO.

Why do YOU Hate Americans and demand Death Panels?

If I have fear and desperation, it is because unlike you and your fellow haters, I see reality. I see Obama for the monster he truly is and will be. I am not so blinded by hatred of someone that I cannot see what is coming. I am not so consumed with tearing one candidate down that I am unable to see that the alternative is so destructive and divisive that it is likely that a second term will push America beyond retrieval.

My preferred candidate isn't running either. "WAAAGGGHHH!" There, I got over it.

I grew up and now face the upcoming election as an adult rather than a spoiled, self-righteous child who insists that it all go his way . . . that's what growing up is all about folks. Learning to deal with disappointment in a mature and controlled manner instead of throwing a temper tantrum every time you don't get your way.

You can vote for the GOP version of the same -- just remember that if your bastard wins, you will GET WHAT YOU VOTED FOR.

If Romney wins, I predict the greatest case of buyer's remorse in political history. It will make the liberals' disappointment in Obama look like child's play.

As Romney walks back every one of his campaign promises, it will be hard not to say "I told you so." This process which has already started will accelerate if Romney wins. Here's what I think will happen: Romney's history suggests that he doesn't want conservatives - he'll just use us if he can. Once elected, Romney will run to the left where his political philosophy resides and then form a left-of-center coalition with the Democrats and RINOs. Angering conservatives will play right into the great reconciler role that Romney wants to play. He and his people will point to conservative opposition to bolster his claim to occupy the reasonable middle and his claim to political courage in fighting the Radical Right. In terms of partisanship, Mitt Romney reaching across the aisle will make John McCain look like Rush Limbaugh in comparison.

Sorry, sport, there are no and never have been "death panels" or IPA board in Romneycare. How can you be against something you know nothing about?

From Mona Charon's NRO article:

"The answer to the question “Wasn’t Romneycare exactly the same thing as Obamacare?” is, to quote Nancy Pelosi, “Are you serious?” The Massachusetts law contained an individual mandate (which states, unlike the federal government, are allowed to impose). But it did not consist of 2,700 pages of new regulations; 159 new boards and commissions; more than $500 billion in new taxes (and counting); the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a rationing board whose decisions are unreviewable by the courts and practically untouchable by Congress itself; restrictions on religious liberty; Medicare cuts; affirmative-action mandates for medical and dental schools; huge new authority over one-seventh of the U.S. economy for the secretary of health and human services, and open-ended regulations of the way doctors and others perform their jobs."

Mona omits the 5000 additional IRS agents and their new bloated enforcement bureaucracy that are also NOT in Romneycare.

You can repeat your lies all you want, Diogenesis, but it will never make them true. All you are doing is making yourself look more and more extreme and out of touch with reality.

...you and your fellow haters ...

You lost me there. That you are only able to interpret my motivation as based in "hate" means that your perceptions are so flawed as to be not worth the reading.

:^(

Wow -- you said it SO VERY WELL. I pray that ABOers open their hearts and minds and heed your wise warning. ABO is a fatally flawed strategy.

I pray that enough Americans vote third party that the next president goes into office on vulnerable defense because the overwhelming majority rejected him at the ballot box. Such a plurality hurt Clinton enough in 1992 to give us the Republican Revolution, and Clinton was fairly popular.

Imagine if narcissist Obama, who (unlike Clinton in '92 and '96) has become despised by many former supporters, had to face the humiliating spectre of having nearly two in three vote against him. Any claim of "mandate" would be mocked because the numbers proved otherwise. Moderates in the Republican party would have the fear of God put in them having seen Romney kicked to the curb.

On the other hand, if GOD FORBID Romney wins with a landslide, the fact that the numbers represented a referendum against Obama, would be perverted into a popular mandate FOR Romney's "progressive style of governing" by Romney, moderates, the GOP-e, and Democrats, and the numbers would back them up. It would disarm conservatives.

This is why I'm voting for a plurality. I'm voting third party, and it will be a vote FOR a plurality win for either socialist authoritarian statist tyrant. Because thinking in terms of voting "against" is misleading at best.

The ARE Death-Panels in ROmneyCARE, you rabid RomneyBOT.

And LOTS of death and taxes thanks to YOUR MASTER, Mr. RomneyCARE.

Emergency room visits grow in Mass. New insurance law did not reduce number of users
The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts,
despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use."

Back to the ObamaCare Future (price controls in Massachusetts)
Natural experiments are rare in politics, but few are as instructive as the prototype for
ObamaCare that Massachusetts set in motion in 2006.
Last month, Democratic Governor Deval Patrick landed a neutron bomb, proposing hard
price controls across almost all Massachusetts health care. State regulators already have
the power to cap insurance premiums, which Mr. Patrick is activating. He also filed a bill
that would give state regulators the power to review the rates of hospitals, physician
groups and some specialty providers.

It doesn't even count as an irony that former Governor Mitt Romney (like President Obama) sold this plan as a way to control spending"

"The Huge Middle Class Tax Increase Coming Our Way With ObamaCare
The former CBO director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, warns today on the effect ObamaCare
will have on our economy and health care. These facts should be painfully obvious to
those with even one iota of common sense. This bill will lead to a huge middle class tax increase:
Remember when health-care reform was supposed to make life better for the middle
class? That dream began to unravel this past summer when Congress proposed a bill that
failed to include any competition-based reforms that would actually bend the curve of
health-care costs. It fell apart completely when Democrats began papering over the
gaping holes their plan would rip in the federal budget.

As it now stands, the plan proposed by Democrats and the Obama administration would
not only fail to reduce the cost burden on middle-class families, it would make that burden significantly worse.

The bill creates a new health entitlement program that the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) estimates will grow over the longer term at a rate of 8% annually, which is much
faster than the growth rate of the economy or tax revenues. This is the same growth rate
as the House bill that Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) deep-sixed by asking the CBO to tell
the truth about its impact on health-care costs.

To avoid the fate of the House bill and achieve a veneer of fiscal sensibility, the Senate
did three things: It omitted inconvenient truths, it promised that future Congresses will
make tough choices to slow entitlement spending, and it dropped the hammer on the middle class.

One inconvenient truth is the fact that Congress will not allow doctors to suffer a 24% cut in their Medicare reimbursements. "

"DEATH PANELS OPEN FOR BUSINESS IN MASSACHUSETTS
In August Sarah Palin wrote extensively about the incredible danger that ObamaCare
would lead to what amounts to "death panels." This of course caused great controversy
with many claiming Palin was either "crazy" or talking about the "end of life"
discussions that were provided for within House Resolution 3200, the prototype
ObamaCare bill.
As more Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan
that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is
dropping, and we're saying not just no, but hell no!

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of
health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care
will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the
most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The
America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down
Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can
decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether
they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil. .
Now we have news from Massachusetts, the home of RomneyCare, which should be
looked at as a shining example of why ObamaCare will be an epic failure. Soaring costs
both to the taxpayers and patients was inevitable, and now the effects of these are coming home to roost.
You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way,"

"You can't reap these savings without limiting patients' choices in some way," said Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess.

The state's ambitious plan to shake up how providers are paid could have a hidden price
for patients: Controlling Massachusetts' soaring medical costs, many health care leaders
believe, may require residents to give up their nearly unlimited freedom to go to any
hospital and specialist they want.

Efforts to keep patients in a defined provider network, or direct them to lower-cost
hospitals could be unpopular, especially in a state where more than 40 percent of hospital
care is provided in expensive academic medical centers and where many insurance
policies allow patients access to large numbers of providers. ."

"State plan may place limits on patients' hospital options( Mass. RomneyCare )"

"Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts [Romneycare]
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for
Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its
typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this
year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made
our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we
neither need nor want-or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan-we
would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-
care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).

We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We
always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't
carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular
monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns
a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable
energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not
wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws? "

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

Health care in Massachusetts: a warning for America [Romney brings Mass. to its knees]
The Bay State's mandatory insurance law is raising costs, limiting access, and lowering care.
Sedalia, Colo. - In his recent speech to Congress, President Obama could have promoted
healthcare reforms that tapped the power of a truly free market to lower costs and
improve access. Instead, he chose to offer a national version of the failing
"Massachusetts plan" based on mandatory health insurance. This is a recipe for disaster.

Three years ago, Massachusetts adopted a plan requiring all residents to purchase health
insurance, with state subsidies for lower-income residents. But rather than creating a
utopia of high-quality affordable healthcare, the result has been the exact opposite -
skyrocketing costs, worsened access, and lower quality care.

Under any system of mandatory insurance, the government must necessarily define what
constitutes acceptable insurance. In Massachusetts, this has created a giant magnet for
special interest groups seeking to have their own pet benefits included in the required
package. Massachusetts residents are thus forced to purchase benefits they may neither
need nor want, such as in vitro fertilization, chiropractor services, and autism treatment -
raising insurance costs for everyone to reward a few with sufficient political "pull."

Although similar problems exist in other states, Massachusetts' system of mandatory
insurance delivers the entire state population to the special interests. ."

"'Severe' doc shortage seen hiking wait time The Boston Herald ^ | 9/15/09 | Christine McConville As the state's shortage of primary care doctors grows, people are waiting longer for medical care, according to a new survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society. "The shortage is getting more severe," said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical society's president. The state's health care dilemma can serve as a valuable lesson for a nation whose residents are locked in a frenzied debate about health care reform, he added."

"Health costs to rise again.( RomneyCare )
The state's major health insurers plan to raise premiums by about 10 percent next year,
prompting many employers to reduce benefits and shift additional costs to workers.
The higher insurance costs undermine a key tenet of the state's landmark health care law
passed two years ago, as well as President Obama's effort to overhaul health care. In
addition to mandating insurance for most residents, the Massachusetts bill sought to rein
in health care costs. With Washington looking to the Massachusetts experience, fears
about higher costs have become a stumbling block to passing a national health care bill."

"Nation's ill-advised to follow Mass. plan [Health plan a failure]
September 17, 2009 The canary is dead.
Massachusetts, the model for the ObamaCare universal insurance plan, is the canary in
the health care coal mine. Yesterday, its obit appeared on the front page of both The Wall
Street Journal and The Boston Globe-Democrat.

Both papers reported that our Commonwealth Care reform isn't working as planned. A
new law that was supposed to control costs and drive prices down (sound familiar?) has
instead sent costs soaring. "

"Bay State Insurance Premiums Highest in Country - Boston Globe August 22, 2009
Massachusetts has the most expensive family health insurance premiums in the country,
according to a new analysis that highlights the state's challenge in trying to rein in medical costs
after passage of a landmark 2006 law that mandated coverage for nearly everyone...
The report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit health care foundation,
showed that the average family premium for plans offered by employers in Massachusetts was $13,788 in 2008,
40 percent higher than in 2003. Over the same period, premiums nationwide rose an average of 33 percent..."

"Massachusetts: the laboratory for ObamaCare
Cato Institute looks a little farther down the coast to Massachusetts, where the state began its own health-care reform complete
with individual mandates and a government plan.
Cato calls it an "almost perfect" mirror of ObamaCare, complete with promises of reducing cost and extending care - that failed in both respects:
Massachusetts shows that such a mandate would oust millions from their low-cost health plans and force them to pay higher premiums. …

"Massachusetts' Obama-like reforms increase health costs, wait times [RomneyCare]
"If you are curious about how President Barack Obama's health plan would affect your health care, look no farther than Massachusetts.
In 2006, the Bay State enacted a slate of reforms that almost perfectly mirror the plan of Obama and congressional Democrats.
.... Premiums are growing 21 to 46 percent faster than the national average
in part because Massachusetts' individual mandate has effectively outlawed affordable health plans."

"Mass. Pushes Rationing to Control Universal Healthcare Costs (RomneyCare)
A 10-member Massachusetts state healthcare advisory board unanimously recommended
that the state begin rationing healthcare to keep the state's marquee universal health care program afloat financially.
The July 16 recommendations, the Boston Globe explained, would result in a situation where "patients could find it harder to get procedures they want but are of questionable benefit if doctors are operating within a budget.
And they might find it more difficult to get care wherever they want, if primary doctors push to keep patients within their accountable care organization."
The Globe stressed that the recommendations would "dramatically change how doctors and hospitals are paid, essentially putting providers on a budget as a way to control exploding healthcare costs and improve the quality of care."
"Budget" is a more politically acceptable word for rationing.
The Globe also noted that "consumer advocates said patients are going to have to be educated about the new system." Yes, apparently they will have to get used to having their healthcare rationed.

"Massachusetts Universal Healthcare System Breaking Down Already
When Governor Mitt Romney instituted a universal healthcare plan for Massachusetts in 2006 he proclaimed it a conservative idea.
But has it worked? Has it been successful?
For a time, many thought it might but cracks in the system are already being seen.
These cracks are instructive as a lesson on how Obamacare will crash and burn just like Romneycare is now in the process of doing.

One of the early claims that helped push Romneycare through to law was the insistence by its supporters that Emergency Room visits would fall as more and more citizens became covered under healthcare insurance.
Since ER care is far more expensive than a doctor's care, it was thought that more people with insurance would ease the overcrowding of ERs as well as lower the overall costs of healthcare.
However, a flaw in this logic has been seen throughout the state. As more people became insured, more people demanded the care of doctors. These doctors became overloaded with patients and waiting lists for doctors got longer and longer.
As a result, ERs in Massachusetts have not seen a downturn in visits. On the contrary, it seems that ER visits are actually on the upswing in the Bay State. In fact, in 2007 they were higher than the national average by 20 percent...

"National Health Preview - The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood."
"Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country.
It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.
In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls.
As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget.
The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic.
The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006.

0What really whipped along RomneyCare were claims that health care would be less expensive if everyone were covered.
But reducing costs while increasing access are irreconcilable issues.
Mr. Romney should have known better before signing on to this not-so-grand experiment, especially since the state's "free market" reforms that he boasts about have proven to be irrelevant when not fictional.
Only 21,000 people have used the "connector" that was supposed to link individuals to private insurers."

A Very Sick Health Plan; Bay State's 'Grand Experiment' Fails [RomneyCare]
"The Daily News Record, Harrisonburg, Va. - 2009-03-31 "
"For folks increasingly leery of President Obama's plan to radically overhaul America's health-care system,
or 17 percent of the nation's economy, all this could hardly have come at a better time -
that is, fiscal troubles aplenty within Repubican Mitt Romney's brainchild, Massachusetts' "grand experiment" in "universal" health care."

"Initiated on Mr. Romney's gubernatorial watch in 2006, this "experiment" has fallen on hard times, and predictably so.
Even though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,
"RomneyCare" is threatening to bankrupt the state. Budgeted for Fiscal Year 2010 at $880 million,
or 7.3 percent more than a year ago, this plan, aimed at providing low- or no-cost health coverage to roughly 165,000 residents,
has caused Massachusetts' overall expenditures on all health-related programs to jump an astounding 42 percent since 2006.

So what does Mr. Romney's successor, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, propose as a remedy for these skyrocketing costs?
Well, whaddya think? The standard litany of prescriptions (no pun intended) - price controls and spending caps, for a start, and then, again predictably, waiting periods and limitations on coverage.
As in Europe and Canada, so too in Massachusetts. And, we feel certain, everyone from Mr. Romney to Mr. Patrick said, "It would never happen here."
But then, such things are inevitable when best-laid plans, with all their monstrous costs, run smack-dab into fiscal reality.

bruniversal said Dr. Mario Motta, the medical societyEven though the Bay State commenced its program with a far smaller percentage of uninsured residents than exists nationwide,

Then you help the Marxist cause. Obama wins.

So good that it needs to be posted again -- but as "would," not "will" -- I hope you don't mind! I guess I'm superstitious! So well said, CC, such solid, cold reasoning:

Once elected, Romney would run to the left where his political philosophy resides and then form a left-of-center coalition with the Democrats and RINOs.

Angering conservatives would play right into the great reconciler role that Romney wants to play. (Oh, MAN, Commerce, you called that one spot-on.)

He and his people would point to conservative opposition to bolster his claim to occupy the reasonable middle and his claim to political courage in fighting the Radical Right.

In terms of partisanship, Mitt Romney reaching across the aisle would make John McCain look like Rush Limbaugh in comparison.

Then you help the Marxist cause [by not voting for Romney].

Mathematically and materially false.

There is only ONE WAY to help Obama win, and that is to vote FOR him at the ballot box. A vote for a third party candidate or for no candidate at all neither helps nor hinders Obama or Romney.

Mr Chips, whether you realize it or not, your philosophy of "Not to vote for Romney is the same as voting for Obama" is 100% entitlement mentality. You believe that the Republican candidate, no matter how much an authoritarian statist, is entitled to conservatives' votes, and you are as wrong in that thinking as liberals are in thinking they're entitled to the fruits of conservatives' labor.

You lie: "There is only ONE WAY to help Obama win, and that is to vote FOR him at the ballot box."

Working to assassinate Milt Rominy's character is working for the re-election of Barack Obama, whether you are honest enough to admit it or not. So, you lie.

It is looking more and more like you want the collapse of America to come, for some strange reason. You first wanted to make the election very close. When it has been pointed out to you that it is the close elections that democrats have the greatest ability to cheat and win, you seem to have shifted your strategy. You lie by twisting notions.

If it were only about casting a vote, then only casting a vote for Obama would get him re-elected. But it is also about your type of campaign to suppress turnout for the alternative to Obama, and you're working your little deceitful butt off to assassinate the Republican nominee.

You lie. Democrats are generally liars. Are you a lying democrat trying to pass yourself off as a conservative? Conservatives tend to not lie. You lie.

Not so.

And I just posted the following elsewhere regarding what to do (constitutionally) about the treasonous usurping Obama and his treasonous usurping co-conspirators:

Vote in a tea party (grassroots conservative) majority into the house and senate, impeach the treasonous usurping Obama/Biden, expel the likewise treasonous usurping, Reid and Pelosi, let the newly elected conservative congress select the next president and vice president, immediately start in motion bills to wipe out all of Obama/Biden/Reid/Pelosi’s treasonous/usurping unconstitutional acts (along with a long list of other unconstitutional congressional acts), shutter a whole bunch of unconstitutional federal agencies, repeal the 16th and 17th, secure our borders, restore constitutional limits on government, restore the 10th amendment, return the real powers to the states and the people as the founders intended and enshrined in our constitution and to which we the people granted our consent, impeach and remove all usurping/treasonous judges/justices (including Roberts) and restore our God-given Liberty!!

We cannot win the war against socialism (statism) by voting in even more statists. Romney is a statist.

If you say he’s not a statist, please post a list here and now of his conservative accomplishments while serving in government.

I can easily post a list of some of his statist/socialist accomplishments as governor of Massachusetts:

Advocated for the state to approve of and provide godless/statist abortion services.

Advocated for the state to advance the godless/statist/homosexual agenda including ordering same sex marriage be conducted by state officials.

Advocated for the godless statist/liberal agenda by appointing liberal judges.

Advocated for the godless statist/liberal agenda by signing gun bans into law.

Advocated for the godless statist/liberal/socialist agenda by pushing through the statist/socialist RomneyCare compulsory health care program complete with $50 abortion, and individual mandate.

Your turn. Please post a list of Romney’s accomplishments that you are most proud of and that most qualify him to be president of the US.

Voting for Romney directly advances the godless/socialist/statist agenda.

"My master Mr. RomneyCARE."

He's not my master, but I would take hi9m over your master, Obama. The man you are working so vigilantly to get reelected. You may assert anything you wish, it only proves how far out of reality you have ventured. Have fun in your alternate universe.

So good that it needs to be posted again -- but as "would," not "will" -- I hope you don't mind!

Thanks. No, I don't care.

Jim, what will it take to dump Romney in the convention and have an open convention free-for-all? Is it possible to get that liberal liar off the nominee spot at this point? Or has the GOPe succeeded in placing their liberal under our noses again, as with McCain? Is there any vp selection that could changeMilt’s creds? I don’t see any vp choice changing what Romney has done int eh past, so who he picks as vp doesn’t seem to be a factor. Can he be deposed at the convention? ... I’m still praying that American voters have finally awoken to realize Newt is so much superior to Milt Rominy that if Milt can be dumped in Tampa, Newt just might end upt he nominee, but can it be done at this stage?