Can Romney Win the GOP Nomination?

He's doing his best to lose it.


Republican candidates for president have been busy for weeks now, laboring strenuously to give the 2012 nomination to Mitt Romney. And he keeps trying to give it back.

The former Massachusetts governor could walk to next year's GOP convention without touching the ground, treading exclusively on the bodies of rivals who have fallen on their faces. He's the equivalent of the Alabama Crimson Tide, playing a schedule heavy on Southeastern Louisiana and Middle Tennessee State.

He should be running up the score every week. Instead, he keeps finding ways to keep his opponents in the game.

Look at the opposition. Rick Perry has proved so inept in the debates that he may bail out of some. Herman Cain can't understand the meaning of "pro-life" or his own tax plan. Michele Bachmann enjoyed a burst of popularity that evaporated when voters got to know her.

Newt Gingrich never enjoyed a burst of popularity and never will. Jon Huntsman might, but only if he runs in the Democratic primaries. Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are proving that ideological purity is incompatible with political success. It's the Seven Dwarves in search of Snow White.

This campaign was custom-designed for Romney. Having run before, he had presumptive credibility. Some possibly formidable contenders—Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence—chose to sit this race out.

Romney possesses other assets. He has a record of achievement in both the public and private sectors. He's fully acquainted with substantive issues. He's familiar to Republican voters from his race against John McCain four years ago.

He's turned out to be the best debater, thanks to a facility with the spoken word that is not universal in the field. He shows a talent for repelling attacks while keeping a smile on his face.

He brings in more cash than a casino on payday. He makes Mormonism as threatening as Fig Newtons. He looks like a million bucks.

True, he has been guilty of occasional deviations from orthodox Republican theology, but so were McCain (the 2008 nominee) and Bob Dole (1996). His heresies on gay rights, abortion, and gun control required extensive displays of penance, which he performed the last time out.

Besides, the GOP actually tends to nominate candidates closer to the party's center than its right edge. George W. Bush, remember, ran as a "compassionate conservative," to distinguish himself from the other kind.

Romney has also come up with an unpersuasive but not intolerable excuse for his health care reform plan, which is that it's suitable for Massachusetts and Massachusetts alone. This story is not enough to please Republicans, but it should serve to appease them.

Romney does not aspire to be the fellow at the party who enchants the girls with his dance moves and charm. He's more like the guy they settle on once all the other guys have passed out drunk, gotten distracted by a ball game, or come on way too strong. He's not thrilling, but he's not a disaster.

It would help, though, if he could stop committing inexplicable mistakes. Weeks ago, he praised an Ohio ballot initiative to curb the collective bargaining rights of government employees. Then on Wednesday, on a trip to Cincinnati, he declined to take a position. Then, after taking fire, he endorsed it.

All Romney achieved was to remind everyone of his uncanny resemblance to a windsock. In The New York Review of Books, Christopher Benfey writes that when he asks Bay Staters about him, "I get a recurring response: Nixonian." They see him as slippery, smarmy, and void of principles.

Is that enough for him to lose the nomination? Maybe not. He's trailing Cain among Republican voters in the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, but in a CNN/Time/ORC survey, he leads everyone in the four states that will vote first. Republicans are aflame with the idea of defeating Obama, and Romney may be the only candidate who could do that.

A Democratic insider told National Journal, "He can talk and chew gum at the same time, which puts him way ahead of the other candidates." One anonymous GOP bigwig added, "Republicans are beginning to realize that this is a choice between Romney and the unelectable."

If it hurts to be called Nixonian, Romney has this consolation: Nixon won.


NEXT: Bad Company

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It doesn’t matter what the voters think. The one to get the nomination this time around is the one the sinister GOP puppet masters choose. No one wanted McCain last time around but there we was all of the sudden, because it was decided it was his turn. If they want it to be Santorum this time around, somehow he will end up with the nod.

    And that’s my conspiracy theory. (But it will be Romney.)

    1. I used to laugh at such conspiracy theories. But after seeing the way the dinosaur media has been treating Ron Paul and Gary Johnson this year I am not so sure there are not some shenanigans actually going on.

      GOP voters have either through their own votes or the shenanigans of their leaders been nominating ever more statist candidates for the POTUS every four year cycle of my lifetime.

      This is either conspiracy or immense collective stupidity or a combination of both.

      I hope this year is different.

      1. This year is different.

        And Jesus is coming back too.

        1. There is one reason it may be different – technology. The dinosaur media has even less credibility than it did four years ago and even more people have access to the Internet – this provides alternative sources of news.

          I remember about ten years ago Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk show hosts pointed out the profound impact of Fox News existing as competition to CNN and MSNBC. They had a point, it did have a profound impact. Now all three – including Fox have thousands of web sites and YouTube videos and blogs and podcasts to compete with. Anyone with a smartphone can watch these videos. And perhaps even more significantly – anyone with a smartphone can be an amateur reporter capturing news as it happens and uploading it to the Internet that same day. The impact of all of these is even more profound.

          1. Technology?

            Black Box Voting is the ACE.

            It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes. ~Stalin

            How’s that techno-triumphalism working?

            P.S. Technology always helps the hierarchical elite the most. Everybody else is playing catch-up so as to not be totally crushed.

            1. “Black Box Voting is the ACE.”

              You seem to be assuming that “democracy” is my long term end goal. It is not – my end goal is liberty.

              “Technology always helps the hierarchical elite the most. Everybody else is playing catch-up so as to not be totally crushed.”

              Tell that to the rebels who used Twitter to coardinate sucessful rebelions in Tunisia and elsewhere in recent history. Tell that to those who have used cell phones to record police abuse. Tell that to the Anti-Communist leaders behind the Iron Curtain who used (what was then) high technology to spread Tamizdat literature and subversive Rock music. Tell that to the Iranians and the Chinese who use the Internet to learn about the outside world in a way their leaders do not want them to. Tell that to the North Koreans who use cell phones who speak to relatives in South Korea by connecting to wireless providers in China.

        2. He left?

      2. This is either conspiracy or immense collective stupidity

        I used to think the former, but now I go with the latter.

        The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of really stupid people out there, and many of them vote.

        1. “The unfortunate truth is that there are a lot of really stupid people out there, and many of them vote.”

          This is the main problem with “democracy” in a nutshell.

          1. I believe those who favor “democracy” fall into two groups.

            There are the stupids who lack the brain power to understand the problems with mob rule.

            Then there are the intelligent manipulators who take advantage of the stupids.

            Unfortunately when you add those two groups together you get a majority.

            1. I believe those who favor capitalism fall into two groups.

              There are the useful idiots who lack the brain power to understand the problems with government for me, but not for thee.

              Then there are the intelligent manipulators who take advantage of defending the status quo of government for me, but not for thee.

              Unfortunately when you add those two groups together you get a majority of Republicans and Democrats.

              1. I believe those who oppose capitalism fall into three groups.

                Those who do not understand what it actually is.

                Those who benefit from the status quo (which is NOT capitalism).

                Those who would benefit if a different non-capitalist system would be put in place.

              2. W.I must be pleased as punch that he came up with a catchy little diddy that doesn’t make any sense.

            2. I agree. The “useful idiots” and the political elites.

              1. “I agree. The “useful idiots” and the political elites.”

                This was in reply to Sarcasmic, not WI.

                1. This was in reply to Sarcasmic, not WI the useful idiot.


            3. Which alternative to democracy do you prefer?

              1. I kind of like the republican form of government outlined in the United States Constitution myself, though it contains no incentive to get rid of shitty legislation.
                Ideally I like the Heinleinian bicameral legislature where one house need a two thirds to pass legislation, and the other needs only one third to repeal legislation.
                This way people would be elected based not upon what they would do, but what they would undo.

                Not that anything like that will ever happen.

                People do not seek power for the purpose of destroying it, nor will those with power every set up a system where power can be easily destroyed.

                1. Both of those examples are forms of democracy. Understand that nobody ever talks about democracy as direct democracy unless they specify “direct.” Interesting that Heinlein’s legislators are chosen at random and forbidden to ever employ themselves again after their terms, instead receiving pensions equal to the average national per capita income. Interesting idea, but I don’t know if it’s freedom.

                  1. Tony, you’re really an idiot. Those are both Republican forms of government, not Democratic. The books outlining these forms of government have been in existence for over 2500 years; I highly suggest you get around to reading them.

                    1. I’m not distinguishing between republican and democratic forms. We’re still talking about the majority will of the people. At best libertarians seem to advocate majority rule except where they know best.

                    2. Both of those examples are forms of democracy. Understand that nobody ever talks about democracy as direct democracy unless they specify “direct.”

                      I’m not distinguishing between republican and democratic forms.

                      I see a conflict here.

                    3. We’re still talking about the majority will of the people.

                      Only because of the passage of the 17th Amendment.

                      The republican form of government I would prefer would be one where the People get to elect their Representatives, and the Senate, representing the States, can override the Representatives.

                      What we have now is indeed more a democratic than republican form of government, and it sucks because it lacks any checks on power.

                    4. What’s so special about states? You’re telling me the population of Montana ought to have the same say in national government as the population of California? If you ask me we’re already way too skewed toward that kind of unequal representation. I don’t get it. You’re the libertarian in this conversation and you’re arguing for the rule of wise leaders over people ruling themselves?

                    5. No, he’s advocating the states having a check on the mob rule of popular elections, not “wise leaders.”

                    6. you’re arguing for the rule of wise leaders over people ruling themselves?

                      Stopping the passage of stupid legislation is not the same as “ruling”.

                      But I doubt you can understand that concept since you consider an absence of policy on a particular issue to be a policy, you equal not giving to taking, you equal not taking to giving, you don’t understand the concept of “initiate”, which leads me to conclude you are simply a useful idiot.

                    7. Still don’t understand what’s so special about arbitrary lines on a map known as “states.” I don’t think you can be a proper libertarian unless you shed this neoconfederate bullshit.

                      The idea that a “good” law ought to be favored by at least 2/3, and that a “bad” law is one disfavored by a minimum of 1/3 might have some merit. But giving Montana an equal say in national policy as California? Makes no sense.

                    8. Still don’t understand what’s so special about arbitrary lines on a map known as “states.”

                      What is special is that quite often federal legislation comes in the form of extortion. Federal income taxes are taken from people under jurisdiction of state governments which must pass laws in order to get that money back.
                      If the state governments had a voice in the federal government, perhaps by appointing members of the Senate, then perhaps they would block such legislation from passing.

                      Like, checks and balances and stuff, you know?

                    9. Your idea that state lines are completely arbitrary and hold no weight seems flawed. It would have one conclude that a country’s lines are arbitrary and should have no meaning as well.

                    10. You never will understand it…You love centeral power and the thought of a dictator makes your nut tingle.

                    11. Geographic areas are important because it isn’t fair that a federal body extorts the resources within a states borders by using the vote of the Union’s majority.

                      Tony, by ignoring the importance of state boundaries, you are also ignoring the importance of state rights, which includes the state government’s sovereignty. If the people of Montana don’t see the benefits of the Union any longer, that government should have every right to secede from that Union by vote of the people within the boundaries of that state. Unfortunately, the Civil War largely marred the connotation of State’s rights. Today, many are like you, completely misunderstanding and ignoring States’ rights.

                    12. Also because it’s democratic and not republican. The tyranny of the majority is worse than any king could impose.

                    13. “I’m not distinguishing between republican and democratic forms.”

                      In reply to Tony:

                      Just like the Bible does not distinguish between fish and cetaceans. To primitive Bronze age biology there isn’t much of a difference. With greater knowledge, our society should be able to distinguish between the two. With greater knowledge one should also be able to distinguish between “democracy” and “republic”. A republic is somewhat superior because at least there is a barrier between the mob and the individual. The mob has to go through more layers of bureaucracy before it can legally hack the individual to pieces and cannibalize him.

                  2. Interesting idea, but I don’t know if it’s freedom.

                    liberty != freedom

              2. “Which alternative to democracy do you prefer?”

                In reply to Tony:


      3. The media has very little to do with it. Americans are stupid on their own!

      4. I used to laugh at such conspiracy theories.
        may be time to stop laughing. The establishment had an orgasm when Perry announced, then he started talking at debates. Cain was dismissed, has gained traction, and the establishment/Rovian/Kristol types carry on about how he can’t win. All of a sudden, the Cain “story” emerges about the alleged harassment. Anyone who thinks this came from outside the Repub side is not paying attention. No point for libs to toss mud yet, not when the GOP seems so intent on eating its own.

      5. “GOP voters have either through their own votes or the shenanigans of their leaders been nominating ever more statist candidates for the POTUS every four year cycle of my lifetime.”

        When the political punditocracy says someone is “electable” on the GOP side, this is what they mean, someone who will not rock the statist’s boats.

    2. McCain was selected by MSM Democrats and other lefties. Herman Cain must be the one that they are afraid of now.

      1. Is Riggs early or late with morning links today?

    3. No one wanted McCain last time around …

      Which is why he won the nomination, because people always votes in promaries for the persons they don’t want.

  2. Someone’s trying to make sure it isn’t Cain. The smear machine is gearing up.

    1. If they actually settled cases back in the 90’s, that would be awfully good anticipation on the part of the smear machine.

      Somehow they saw into the future when Cain would run for President and miraculously be the GOP frontrunner, so in order to make sure they would have material available to destroy a strong, conservative black man, they had women make false allegations and obtain settlements 10-15 years in advance.

      Damn, the smear machine is good.

      1. There are some lawyers who might advise an innocent client to settle if the alternative would be wasting lots of time and money and headache medicine on a trial in court. You can argue this is inadvisable but unless you have been in a case like that it might be unwise to judge. Many think this is what Michael Jackson did.

        1. Mny others of course think Michael Jackson was diddling young boys, so there is the danger in settling.

          1. I agree there is great danger in settling a case like that. I would like to think I would refuse to settle and demand my day in court. But honestly I don’t know. I have (thankfully) never had to face an issue like that.

        2. Oh, absolutely.

          I’m just pointing out that it’s silly to think of this as being manufactured by “the smear machine” when it happened so long ago.

          The settlements might be unjust, and they might be exactly what you describe – money paid to people to go away, under a system of profoundly unjust law.

          But if the settlements exist, it’s a bit unreasonable to not expect the media to report on them.

          It would be like if I was running for President and I had, say, been accused of spying in China. The Chinese legal system has no credibility – but I’d certainly expect the media to consider it a story.

          1. I do agree it is legitimate news. But I see some striking similarities between this case and the Anita Hill case against Justice Thomas.

            1. To me, Anita Hill was different because it only came up once she was worried he might be a SCOTUS justice.

              If she had sued him the day after her incidents supposedly happened, maybe I would have believed her more.

              But they had a perfectly amicable relationship for YEARS, and then all of a sudden her memory kicks in when someone whose ideology she opposed was poised to join the SCOTUS.

              It’s hard for me to believe anything remotely similar is happening here.

            2. But I see some striking similarities between this case and the Anita Hill case against Justice Thomas.


  3. People don’t want the heir apparent; Romney won’t be chosen

    1. Probably not – his energy plan doesn’t include Taco Bell or containers with lids.

    2. Exactly who is “people”?

  4. The thing is, you’ve confused what the GOP Base wants with what the GOP Establishment wants.

    Do you think anyone in Washington on the cocktail party circuit cares about gun rights? Or any think tank sponsored place does?

    No, basically on guns, they are just like Democrats, they find them to be icky, scary things.

    Even this place, which is supposedly libertarians, is awfully limp when it comes to guns (and global warming, among other things). Because guns aren’t welcome at cocktail parties.

    Anyway, the Establishment wants Romney, the base wants a conservative. First Bachman, then Perry seemed to be it, but now Cain looks like it.

    Will he stick? Well, he’s probably smarter than anyone else running, save maybe Ron Paul.

    I mean, he’s got a degree in math, a master’s in computer science, worked on missile research. The guy is not dumb, yet people act like he is.

    OMG, he doesn’t know who the president of Uzbekistan is. Because as president, he wouldn’t be capable of looking it up or asking someone.

    The guy was basically a professional problem solver. Seems like he would be the best pick to fix the economy…

    1. Even this place, which is supposedly libertarians, is awfully limp when it comes to guns

      I don’t know about that. I’m not one of the shooters here, but every time the subject of guns comes up, there seem to be quite a few people here who are shooters.

      1. Breathe

        That’s the way I learned it.

        1. Sounds more like a sex manual.

      2. I LOVE GUNS

    2. Limp on guns?

      Now you’re just making shit up. Or it’s your first day here.

      And with regard to Cain, I am uncomfortable with his “I don’t know” answers, not because I think he’s not smart, but because I think he’s disingenuous at best and deliberately lying at worst.

      The motherfucker knows exactly what he wants to do in Afghanistan – namely, continue to shoot the place up – but he figures if he bullshits us and pretends that he can’t answer until he’s actually the President, some poor dope out there will take that to mean maybe he’ll withdraw.

      Every time he gives any version of “I don’t know” as his answer, I figure it’s pretty safe to assume that Mr. Rocket Scientist actually does know and is peeing in our faces and laughing on the inside.

      1. Something, something cocktail parties!

        1. Cocktail parties? Drink!

    3. Anybody who has watched Trading Places knows Duke and Duke would never tolerate a Cain running the house.

      1. I think that is the smartest thing you have said since you got here.

  5. Ugh.. I hate realpolitik, horse race election coverage, that is one of the reasons I come here.

    Romney, Bush’s 4th term. That is all.

    1. Can’t stand POLITics?
      Don’t like POLICe abuse?
      Still love the POLIS (city-State?)

      Check your premises.

      1. returning to your usual speil

      2. Sounds great W.I, how bout you lead the way?

      3. You found three words that have similar base words. I’m very happy for you.

  6. Why should Romney be running up the score?

    He is unappealing on so many levels.

    There is a very good reason the guy with all the advantages can’t get in front. Lots of people don’t like him or his ideas.

    Why is that so hard to understand? You wasted too many words on your analysis.

  7. Zero Principles. Zero Personality. Zero Charisma.

    Vote for THE MORMONATOR in 2012!

  8. Romney lost to McCain. That’s all the criteria I need to jump on the Anybody But Romney bandwagon.

  9. Romneycare will cover Obama’s ass on healthcare, hence the establishment’s desire for Romney.

    1. Bingo. That is my main reason, amoungst a bushel basket of others, to flatly reject Shit Flopney.

      I will register (D) and vote Zero before I would vote for Romney; if the majority wants 26 year old children and guaranteed social and financial outcomes a la France and the OWS’ers, then by Sod I’m gonna vote for that and skedaddle! You wanna be Europe, USA?! Then let’s not pussy foot around!

      1. If you like Universal Gamboling Lockdown, why not Universal Health Care?

        We all know the paleo diet is good for you. When you prevent most of the people from gathering/hunting a paleo diet with your Gamboling Lockdown big-government regulations on the Land, expect them to get sick and need care.

        1. Shut the fuck up, Corky.

          1. Do you approve of both types of city-Statist aggression?

            ? Universal Gambol Lockdown
            ? Universal Health Care

            1. You’re free to gambol on national forest land. Hunt and gather all you wish.

              1. Better yet you can head up to the Yukon Territory, not much gubmint up there to be all polis-statey on you. As for me, I’ll take hot water, electricity, and internet porn.

        2. We all know the paleo diet is good for you.


  10. Haircare advice aside, what does he have to offer?

    Gary Johnson said it best – “I would ask Mitt Romney: ‘What is your position on anything?'”

    1. Johnson should have added “…at this particular moment in time”

      1. It would be nice to nail down libertarians on the most basic of issues too, like non-aggression.

  11. If ya’ll find just the right person to elect, upon whom you can all agree, I can guarantee one thing:

    You’ll still get government good and hard, even if it is an invading government. (Remember, civilization runs on growth and the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory, as explained in Collapse of Complex Societies by Tainter.)

    You don’t know the nature of it.

    Governments aren’t established to protect people’s rights. That’s just a marketing facade for true believers in the agricultural city-State.

    You may as well believe the right Politburo policy could reform Soviet agricultural city-Statism.

    Anyway, I’m popping some popcorn and gonna watch the show. It is entertaining, if one is allowed naughty pleasures.

    1. “You’ll still get government good and hard”

      That is basically obvious. But thanks for sharing

      1. Then why this drama of seeking a secular savior to save the elect?

  12. Don’t step in Mitt.

  13. They see him as slippery, smarmy, and void of principles.

    IOW he’s a politician.

    1. IOW he’s a politician.

      I see Romney as an honest politician. Most pols you think have some integrity, then they disappoint you. With Romney, you know up front you’re getting someone with no integrity. Not so much disappointment that way.

  14. Would it be fair to balance the consequences of Diseases of Civilization Universal Gambol Lock with Universal Health Care?

    Or should we eschew both types of agricultural city-Statist aggression?

    1. “Gambol” explained for the uninitiated this fine MOON Day (Goddess bless Turtle Island) morning, with the following excerpt:

      Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today?civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors?is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question “Why agriculture?” is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls “just-so stories.”

      In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That’s all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.”

      ~Richard Manning
      Against the Grain: How Agriculture Hijacked Civilization
      North Point Press (2004)

      1. Shut the fuck up, Corky.

        1. Do you approve of both types of city-Statist aggression?

          ? Universal Gambol Lock
          ? Universal Health Care

          1. REctal puts the RE in REtard.

            1. Do you approve of both types of city-Statist aggression?

              ? Universal Gambol Lockdown
              ? Universal Health Care

              Or does the cat got your tongue? Maybe a little cognitive dissonance? WTF, over?

              Check your premises.

      2. Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun.

        Only if you’ve gone full retard.

  15. He has a record of achievement in both the public and private sectors.

    Why the hell is Reason carrying Chapman’s articles?

    1. Have a Koch and a smile, Joe.

  16. It doesn’t much matter if Willard Romney gets the nomination. If he does, he will lose in the general. Like John McCain, Willard Romney basically shares Mr. Obama’s premises and worldview. If the government should be managing our lives, why is a little less the way to go?

    1. Not necessarily even less, just different.

      1. Hell, not even all that different. Really, what policies do Romney and Obama not have in common?

        1. I agree, not all that different. But I’m not even talking about the substance of the national debate. Really, I don’t see where Romney has a ground where he can say “This is where the administration is wrong and this is where we fundamentally need to change policy.”. Really, does he think he’s going to unseat the president saying government spending at 25% of GDP is outrageous, but 23% is our moral responsibility?

    2. government should be managing our lives

      Are you a supporter of Gambol Lockdown?

      It takes heap big-government to regulate the land and stop the Non-State society’s lifeways of the last several thousand years.

      1. You are an idiot, a waste of bandwidth and a waste of my time. The 7 seconds I spent reviewing your drivel is 7 seconds I will never get back. As has been explained to you ad nauseum, a government restricted to the role of protecting individual rights to life, liberty and property is not the same thing as anarchism. If you want to live a pre-civilization “lifeway” (the actual term for the literate is lifestyle), trust me there’s millions of square miles of wilderness you are more than welcome to get lost in. Most of us would rather you do that.

        1. The First Great Commandment: “Feedeth NOT the Troll. For they crap on the table, making the Cheerios inedible.”

  17. I see the library is still letting homeless schizos use the computers.

    1. Universal Statism Questionaire

      Do you approve of both types of city-Statist aggression?

      ? Universal Health Care
      ? Universal Gambol Lockdown

      Or are you schizophrenic and support only one kind of statism while embracing the other type of statism?

  18. I, for one, welcome eight years of RomneyHair.

  19. If Occupy Oakland goes on strike, how will we know?

    1. Well. It’d smell better, for starters.

  20. So Chapman thinks Romney is a better deal than the rest. Chapman needs to be writing for the New Republic. Can someone send his resume over there?

    Paul, Johnson, Cain (even with his faults), and Gingrich are all better choices than Romney. Perry would turn out to be a wash. Bachman is for federalism, except when she isn’t. Santorim? Put him in the Pawlenty pile. Huntsman should go back to China.

    1. I disagree with Huntsman on many, many, many things. But I do think Huntsman would make an EXCELLENT Secretary of State. If Paul wins he would be smart to pick Huntsman as his secretary of state.

  21. Funny how the legacy media was hugely uninterested in Obama’s past, and managed to ignore, if not actually cover up, Edwards current and ongoing marital infidelity (which turned out to involve at least arguable money-laundering as well).

    But they rush to print a thinly-sourced story about old allegations against Cain.

    So, yeah, I think “smear machine” isn’t unfair.

    1. Would you like some ointment for your butt?

  22. Romney electable? Haha yeah you’re hilarious Chapman. When at least half the base of the GOP hating his guts it would be fun to watch him stumble around the election with no enthusiasm from the grassroots. It might have worked before the bailouts and other bullshit that spawned the TP, but now a wedge has been thrust into the GOP and a Romnination would just drive it to split the GOP right in half.

  23. Nobody actually wants John Ke… I mean Mitt Romney to be President, some people just think he can win for some unexplained reason.

  24. Ron Paul should be the nominee, but the Republicans will go for the Mormon or maybe even the Nigger.

    1. Emile, I have never seen a more obvious troll than you.

  25. This campaign was custom-designed for Romney.
    and the GOP Beltway establishment can’t stand it. Last time, it used Huckabee to break out the Mormon card. This year, it’s using talk radio to beat back any support for Romney because he’s not far right enough. The establishment sees a moderate, which is what Romney is, and keeps hoping for a conservative to upstage him. Trouble is, choices like Santorum, Bachmann, and Perry are either more interested in being pastor-in-chief or incapable of putting together two coherent sentences.

  26. whats up with smearing the tide?

    seriously they kicked the shit out of the hogs and florida. I’m not convinced that LSU is gonna be able to beat them. if you’re gonna rag on someone you may as well go for an obvious one like boise state.

  27. I agee completely with this review of the GOP race for the nomination, yet I would like to say one thing: Rep. Ron Paul has constituently held about third place. He remains so popular still, and his popularity is growing.

    1. I agree. And if he does manage to win the nomination don’t be surprised if one of the Establishment Republisocialists runs as an independent in hopes of acting as a spoiler. They fear him winning the nomination. They fear him winning the Presidency even more.

  28. I would tend to agree that technology puts better information in our hands, helping to break through the veil of manipulation!

  29. I’m voting for Ron Paul.

    1. I’ll be joining you in voting for Dr. Paul – Mr. Chapman’s flaming bigotry notwithstanding – because I concur with his diagnoses. He’s got a correct appreciation of the pathology, and is recommending the necessary course of management.

      I am increasingly certain that as a “pundit,” Mr. Chapman is a quack, either incompetent or duplicitous.

      Possibly both.

      As for former Gov. Romney himself, we must bear in mind that the Mormon Mamzer is the favorite among the “dinosaur media” for the Red Faction presidential nomination.

      When did the overwhelmingly left-“Liberal” dinosaur media ever wish the opponents of their beloved National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) any sort of strong, “electable” candidates, or victory at the polls?

      Were there nothing else more damnable about Romney, that alone ought to do it.

      The MSM likes him.

  30. Romney sucks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.