Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $27,862
32%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 32% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by WFTR

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • America, A Quaint Memory....

    11/09/2012 1:13:16 AM PST · 28 of 174
    WFTR to Lazamataz

    The situation looks that bleak to me as well. Ultimately, I do hope that we will have some kind of revolution that will return this country to one of which we can be proud. Part of making that return will require some reassessment on the part of many who had considered themselves “patriots,” “conservatives,” and other good kinds of good Americans. While I have no doubt that the election was taken by fraud, Mr. Romney received fewer votes than John McCain received four years ago. We have no excuse for that, and those who refused to vote for Mr. Romney for whatever reason have destroyed this country as surely as if they were shredding the Constitution with their own hands. If we ever have a hope of restoration, we must be willing to open a big tent rather than a small one. We must stand on principles, but we must not define that stand so narrowly that we can never include enough people to govern “with the consent of the governed.” Fourteen years ago, Free Republic was a great place to gather conservatives and near conservatives of all kinds. Every election since then has resulted in more and more purges so that little is left. If we can resurrect the USA that we all knew, we will need leadership that knows how to build and not just how to destroy.

  • ELECTION DAY November 6, 2012 ***LIVE THREAD I***

    11/06/2012 7:01:44 AM PST · 306 of 2,353
    WFTR to redgirlinabluestate

    Thank you for being a friend to me back in 2007 when I was still thinking about Mr. Romney but supporting another candidate. Today is a big day, and I hope all will go well.

  • HEY MITT! Expect, From Obama, These Four Things At the Debate Tonight!(October 16, 2012)

    10/16/2012 11:36:01 AM PDT · 108 of 125
    WFTR to Lazamataz
    Here are some questions and comments for Mitt Romney to use on Obama at opportune times.

    1. How are you feeling? Is the altitude okay for you?

    2. Hillary Clinton didn't pass along information about the need for increased security in Libya. Do you promise to communicate more closely so that this never happens again? Why should we believe you?

    3. I have money, but when I've had a job, I've focused on that job rather than playing golf. In my free time, I've served others through my church and other organizations.

    4. Will you ensure starting tomorrow that all members of the military receive their ballots in time to vote?

    5. You wanted to change how people acted in government. Are you proud of how Biden acted last week?

  • How To Make the GOP Eat Itself Alive

    10/04/2012 2:59:50 AM PDT · 219 of 219
    WFTR to Lazamataz
    Can you expound on exactly what the states can do to minimize the effects of these Rule Changes?

    I don't want to minimize the effect of the rule changes. To me, giving the candidate some veto power over the delegates sent to the convention makes sense. We disagree over Mitt Romney, but let's go back to 2008 as an example.

    Many people in the party hierarchy seemed to want Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to be our nominee as we went into the primary season. Rudy Giuliani lost too much momentum when he refused to participate in any contest before Florida, but let's assume that John McCain had health problems that kept him from running at all. If that had happened, Mike Huckabee might have won Iowa and South Carolina. If Rudy Giuliani had campaigned in New Hampshire, he might have won. Mitt Romney would have lost support quickly once Huckabee and Giuliani were splitting victories. Under those conditions, I could easily see many state GOP establishments hoping to seed their delegations with Giuliani supporters even if Mike Huckabee won the state. In that case, this kind of rule would help prevent the establishment from seeding delegations this way by giving Mike Huckabee veto power over delegates pledged to him. He'd pick delegates who would come to the convention willing to be loyal to him instead of people looking for an excuse to change their votes and give the nomination to Rudy Giuliani.

    I realize that all sorts of people wanted an ugly floor fight this year to try to give the nomination to anyone but Mitt Romney. They spouted the usual "establishment" insults the way that liberals cry "racist" whenever they lose an argument. This year, these rules would be a hindrance to "conservatives" trying to derail Mitt Romney. Next time, the same rules may be all that saves a conservative from being derailed by someone more liberal.

  • How To Make the GOP Eat Itself Alive

    10/04/2012 2:47:50 AM PDT · 218 of 219
    WFTR to Timber Rattler
    You actually expect people to believe that nonsense?

    I've spoken the truth. Whether anyone believes me or not is up to them. I've run into many fools who refuse to believe when I speak the truth.

  • How To Make the GOP Eat Itself Alive

    09/01/2012 4:25:51 PM PDT · 162 of 219
    WFTR to Lazamataz
    I disagree with most of the opposition to these changes. Most of the opposition to these changes this time is coming from people who wanted to create a floor fight at the convention. The opposition seems to come from three groups. They are Ron Paul people who genuinely want a libertarian shift in the GOP, Ron Paul people who are really leftists supporting Paul to try to disrupt the GOP, and the foolish end of the conservative movement that wanted to remove Mitt Romney in favor of someone who failed to win the primaries. These people wanted to manipulate the system in order to create three days of chaos in Tampa. The outcome would either be a candidate of their choosing or a weakened Mitt Romney who would lose to Obama and allow them to continue their civil war fantasies. Having their schemes frustrated has left them angry about the rules, but that attitude is short sighted.

    The rules that stopped them from derailing Mitt Romney this year could protect them in the future. If state parties quietly change their rules in the future to put more delegate choice under the power of the party hierarchy and less in the hands of voters, we could have a situation where a "Tea Party candidate" wins a state but is represented at the convention by "establishment" delegates chosen by the "establishment." The new rules would give the candidate some power to veto delegates who were clearly being sent to the convention as patsies for the state party hierarchy.

    The whole controversy seems to be one more example of people trying to derail Mitt Romney's campaign.

  • I Can't Take It Anymore (Dowd alert!)

    08/23/2012 6:03:58 AM PDT · 48 of 56
    WFTR to Lazamataz

    I’m trying to decide whether this message means that the Mayans were right or the Mayans were wrong.

  • A Test. I'm voting against obozo, by painfully holding my nose and voting for mittens.

    04/28/2012 6:29:59 PM PDT · 205 of 218
    WFTR to dfwgator
    Not my problem that your party selected the wrong guy.

    You're an example of those who put ego ahead of country.

  • A Test. I'm voting against obozo, by painfully holding my nose and voting for mittens.

    04/28/2012 10:39:45 AM PDT · 196 of 218
    WFTR to Toadman

    Thank you for putting the country ahead of your ego. I’m sorry that more people around here won’t do that.

  • Salazar: 'No one knows' if US headed to $9/gal gas

    04/24/2012 5:49:27 PM PDT · 24 of 29
    WFTR to Nachum

    Getting rid of Salazar is one of the most important reasons to get rid of Obama.

  • Hugh Hefner warns of GOP ‘war on sex’

    04/24/2012 5:47:31 PM PDT · 28 of 42
    WFTR to ColdOne

    Tin-foil condom alert!

  • Twitter Buzzes With Talk of Zimmerman Riots

    04/24/2012 1:26:03 AM PDT · 53 of 53
    WFTR to Jack Hydrazine

    I will make my purchase well in advance. I’m seriously considering getting a high-capacity handgun. I’ve always been a revolver fan, but I’m facing the reality that I may need something that I can shoot often and reload quickly.

  • GPS monitoring will track George Zimmerman

    04/24/2012 1:17:55 AM PDT · 48 of 48
    WFTR to goseminoles

    Monitoring, restrictions on alcohol, and loss of Second Amendment rights would make sense if George Zimmerman were any kind of threat to public safety. I don’t deny that judges may reasonably impose those restrictions. I disagree that they are justified in this case. Given the threats made against Mr. Zimmerman, monitoring may only lead to someone finding and killing him. Taking away any chance for him to defend himself means that those who find him can kill him without risk. He shouldn’t spend his pre-trial period drunk, but if a beer or two will help him relax in this difficult time, his having a beer or two will not threaten public safety.

  • 40 year old man beaten in street

    04/24/2012 12:53:10 AM PDT · 31 of 40
    WFTR to GOYAKLA

    If I only have five shots, I want 12 gauge and not 28 gauge. I also want them coming out of a gun with the control that I’d get from a full-sized shotgun. If I’m going with a revolver in this situation, I’d at least want six shots of .357 magnum. Against 20 attackers, I’m not going to miss, and I want every shot to have the knockdown power of a .357. If I’m going to use a handgun, I want high capacity. The Trayvon Martin case may drive me to buy a 9mm.

  • George Zimmerman Out on Bail: Twitter Reacts-Virtual lynch mob forms on social media site

    04/24/2012 12:38:08 AM PDT · 16 of 18
    WFTR to 2ndDivisionVet

    If they hold the trial this year, the situation could get very interesting. October riots could energize some of Obama’s base, but those riots could also emphasize the poor state of the nation under Obama’s “leadership.” If the Obama administration handles the riots poorly, he’ll have his own “Hurricane Katrina” moment.

  • Gingrich hints he may drop from race this week (No, he didn't)

    04/24/2012 12:27:53 AM PDT · 21 of 36
    WFTR to Yashcheritsiy
    They’re the same folks who nominated Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle.

    What they should have learned after nominating Christine O'Donnell is that losing with someone who represents your passions is still losing. If the TEA Party people had pushed a candidate more qualified and less confrontational than Christine O'Donnell but less liberal than Mike Castle, they might have won a Senate seat in a state that had been steadily Democrat for a long time. We probably wouldn't have wound up with someone who was perfectly conservative on every issue, but we would have picked up an important vote in the Senate for six years.

  • Could Newt pull off a Delaware upset?

    04/24/2012 12:15:32 AM PDT · 16 of 17
    WFTR to vmivol00

    Newt Gingrich winning Delaware would be trivial. Even if he wins the state, the delegates will be free to vote however they choose if he’s not on the ballot at the convention. A few of them may want to start a floor fight, but most will want to see the nominee chosen on the first ballot. He’s a good guy, and I’d be happy to see him win one. He’s not going to be the nominee, and he’s not going to win enough delegates to force a floor fight at the convention.

  • Santorum Suggests Obama Preferable to "Etch-A-Sketch" Romney.

    03/23/2012 10:58:45 PM PDT · 678 of 762
    WFTR to seekthetruth

    I’m supporting Mitt Romney, but I agree that Rick Santorum has disqualified himself from further consideration.

  • Rick Santorum Has Sizable Lead Over Mitt Romney Heading Into Saturday's La. Primary [13% Lead]

    03/20/2012 11:37:26 PM PDT · 49 of 52
    WFTR to Steelfish

    If the current numbers hold, there’s a chance that Rick Santorum gets all 20 delegates on Saturday. To qualify for delegates in Saturday’s primary, a candidate must get 25% of the vote. With both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney below 25%, only Rick Santorum would receive delegates. If the 6% undecideds split evenly, all three will be over 25% and the delegate split is likely to be Santorum 8, Gingrich 6, and Romney 6. If Gingrich got out the race, the split would likely be Santorum 13 and Romney 7. If we are truly at the point where every delegate counts, then the extra delegate for Mitt Romney is probably more important than the increased margin for Rick Santorum. I’m sure that the Gingrich and Santorum campaigns are hoping that the final numbers are something like Santorum 40, Gingrich 27, and Romney 24. That ending would keep Mr. Romney from receiving any delegates. In this primary, Dr. Gingrich’s presence in the race certainly has the chance of taking delegates from Mitt Romney.

  • Conservative Self-destruction (Why conservatives are partly to blame for the re-election of Obama)

    03/20/2012 4:37:50 AM PDT · 17 of 23
    WFTR to techno
    You only insure your future failure by this kind of rant. The lessons that you think you are learning from history are false, and your failure to pick up true lessons is why you keep losing. Let's hit some high points.

    3)As in the past conservatives have simply not exercised their power of numbers to tip the scales towards a conservative candidate being chosen by the GOP. The facts are generally in each state primary/caucus from 3/5 to 2/3 of all voters (including independents and Democrats) tell exit pollsters they are conservative, the rest being liberal or moderates.

    What you fail to realize is that you don't own the definition of the word "conservative." You and others sit here in your little echo chamber telling one another that a conservative has to agree with you on every little point to be classified as a conservative. When you see exit polls of a majority of people self-identifying as conservatives, you then jump to the conclusion that all of those people agree with you on each point of your definition of conservative. You think that someone just needs to gather them all together to win elections.

    The whole situation would be funny if not so sad. You don't own the definition of "conservative." Plenty of people out here in the real world will self-identify as conservatives without agreeing with your defining points. These people couldn't care less that you think they are wrong to define themselves as conservatives even though they don't agree with you on what a conservative is. They are not your allies in your quest to have everything done your way. We all have to face this reality at one time or another. I'm just surprised that you and everyone else on here writing these rants hasn't faced this reality sooner.

    9)And then there are the conservatives in the movement who are ready and willing to sell out their values and political principles and convictions in 2012 while forgetting the lessons of 2010 where the conservative enthusiasm gap was sky-high due to the conservative movement advocating conservative ideas and ideals.

    An important lesson of 2010 is similar to an important lesson of 2006, 1998, 1994, and numerous other mid-term election years. Many Americans don't think in terms of ideology. They get a vague sense that things aren't going as well as they'd like, so they vote for change. They get a sense that those in power are going too far in one direction, so they try to turn the wheel to another direction. One of the great contrasts of 2010 was the difference in the Florida and Delaware Senate races. In Florida, Marco Rubio stayed on message. He presented a reasoned, intelligent image of a man who knew how to identify the important factors and focus on them. We knew in a general sense that he is pro-life and pro-gun, but he wasn't a sputtering, angry ideologue. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell wasn't on message. We learned that she had strong opinions about masturbation. We learned that she wasn't a witch. She seemed to represent the angry ideologue. I have no doubt that the media played a huge part in keeping her off message, but that's the field on which we play. If we are going to win, we need candidates who can stay on message and whose past will not seem odd to the average voter (who may claim to be conservative but still doesn't see the world through your eyes).

    Since the Arizona and Michigan primaries at the end of February... Think about it: Wouldn't the race look a lot different now if Santorum had eked out wins in both of these states?

    Rick Santorum was clobbered in Arizona. He lost by 20 points. Even if all of Newt Gingrich's votes had gone to Rick Santorum, he still would have lost. You're talking about eking out a win in a state where he wasn't even in the game. That kind of talk is delusional.

    Rick Santorum was a little more than 3 points behind in Michigan, but he was that close only because the Democrats encouraged their people to vote for him because he's the weakest GOP candidate. Talk of eking out a win in Michigan is a little more realistic, but Rick Santorum is still a candidate who had only 2% base of support at the start of the campaign. Two percent of the GOP voters really thought he'd be a good president. The rest of his voters are just looking for an alternative to Mitt Romney. Even with these negative, anti-Romney votes, he's consistently losing.

    And conservatives like sheep vote for the establishment candidate even though there are clear examples where this strategy did NOT work: Dole (1996) and McCain (2008).

    In addition to being "establishment" candidates, Bob Dole and John McCain have something else in common. They were both senators. Senators do not defeat sitting presidents. Even conservative senators like Barry Goldwater do not defeat sitting presidents like LBJ. I can't remember a senator beating a sitting president in the past 100 years. In spite of that, some people actually want to run Rick Santorum against Obama.

    Who does defeating sitting presidents? Governors defeat sitting presidents. Bill Clinton defeated GHW Bush. Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. However, conservatives insist that we can't nominate the only governor left in the race.

    1)The conservative movement failed to rally around Sarah Palin after the midterm election and embrace her as its white knight after her mighty contribution to the midterm results.

    This one is silly. See the comparison of Marco Rubio to Christine O'Donnell. While I admit that Sarah Palin had a better resume than Christine O'Donnell did, she wasn't good at staying on message and her past made staying on message harder. In the public eye, she didn't represent the reasoned, intelligent, competent leader. Instead, she represented the boiling passion of extremists. That image of her wasn't entirely fair, but that image wasn't going away. Furthermore, posts like yours make clear that many of her supporters embraced that image specifically. A majority of Americans were not going to vote for that image regardless of whether they held generally conservative views on the individual issues.

    10)And the last reason I believe the conservative movement has self-destructed lies in the steadfast belief of the movement that it does NOT need one leader or at least a leadership council to represent all conservative, evangelicals and TP supporters in the nation.

    In earlier paragraphs, you want us to remember the successes of 2010, but in 2010, we succeeded without a designated leader or organization. TEA Party was a term that described a disconnected movement of people of various backgrounds and interests. In some areas, "TEA Party" people were religious conservatives. In other areas, they were mostly libertarians. The movement's first success was the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. Scott Brown is a very different senator from Marco Rubio who is different from Rand Paul who is different from Christine O'Donnell who was a little too similar to Sharon Angle who is different from Mark Kirk. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Christine O'Donnells and Sharon Angles in every race, the Democrats would still have about 58 Senate seats. If we'd had a single leadership who gave us Marco Rubios, Rand Pauls, and Scott Browns where necessary, we'd probably control the Senate, but you probably wouldn't be happy with our senators.

    I'd love to see this country move in a conservative direction, but your "strategies" are not going to get us there.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/19/2012 11:39:29 PM PDT · 81 of 81
    WFTR to Theodore R.
    I think there is some truth in this claim, but there are also Mormon-friendly states like AZ, NV, ID, WY, and possibly IL and to a lesser extent OR, HI, NM, MT, CO, and CA.

    The LDS issue cuts several ways.

    I recently heard a pollster/commentator saying that about 26% of Democrats would never vote for a Mormon. I would guess that most of these are hard-core liberals who hate the Mormons because they support socially conservative positions on issues like homosexuality. These people are unlikely to vote for any Republican candidate, so they don't change much either in the primaries or in the general election. A few of them may be voting in GOP primaries for Rick Santorum in order to stick the GOP with a weaker candidate, but their influence is small.

    The same commentator said that about 18% of Republicans say that they will never vote for a Mormon. Many of these are regular voters, and if they follow through on this assertion, their actions could have some impact. How big their impact and in which election remains to be seen.

    So far, they aren't having a huge impact in the primaries. They have probably been the difference in Missouri, Colorado, and the southern states. I'm torn between amusement and disgust to see fundamentalists who call Roman Catholics "Mary worshipers" suddenly flock to Rick Santorum in an effort to derail Mitt Romney. Apparently, the LDS faith is below Catholicism in the hierarchy of religious bigotry. Even so, their influence alone will probably not be able to prevent Mitt Romney from winning the nomination prior to the convention.

    In the general election, Republicans who refuse to support a Mormon may or may not give the election to Obama. As you mentioned, Mr. Romney's LDS faith may help him in a few states. Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana shouldn't really be swing states, and any GOP candidate should win. If Mr. Romney gets a little higher or little lower percentage because of religious identification, the result will be the same. Arizona is another state that should be safely Republican, but if Mr. Romney's faith will help matters, I'm glad for the help. Nevada is a swing state even though the state has only three electoral votes. Getting back those votes is important. In addition to help from LDS voters, Mr. Romney should do well because he has campaigned there frequently for the past two or three years. I can't see Illinois, Hawaii, or California being swing states under any conditions, so the issue is moot there. Oregon and New Mexico are states where Obama may have some vulnerability. In both states, his approval has been around 45% for a while. If his approval stays low, Mr. Romney runs a good campaign, and LDS voters turn out more heavily for him this time, maybe we can swing one of those states. Colorado is another important swing state. Mr. Romney has campaigned there quite a bit, and I'd be thrilled if a strong LDS turnout helped him. The problem in Colorado is that the big evangelical businesses around Colorado Springs may have some of those Republicans who refuse to vote for a Mormon. If they fumble Colorado for us, the GOP will have a hard time winning. I worry somewhat about North Carolina and Virginia. These are important swing states, and some fundamentalists in these states may refuse to vote for Mr. Romney. If they fumble the election in those states, we'll have a hard time replacing those electoral votes.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/19/2012 11:14:38 PM PDT · 80 of 81
    WFTR to Optimus Maximus

    We’re not going to agree on this issue, and with our primary coming up this weekend, I need to spend more time on GOTV efforts for Mr. Romney. I appreciate that you made your arguments respectfully. We still disagree on the relative merits of these candidates, but that’s how things happen sometimes.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 10:40:11 PM PDT · 69 of 81
    WFTR to conservativejoy
    I’m not convinced that being a CEO translates, necessarily, to the Presidency.

    I don't believe that the translation is perfect either. The job that most resembles the presidency is being the governor of a state. We're down to only one GOP candidate who has been a governor. If Newt Gingrich had run for governor of Georgia and had even one successful term, the race would have been completely different.

    Mr. Romney has the executive experience in business, as CEO of the Olympics, and as governor of Massachusetts. He has been successful in all three. Those successes show that he's most qualified for the basic duties of being president. Obviously, you don't like him on ideological or maybe religious grounds, but he has shown that he understands the job better than any other candidate does.

    The accusation of being "vicious" and "without regard for the truth" is just more mudslinging. His opponents have attacked him viciously and inaccurately. Maybe you don't see that because you believe all of the accusations against him and won't see any of the flaws in other candidates. I think they all have flaws and at times have hit one another harder than I would have liked.

    I also wish that you shared my view of Mr. Romney. I wouldn't care whether you preferred another candidate as long as you let go the ridiculous anti-Romney lies that so many are trying to spread. I don't like Rick Santorum, but with a good GOP Congress behind him, he wouldn't be that bad a president. I like Newt Gingrich, but I don't think he has the right stuff to be president. I don't look at either of them with the blind hatred that so many feel towards Mr. Romney.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 10:27:54 PM PDT · 68 of 81
    WFTR to Optimus Maximus
    Really? Name one of those “good things” that was not proposed in the Contract with America, a Gringrich design, and was not pushed through by the majorities Gingrich was responsible for getting elected.

    You took one line from my post out of context and have created a straw man argument. I clearly said that Newt Gingrich deserved a great deal of credit, but he's claiming more than he deserves.

    Welfare reform had huge popular support. If I remember correctly, welfare reform had about 80% popular support. While this legislation was good, pushing through a bill with 80% support should not be that hard to do. In the mood of the country at that time, refusing welfare reform was considered the one thing that Democrats could have done to repeat their losses of 1994.

    Dr. Gingrich also claims credit for balancing the budget. He should receive credit for creating the GOP majority that made balancing the budget possible, but his handling of the whole process as speaker was not that strong. He lost the shutdown battles and had to give in to Clinton. Much of the spending cuts at that time came from cutting the military. He did some good things, but for him to claim that he engineered everything good that happened in the mid-90's is untrue.

    On the other side, can you cite ONE conservative advance proposed and supported by Romney?

    As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney looked at student performance as a function of class size and found that the popular idea of smaller classes producing better performance is false. The teachers' unions wanted to tie all education improvements to more government spending and spending on initiatives that would lead to more teaching jobs and union dues instead of better student performance. That kind of focus on finding the real issues and working on them to reduce spending or get better benefit per dollar spent is what I consider a conservative step forward.

    Mitt Romney faced an 85% Democrat legislature in Massachusetts. He wasn't in a position to propose major conservative reforms, particularly on social issues. He made the best of the situation that he was given and made small but real progress in some areas. For instance, he changed the procedures for gun owners to receive their licenses in a way that benefited the gun owners. I would prefer that the Second Amendment be our only license, but that wasn't going to happen in Massachusetts. I admire someone who can stand against the odds and accomplish anything as much as I admire someone who coasts on the currents and makes pretty speeches. Many of our so-called conservatives today have spend much of their careers coasting on the currents.

    As I said previously, he was “Palinized” before Palin made a splash on the national scene.

    When I referred to Newt Gingrich being forced from leadership by his own bad character, I was not referring to the ethics charges. His own affair with Callista became public in the run-up to the 1998 election. That affair in light of the steps taken against Bill Clinton gave the Democrats another talking point and another chance to distract people from the issues. That distraction is part of why the GOP lost seats that year. His problems were not just with Democrats. Many Republican House members wanted him to step aside as Speaker because he made too many issues about him and created more distractions. Newt Gingrich has never shown that he has the right stuff to be in charge of anything.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:43:45 PM PDT · 56 of 81
    WFTR to hinckley buzzard

    Grow up loser.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:42:26 PM PDT · 55 of 81
    WFTR to conservativejoy
    I'm supporting Mitt Romney. I like the idea of having a candidate with real executive experience. I like having a candidate with real experience outside of government and government consulting. None of them is a conservative purist, and if I can't have purity, I'd like competence.

    The man who would have been the obvious choice to have the GOP nomination in 2012 was Mark Sanford, former governor of South Carolina. His affair ended his chances at higher office (although somehow Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs haven't ended his chances). Mark Sanford would have given us executive experience, business experience, legislative experience and would have avoided the Mormon religion issues that are the real reason that many people hate Mitt Romney. If he had not had that affair, I might have supported him from the beginning. Either way, he'd be close to 700 delegates now and we wouldn't be having this argument.

    A weaker choice would have been George Allen of Virginia. His background isn't as strong as some others, but he has executive experience as governor of Virginia. If he hadn't used a racial slur against a member of Jim Webb's staff, maybe he could have pulled out the win in 2006. In that case, he might have been a viable candidate this year.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:34:09 PM PDT · 54 of 81
    WFTR to Optimus Maximus
    While I disagree with your assertions, I appreciate that you stated your views intelligently. Thank you for that.

    Newt Gingrich should receive credit for putting together the conservative revolution of 1994. He did many things well in Congress, and he showed himself to be an effective legislator. He has many years of faithful party service, and that service has earned him the support of many party stalwarts.

    On the other hand, he shouldn't get as much credit for some of the accomplishments as some give him. Welfare reform began to gain support in the late 80's and was supported by a huge majority of the voters in 1995. The balanced budgets of the 1990's came largely from Bill Clinton's deep cuts in the military, the so-called "peace dividend." The late 90's were also a time of increased revenue from the internet explosion. Some good things happened during that time, but Newt Gingrich doesn't deserve as much credit as he sometimes claims.

    Against those successes are some failures. Many people in Congress during that time were not happy with his leadership. He was good at creating the revolution. He was no so good at keeping things running smoothly as leader. Unlike Sarah Palin who was forced out of office by false accusations, Newt Gingrich was forced from his leadership position by his own bad character.

    Newt Gingrich is a good man and an intelligent man, but he's not the purist conservative that many try to claim. He was an early proponent of individual mandates at the federal level. To me, the individual mandate is the least destructive part of Obamacare, but to claim that Newt Gingrich is so far above and removed from mandates and other policies that we dislike is false. He has supported cap and trade. He chases after a million ideas and some of those ideas end up being bigger government ideas.

    He hasn't run his campaign that well, and running a campaign is one way to demonstrate the executive skills that would make a good president. He's had ballot access problems. The vacation immediately after making his announcement was ill-timed. If he'd started focusing on ballot access and other issues at that time, maybe he'd be doing better now. Certainly, he's have appeared to be a more serious candidate.

    I don't dislike Newt Gingrich, but I can't see him being a particularly effective president.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:13:43 PM PDT · 53 of 81
    WFTR to Kolath

    You and AK267 are both deluded. Your inability to do anything beyond throwing insults and whining out your own talking points is evidence that you really don’t have anything important or intelligent to say.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:10:57 PM PDT · 52 of 81
    WFTR to ak267
    You really come across as pathetic when you miss all of the points of my post and then attack my intelligence.

    I know very well that Lisa Murkowski is an influential politician in Alaska and ran as an independent. My point was that Sarah Palin's influence in Alaska is weak. If her influence had been that strong, she could have swung those Republicans and independents to Joe Miller. If her influence were that strong, she could have swung the Alaska caucuses to Newt Gingrich. Instead, her candidate finished last by almost a double-digit margin.

    As I said in a previous post to a more reasonable poster, Ronald Reagan had two successful terms as governor of California. Two full and successful terms as governor of our largest state means that he can sustain some hits without being damaged goods. An incomplete first term means that Sarah Palin doesn't have the same staying power. The characterizations of her may be inaccurate and unfair, but they stick to her more strongly than anything stuck to Ronald Reagan and they cannot be dismissed as easily.

    By the way, I'm speaking from a rational perspective. You are the one deluded by irrational hatred. Maybe you need to get a tinfoil hat that is a size larger and get some more circulation to your brain.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:01:06 PM PDT · 50 of 81
    WFTR to adc

    Thanks!

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 1:00:42 PM PDT · 49 of 81
    WFTR to NavVet

    The big difference I see between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin is that he had two successful terms as California governor. In one sense, I don’t blame Sarah Palin for resigning as governor of Alaska. The way the rules in Alaska are written, trying to stay in office would have ruined her family’s financial future in defending against the baseless charges that the left made. On the other hand, justification for her decision doesn’t change the fact that she had only two years as governor. As ugly as things were in the 60’s, Ronald Reagan governed California in a better time, and he took less damage than Sarah Palin did. By 1980, he was an older and more accomplished candidate. Sarah Palin won’t be able to boast the same resume this year.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 5:45:53 AM PDT · 30 of 81
    WFTR to Cincinatus' Wife
    The videos are out there in Newt Gingrich's own words. The fact remains that Newt Gingrich wasn't the perfect Reaganite that some of his supporters like to claim. Sarah Palin's denials are part of why she is a joke. That part she deserves. For that matter, Ronald Reagan wasn't the perfect Reaganite that many of today's "conservatives" would like to pretend that he was.

    Newt Gingrich is part of the establishment. That's his history. That's who he is. Being part of the establishment isn't always horrible. He had to work across all parts of the party to accomplish anything, particularly the 1994 election victories. As a lobbyist for the past ten years, he's had to work with all sorts of groups that are in power. (Claiming that he's a historian/consultant doesn't change the fact that he's essentially been a lobbyist. Either way, he's an insider.) He may be the choice of some people who rage against Mitt Romney because they are blinded by vanity, but they don't represent most of his support. Many of his people will go with the plurality winner rather than see the GOP dragged through dozens of ballots at the convention.

  • (Vanity) Conservatives,What Ticket Will Seal The Deal For Romney? Romney/McDonnell or Romney/Ryan ?

    03/18/2012 4:52:13 AM PDT · 36 of 48
    WFTR to Liberals_R_BiPolar_Turkeys
    Bob McDonnell would be a good choice for Mitt Romney's running mate. He could probably deliver Virginia, and he has real executive experience already. He was in the Army for four years and worked for a few years with one of the hospital corporations. That experience will give him credibility on health care issues. He was born in Pennsylvania, so he might even draw a few votes there.

    Another strong possibility would be Jim Talent of Missouri. While he doesn't have executive experience in elected office, he's a long-time conservative favored by right-to-life and other conservative groups. Missouri is still a traditional battleground state even though the GOP has won this state for the past several elections. His weakness is that he has almost no private sector experience.

    Bill Owens of Colorado is another possibility. He has executive experience in government as a two-term governor of Colorado. He spent a few years in the oil and gas business in Colorado. After the Columbine shooting, he resisted huge increases in gun laws. He has been on the Romney team for quite a while. Colorado is one of the states that the GOP needs to win in order to win the presidency. If he could deliver Colorado, his presence on the ticket would help a great deal.

    Tim Pawlenty is a longshot possibility. In his run last year, he didn't connect well with the voters, and that lack of connection is not a good sign. However, he had built strong campaigns in Florida and Ohio. He has one of the best pro-life records of anyone in politics, and if people are willing to accept a pro-lifer who is nice and not nasty, his record should reassure those voters. He has good executive experience as a cost-cutting governor. He probably couldn't swing Minnesota into the GOP column, and the inability to swing any particular state might keep him off the ticket.

  • Divided GOP may have to throw away the convention script

    03/18/2012 4:31:26 AM PDT · 22 of 81
    WFTR to NavVet
    You've made the only sane comment on this thread so far. Newt Gingrich has had his chance with the voters, and the voters have not picked him. He is unlikely to win another state, and he will not be able to position himself as the consensus candidate.

    Newt Gingrich supported Rockefeller against Goldwater in 1964. He really wasn't a Reaganite in 1980. Many of his delegates and supporters are going to be old line party people who are supporting him because of his years of party service. I realize that none of his foaming at the mouth supporters can accept this fact because they think the whole world revolves around their little echo chambers online, but much of Dr. Gingrich's support will be made of people who would rather accept someone like Mitt Romney who has has been through the primary process than to have an ugly fight at the convention in order to satisfy the mindless screamers.

    The other factor will be whether the Ron Paul delegates are the kind that we find on forums spouting irrational rhetoric or whether they will be more experienced political activists who know when to accept a compromise in order to prepare for the general election. If a good number of Ron Paul's delegates are activists who put the country ahead of their vanity, they will support other candidates when they realize that Dr. Paul cannot win the nomination.

    If we have a brokered convention, we may find that about half of the Newt Gingrich and half of the Ron Paul delegates are willing to support Mitt Romney in order to avoid a long fight that accomplishes nothing beyond further dividing the party. The Missouri caucuses showed that Ron Paul's people are willing to cooperate with Mitt Romney's people. Newt Gingrich may ask for some reward, but he's not likely to watch the convention go through dozens of ballots that only make the party look schizophrenic.

    Finally, Sarah Palin is not going to be on the ticket. In many ways, I like her, but she's become damaged goods politically. She couldn't deliver Alaska for Joe Miller in 2010 or Newt Gingrich a few weeks ago. To most Americans, she's a joke. That perception is unfair, but crying that the perception is unfair won't change the perception.

  • Delegate Math (Romney EASILY wins 3 man race by Splitting South – Mathematical Proof)

    03/10/2012 5:14:09 PM PST · 40 of 45
    WFTR to parksstp
    Most of Mr. Romney's core supporters don't cite electability as their top reason for supporting Mr. Romney. Most wouldn't even put electability in the top three reasons. Exit polls may show many people voting for him for that reason because too many people can't think of another answer to give the pollster, but even that reason isn't that strong in this case. The media has been running dozens of stories about how Mitt Romney can't win. If electability is such a huge factor, the only reason is that the other candidates are so pathetically unelectable.

    Almost all credible candidates have some kind of "establishment" background. Rick Santorum's years of earmarking and supporting the "compassionate conservatism" of the GW Bush years make him a strong defender of the "establishment." Newt Gingrich's long time ties to the Heritage Foundation and other think tanks, his years of lobbying, and his high fees on the lecture circuit all point to "establishment" connections. Rick Perry's crony capitalism is another example of "establishment" background. Herman Cain's establishment background wasn't as clear, but anyone who has been a CEO of a huge company has some establishment connection. His lack of experience in elected office made him seem less of an "establishment" candidate, but that lack of experience also made him a less credible candidate. Michele Bachmann wasn't establishment, but she didn't have executive experience either. Sarah Palin lost her claim to be outside the establishment when she endorsed John McCain in the Arizona GOP primary last time. I understand her feeling gratitude towards Mr. McCain, but endorsing him was clearly an "establishment" action.

    If voters were only voting for a candidate and not against another candidate, Mitt Romney would already be the nominee. Rick Santorum's base load of support is only about 2%. When GOP voters had a wide selection of candidates, only 2% of them wanted Rick Santorum to be president. He's a factor now because so many people insist on voting against Mitt Romney.

  • The macabre concept of a 'euthanasia roller coaster' that thrills you... then kills you

    03/10/2012 11:29:33 AM PST · 41 of 57
    WFTR to Para-Ord.45

    This almost has to be a parody of some kind.

  • Delegate Math (Romney EASILY wins 3 man race by Splitting South – Mathematical Proof)

    03/10/2012 11:15:04 AM PST · 25 of 45
    WFTR to parksstp
    I agree with those who question your assumption that all of the Gingrich and Santorum supporters would switch to the other.

    Newt Gingrich is getting some support from the anyone-but-Romney crowd, but he also gets support from people who liked the fact that he's an idea man and is known for his intelligence. Rick Santorum is not known as an idea man or as being particularly intelligent. Many of these core Gingrich supporters would switch to Mitt Romney rather than see the GOP under the power of a religious authoritarian.

    Some of those supporting Rick Santorum may be looking for a candidate who demonstrates family values in how he lives his life or be looking for a non-Southern Republican to keep the party from becoming a marginalized regional party at the presidential level. Many of these people would rather switch to Mitt Romney than to Newt Gingrich.

    Mitt Romney's strong showing in the South is evidence that he isn't a weak candidate there. Those who hold a zealous, irrational hatred for Mitt Romney are overrepresented on the internet because they congregate on certain websites and rant to one another about how much they hate Mitt Romney. Outside of these small groups, the hatred isn't that prevalent in the voters.

  • Paterno Speaks, But We Still Lack Answers

    01/18/2012 5:19:54 AM PST · 43 of 43
    WFTR to BlueMondaySkipper

    No, I’m simply smart enough and independent-minded enough not to join in witch hunts. You are a herd animal. The herd walks in one direction, and you follow. The herd bellows for something, and you open your mouth and bellow. If you find yourself falsely accused someday, you may come to regret that so many people are herd animals. If you ever ruin someone’s life over false accusations, I’d wish that you had the conscience to feel guilt, but I’m guessing that you don’t. As long as the herd approved at the time, you probably feel justified.

  • Paterno Speaks, But We Still Lack Answers

    01/17/2012 4:48:35 AM PST · 40 of 43
    WFTR to BlueMondaySkipper
    We live in a society that values "privacy." If we report some kind violation of policy in most of our workplaces, we are not told what action is eventually taken. The rationale is that the disciplinary action is between the company and the employee receiving discipline. I don't fully agree with that policy or the rationale behind that policy, but I have to abide by the policy. To ask those in authority to give me an update would be a violation of policy on my part.

    If the university investigated and decided that Mike McQueary was mistaken in what he saw, then nothing would have happened. Knowing what we do today, we have every reason to believe that Mike McQueary saw what he claims, but Joe Paterno wouldn't have known that at the time. If he saw Sandusky still using the facilities, he would have assumed that the accusation turned out to be wrong. If the investigation turned up that McQueary had lied about the whole thing, then the only disciplinary action may have been against McQueary and again, no one would have told Joe Paterno.

    Until last fall, Second Mile was a respected charity in Pennsylvania. The university would have wanted to work with a respected charity that was doing good things for disadvantaged kids. If McQueary's story was so full of holes that they still didn't suspect Sandusky, then they wouldn't want to dump a respected charity on the basis of what seemed at the time to be a flimsy rumor.

    No, I don't think Joe Paterno had the power to kick anyone off the campus. Why would any school give that power to a football coach? Even if Joe Paterno had the prestige to bend the rules and have things done the way he wanted, his history shows that he wasn't the type of guy who always wanted to bend the rules to exercise personal power. He had hearsay testimony about something that happened. He never pretended to be a criminal investigator. He turned over the information to those who were supposed to be qualified to investigate.

    The story that Mike McQueary brought to Joe Paterno was weaker than the accusations that Anita Hill made against Clarence Thomas. We've now learned things that suggested that McQueary may have been right while most of us believe Hill was lying, but at the time, Joe Paterno had no way to know these things. Do you go on crusades against individuals based on such poor evidence? I don't.

  • Vetting Newt too

    01/16/2012 8:18:41 AM PST · 13 of 25
    WFTR to plsjr

    Dr. Gingrich isn’t a bad guy, but he’s not the hyper-conservative that many Freepers want to pretend that he is. He’s no more conservative than Mitt Romney, but both of them are conservative enough to be good presidents. Of the two, I believe that Mr. Romney would be more effective. Newt Gingrich has problems leading teams for any length of time.

  • Paterno Speaks, But We Still Lack Answers

    01/15/2012 8:22:34 AM PST · 25 of 43
    WFTR to Scoutmaster
    I once witnessed something a bit similar in a shower. I was taking a shower in the dorms when I heard the door kicked open. I heard footfalls on the floor that sounded as if people were struggling. I was washing my hair and tried to rinse soap away from my eyes. I couldn't see much of the bathroom from the shower area, but when I stood against one wall and looked through the small angle at the opening to the shower area, I saw a guy standing behind a girl with his arm across her throat. I could swear that I heard her rasping out the word "rape."

    I yelled, and he let her go. I heard footsteps going towards the door and the door slam open. I imagined and maybe even heard the first step or two of her running down the hallway.

    I finished rinsing my hair because if I had any trouble, I didn't want soap running into my eyes. At that time, I had more hair and rinsing took a few moments. I went to the edge of the shower area and looked out. One of the dorm floor jerks was standing smugly at the urinals relieving himself. I could tell by his posture and body language that he was all proud of himself for having bullied a girl.

    That kind of stuff isn't all that uncommon in dorms. Frequency doesn't make that behavior right, but no one can stop that stuff. Idiots will be idiots, and too many stupid coeds will hang out with idiots. As I thought about whether to make a report, I realized that nothing would happen to the guy. I could hear a defense attorney asking, "So, the angle of your view meant that you could only see a slice of their bodies about four inches wide? You admit that you had to wipe shampoo out of your eyes to see at all? Would you say that the hard tiles of the shower room create many echoes and a great deal of noise from the running water? Would someone have had time to leave the bathroom and someone else go to the urinals while you were rinsing your hair?" I realized that making an issue of what I had seen was pointless.

    That experience makes me wonder many things about Mike McQueary and what he saw or didn't see. He had the advantage of not having shampoo in his eyes, but what did he really see? Did he dimly see figures moving in a steamy shower and just make assumptions about what was happening or did he really see a rape? He has said since that time that he made sure that contact was stopped before leaving the room, but if he really saw a rape, why didn't he remove the victim from the presence of the rapist? I was not in a position to be sure of who was involved with what I saw. He could have been sure if he'd acted. The victim I saw was a legal adult and bears at least some responsibility for her company. I'm sure the guy would have argued that they were just joking. If there was anal sex in the shower at Penn State, no one can argue that anyone was just joking, and the victim's being a minor means that he wasn't responsible for hanging out with idiots.

    Because Mike McQueary's story has so many problems, I can understand Joe Paterno not pushing things farther than he did. I can understand turning the investigation over to the university and assuming when no action was taken that they found too many inconsistencies in that story to believe that McQueary really saw anything. In spite of what everyone says about Joe Paterno's power, I can see him as a guy who didn't exercise that power but tried to keep things within proper channels. I can believe that he trusted those channels to do the right thing and is primarily guilty of misplacing his trust. We live in a society where "privacy" dictates that all kinds of things not be disclosed. If Joe Paterno didn't hear back, I can see him thinking that he wasn't told because he wasn't supposed to hear the outcome.

  • In Fox forum in SC, Gingrich says Obama will attack Romney’s Bain record if GOP doesn’t vet it

    01/15/2012 4:35:04 AM PST · 20 of 56
    WFTR to Utmost Certainty

    I know what I’m talking about. You are just desperately grasping for any straw to save Newt Gingrich’s dying campaign.

  • MRC: Best showing yet for Gov Rick Perry in the Huckabee Formun GOP debate.

    01/15/2012 4:33:18 AM PST · 22 of 52
    WFTR to Cincinatus' Wife
    We need to work on your passive-aggressive posting style. LoL You sound like the MSM -- every Perry article begins with at least 2 paragraphs recounting his early debates and discounting him before moving on to make some remark about the campaign.

    Well, the first thing that went through my mind was to say, "Yes, Governor Perry did a very nice job of arranging those deck chairs on his Titanic campaign." Maybe I should have just gone with that response. I could have gone even further and noted that he didn't forget the third chair in any three chair arrangement of those deck chairs and didn't confuse the Interior chair with Education chair. I had thought that avoiding direct attacks after he had a good showing would be a nicer thing to do. I guess I was wrong.

    The fact remains that Rick Perry showed early in the campaign that he doesn't have the right stuff for any higher office. He's better than Obama, but he has almost no chance of beating Obama. A guy who received 1% of the vote in New Hampshire, a state that has a chance of being a swing state, is a guy who will be very weak in the general election. He's really not that conservative, but his personality and accomplishments do not inspire confidence in swing voters. If our economy becomes significantly worse between now and November, he might have a chance. Otherwise, a general election campaign with Governor Perry would just give a few conservatives a chance to lose with their favorite.

    Rick Perry had a good night. I'm happy for him. I hope the voters of South Carolina don't mistake one good night for being a good candidate.

    Feel better?

  • In Fox forum in SC, Gingrich says Obama will attack Romney’s Bain record if GOP doesn’t vet it

    01/15/2012 4:14:40 AM PST · 15 of 56
    WFTR to Darkwolf377
    Newt can claim to be doing a service all he wants, he’s still innoculating the press and Obama, not Romney. I can just hear Anderson Cooper or some other twit saying “Newt Gingrich has criticized your predatory financial dealings, and Rick Perry has called your methods ‘vulture’ capitalism, how can you stand there and claim that government shouldn’t regulate these things when even the most conservative of Republicans is critical of your past dealings?”

    I don't think that Newt Gingrich is trying to do any good for Mr. Romney. I'm sure he's trying to torpedo the Romney campaign. However, his "King of Bain" nonsense is pathetically stupid. I'm hoping that if "King of Bain" becomes a joke, we can make every anti-market attack into a joke just be referring to "King of Bain" advertising. I am worried that the situation will be exactly what you describe.

  • Seeking to Muddy Waters on Layoffs, Conservative Group Unleashing $6 Million Ad Campaign

    01/15/2012 4:09:30 AM PST · 13 of 24
    WFTR to Nachum

    I’m glad to see AFP taking the fight to Obama right now. I wish more of the Super-PACs would do the same.

  • Mitt Romney's Rivals Don't Have Time On Their Side [Reality Check for Romney Challengers!]

    01/15/2012 4:05:56 AM PST · 36 of 65
    WFTR to Steelfish
    The most ironic point about this article is that the GOP set up the process this year to put time on every candidate's side. By penalizing states that voted too early and insisting that all states voting in March allot delegates proportionally, the GOP created a system that gave every candidate plenty of time. While the loss of Virginia hurts Mr. Romney's challengers, the field is still relatively open for anyone who can maintain the money and organization to take the campaign into March.

    The problem with this set of challengers is that none of them except Mitt Romney and Ron Paul built the organization that could take a campaign through March. Their failure to plan ahead and build a team that could do these things is why each of these candidates has shown himself to be a poor choice for president.

    Newt Gingrich has had a national organization for over ten years. He has had supporters in every state. If he had gotten those supporters organized and gathered volunteers to begin the ballot access process in the spring, he'd be ready with a 50 state campaign. In the spring of last year, he was still in double digits in many polls. If he'd announced then and started raising money to pay a staff in almost every state, he'd be ready to be a 50 state contender.

    Rick Perry came to the campaign late, but the initial burst of enthusiasm could have been used to put together an organization and do the things necessary to win a 50 state campaign. Instead, he seemed to bask in his good poll numbers and keep saying "Texas" in every sentence. The time that he lost then is time that can't be recovered. Maybe he got more enthusiasm from people who like to posture rather than roll up their sleeves and do the dirty work. In that case, I'm not surprised that he failed to put together the needed campaign.

    Rick Santorum came with a disadvantage. He never had the money or the poll numbers to build a big organization in every state. He's the only candidate who really has an excuse. He'll have some ballot access problems, but if his people can do all of these things in February, he could still make this a race in March. He probably won't win many states, but with proportional allotment, he could win enough delegates to have a chance in April.

    Jon Huntsman can't be entirely blamed for not putting together his organization. He was serving in China until late in the spring. Supposedly, he had a group of people putting together a formidable organization for him. I guess they weren't putting together such a great organization after all.

  • Bachmann wants pro-Gingrich radio ad featuring her to come down

    01/15/2012 3:40:45 AM PST · 8 of 17
    WFTR to Mozilla

    If she comes forward with a press conference saying that while she’s not endorsing anyone, she’s specifically not endorsing Newt Gingrich, his campaign will take a big hit. His patronizing attitude towards her in the last debates before Iowa obviously offended her, and he’d be wise to treat her with more respect. His attacks on investment companies make him look more and more like the guy who sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi no matter how many times he claims to be the guy who worked with Ronald Reagan.

  • In Fox forum in SC, Gingrich says Obama will attack Romney’s Bain record if GOP doesn’t vet it

    01/15/2012 3:27:24 AM PST · 11 of 56
    WFTR to Mozilla

    By making his attacks against Mr. Romney as pathetically stupid as what the liberals will do, Newt Gingrich is starting the process of inoculating Mitt Romney against those attacks. The most effective way to make money from a troubled company is to buy the company at a low price and run the company more effectively. If the company can’t be saved that way, then selling off the parts and using the capital raised on the next prospect is the best next option. I’m not surprised that Democrats are ignorant of these facts, but I’m frustrated to see so many Republicans believing the anti-business nonsense.

  • MRC: Best showing yet for Gov Rick Perry in the Huckabee Formun GOP debate.

    01/15/2012 3:10:29 AM PST · 15 of 52
    WFTR to Cincinatus' Wife

    I still have differences with Rick Perry, but he did well tonight. He didn’t have any gaffes, and no one asked him problematic questions.

  • Gingrich and Santorum Vie to Be the Conservative of Choice [Defeat Romney? One Must Drop Out!]

    01/14/2012 10:04:15 AM PST · 86 of 115
    WFTR to ez
    Newt has clearly been rising since he went to "angry elf mode." Ask yourself why. People are looking for a fighter to take it to Obama. Rick and Rick have a better chance? That's just embarrassing.

    LOL That's a delusion. His movement in the polls has been within margin of error. He's shown that he's not the wise elder statesman who has grown since the 90's. America has had three years of someone who has been a professor and a legislator. We're ready for a leader.