Florida Seniors Line Up Behind Romney

|

Clearwater, Fla.—It was impossible to find voters who supported anyone other than Mitt Romney at the polling place located inside Cove Cay, a snowbird community which just recently opened its exclusive golf course to the general public to help offset financial difficulties. Given those challenges one might expect to hear economic concerns from local voters, but everyone I talked to was focused soley on electability. 

"Huntsman looked like the adult in the room, I liked him, but he dropped out so I went with Romney. I think he is the most electable," said Steve Cohn, 69. 

Cohn said that he has received over nine phone calls about the election in the last 24-48 hours. "Even Chuck Norris called me," he said. 

When asked if he had gone to see any of the candidates in person his response hammered home how different Florida is from the traditional early primary states. "No, I don't think that's neccessary," Cohn declared.

Meanwhile at Cove Cay's shaded, poolside polling station, voters trickled in. The polling officers told me that turnout was below normal so far but emphasized that meetings and activities in the community clubhouse were scheduled for later in the day. 

Many here, like retired Marine Harry Goble, 87, called themselves Ron Paul fans but said they could not vote for the Texas congressman because of his age. 

"If he was a little younger I would have voted for Paul. He served during Korea. I like that," Goble said.

Like Cohn, Goble said he ended up voting for Romney because he thought the former Massachusetts governor is the most electable and "beating Obama" is the most important thing. 

Nobody here had anything nice to say about Newt Gingrich. 

Ken Comer, 69, a native of Indiana and a Romney voter, said he briefly considered Gingrich but that his debate performances turned him off. "I think Newt needs an anger management class," he said. 

Comer's wife Suzzane, also a Romney voter, said Gingrich "was not trustworthy" and too negative. 

"We need to vote Obama out and screaming and yelling will not do that," she said.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reason.tv: Heather Donahue on Growing Marijuana, Life After 'Blair Witch,' and the Beauty of 'Grey' Markets

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. Ken Comer, 69, a native of Indiana and a Romney voter, said he briefly considered Gingrich but that his debate performances turned him off. “I think Newt needs an anger management class,” he said.

    That is great.

    1. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.Here you can find hundred of thousands of open-minded singles & couples looking to explore their bisexuality.sign up for free.

  2. I find it fascinating that all these people are largely comfortable with Obama’s policies but want the man out of the office.

    1. It’s a TEAM thing, dude. This is why we’re fucked. They literally do not care about actual policy. They only care about getting their TEAM in.

      Partisanship is a fucking mental illness.

      1. Maybe we should merge politics with sports and be done with it. At least we’d have more parties that way.

        I vote straight University of Florida. That sort of thing.

        1. Politics are sports for people who don’t like sports already but want to be on a TEAM, dude.

          1. They need to be forced to adopt a sports team party. They like to be forced to do anythings, right?

            1. Things, not anythings.

          2. “Voting is merely participating in a rigged, bullshit game where you have no statistical effect but when you participate you give it legitimacy. Fuck that.”

        2. They tried that in Constantinople – not pretty. Ended with half the city burnt.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika_riots

          1. I assume you’re referring to chariot races. Which we should bring back.

            1. Don’t worry, Bravo or the History Channel will get to it soon enough. As soon as they give up on the jousting thing.

        3. The prophet Max Headroom showed us that the future is merging TV channels and political parties. So, we have the early adopters voting the straight Fox-News and MSNBC tickets.

          1. Network 23 all the way, dude.

    2. What about the post causes you to conclude that they “are largely comfortable with Obama’s policies”?

      1. Perhaps the fact that they’re willing to support Romney, and the (plausible) argument is that Romney’s policies won’t be too different from Obama’s?

        1. I am not a fan of Romney. But I don’t think they think Romney and Obama would be identical. And I don’t think they are exactly “comfortable with all of Obama’s policies”.

          You guys think there is no difference between Romney and Obama because you think Romney is a lying sack of shit and won’t follow through on any of his promises. You are probably right about that.

          But I think these people actually believe him. That means they are gullible, not that they are so comfortable with Obama’s policies.

          1. I’m not going to give these geezers the benefit of the doubt. How many times do they need to be fooled by the GOP before it become blind partisanship as Epi said?

          2. Given Romney’s utter inability to control the civil service in Massachusetts, what makes you think he’s magically going to do a better job reigning the Federal government in?

            Romney is going to allow the Bush/Clinton national greatness people to keep doing their thing unimpeeded. He’s certainly not going to stand up to the goldman sachs types in the Treasury, he’s not going to do anything about reducing taxes because it will make people say mean things about him when he runs for reelection.

            Being a technocrat, the civil servants will wield their powerpoint presentations and excel models. They’ll housebreak him faster than Mr Humphreys can say “yes minister” .

            If the Federal Govt were a car headed off a cliff, Romney’s foot will be half a millimeter lighter on the gas than Obama’s “lead” foot.

            1. Given Romney’s utter inability to control the civil service in Massachusetts, what makes you think he’s magically going to do a better job reigning the Federal government in?

              I don’t. I am just telling you what these people think. They really think Romney will be a change from Obama. So their support of Romney is not any indication whatsoever with their being comfortable with Obama’s policies.

              If you think they are wrong about that, and they probably are, good for you. But that is a different argument than saying they support Obama’s policies.

            2. If the Federal Govt were a car headed off a cliff, Romney’s foot will be half a millimeter lighter on the gas than Obama’s “lead” foot.

              But lighter is lighter, you know.

              1. A 600 foot fall started at 60mph is just as fatal as a 600 foot fall started at 59.5 mph.

                1. Ever since I was a kid, I have always wondered how high of a platform a person could jump off of onto a concrete floor, if they started out at one ince and increased the height by one sixteenth of an inch on each successive jump.

                  1. Or how heavy of a cow they could carry if they picked up the cow and carried it from the barn to the house once each day, starting at the birth of the cow…

                    For your question the answer is “not very high”. Each time they move up they slightly increase the odds of it being the last time they jump. You’re making 16 jumps for every 1 inch you move. That means you have a much greater chance of failing per inch than if you were moving in 1 inch (or even 1 foot!) increments. If you want to test a discrete activity to failure you have to do it in significant increments.

            3. You’re getting your britcoms mixed up. That’s Sir Humphrey.

              To anyone who doesn’t know what I am talking about, watch the show Yes, Minister (and it’s equally awesome sequel Yes, Prime Minister as soon as you possibly can.

          3. I realize that my response was not repsoncsive to John’s original question,so I’ll take another step at it.

            Romney is the play it safe candidate. He stakes no controversial positions. Everything he says and does is calculated not to placate as many potential enemies as possible.

            This is precisely how Obama approaches governance (although to be fair, I haven’t seen any signs that Romney has the high levels of narcissism that I see in Obama.

            Romney has made no credible specific poliy statements that call out the popular but unsustainable projects for reform or reduction.

            And, everyone knows that he is following this strategy of non-offensiven middle of road policies. It’s not like he’s tricking people. People know what they’re getting – the status quo, and are comforted by it.

            Hence my comment

            1. s/not to placate as many potential enemies as possible/not to inflame as many potential enemies as possible

            2. And, everyone knows that he is following this strategy of non-offensiven middle of road policies. It’s not like he’s tricking people. People know what they’re getting – the status quo, and are comforted by it.

              No. They see Obama as having changed a lot of the status quo. Mostly this little thing called health care. Even if they see Romney as middle of the road, they see him as antidote to Obama who was not middle of the road.

              If people like Obama’s policies, he would be popular. They liked Bill Clinton’s policies and he was popular even though they didn’t like him as a person.

              Unless you are going to claim they are all racists and out to get a black man, you have to conclude they are anything but comfortable with his policies.

              1. Except Romney supports all the odious parts of Obamacare. His statements of opposition to the individual mandate remind me very much about Obama’s opposition to the Bush wars.

                1. “Except Romney supports all the odious parts of Obamacare. His statements of opposition to the individual mandate remind me very much about Obama’s opposition to the Bush wars.”

                  So what? All you are saying there is that they are stupid for believing Romney. And that is different than supporting Obama’s policies.

                  1. I think you have a point.

                    The problem is very much like the people say congress sucks, but that they’ll vote for the incumbent congressman.

                    I get the sense (and this is anecdotal – from political discussions at work which I largely stay out of because I love watching them try to figure out what the hell my political views are), people interact with the government (positively/negatively) in some areas, and don’t in others.

                    The interactions they benefit from, or the programs they like, they want to retain, and they sieze on all the signs Romney give that he won’t rock the boat joyously for keeping that gravy flowing.

                    For the stuff they won’t interact with, or the stuff they don’t like, they hear in Romney’s carefully non-offensive phrasing a canvas unto which they can project their desires.

                    My non-snarky take. People are comfortable with the handouts hey get and hate the handouts other people get. In Romney, they get someone who mirrors their desire to keep the status quo in some areas and change it in others.

      2. Because Romney and Obama are the same.

        I say boy, it’s a joke. A joke!

    3. Brainwashed by Fox News. Like this “CBO forecasts $868 billion in war savings”.

      http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4918

      That will never show up on FNN or AM radio.

      Also the deficit is forecast to be 30% lower than where Bush left it (CBO). That won’t show up despite the fact 10,000 people join SS/Medi per day.

      1. Also the deficit is forecast to be 30% lower than where Bush left it (CBO).

        That is so fantastic of a claim that I need a link.

        1. http://www.politifact.com/trut…..istration/

          CBO forecast a $1 trillion deficit today.

          Do you want a link for that?

          1. It is down from 2009. Last I looked Obama was President in 2009 and there wasn’t a budget. You may be that stupid, but the rest of us are not.

          2. From the CBO:

            In its baseline, CBO projects that the 2012 federal budget deficit will be about $1.1 trillion

            From your own link:

            On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion

            So, 10%, not 30%.

            1. I stand corrected then. The CBO is the only real truth cop we have.

              1. The difference is that there was some spending approved under Obama and the Democrats that took place in FY 2009. At the very least, you have to assign blame for that to Obama.

                1. Don’t confuse shrike with facts John. Shrike thinks Bush was still running things well into 2010.

                2. That doesn’t change the CBO numbers assigned to the $1.2 trillion deficit projection.

                  It would only change the actual reported at the end of the FY.

          3. Thats not how you compare budgetting. You have the business cycle that changes revenues and expendatures. You need to compare what they were forcasting the deficit to be for 2012 bak in 2009 and what they forecats 2012 to be now.

            But even that is kinda bs, because of a lto of the baseline BS like the assumption that the AMT will not be overriden, ditto medicare doc patch and that Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to end on the spot.

            So if the president icnreases the deficit by 300 billion due his policies, but the economy gets better so the deficit shrinks by 500 billion, he didnt cut the deficit by 200 billion. He made it 300 billion worse that it would have been if he had dont nothing.

        2. The CBO report shows that the deficit dilemma would largely be solved if the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 ? and renewed in 2010 through the end of this year ? were allowed to lapse. Under that scenario, the deficit would drop to $585 billion in 2013 and to $220 billion in 2017.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

          Thus the culprit is exposed. The alternative – as Milton F points out – is to pay higher taxes later.

          Given the failure of the House to propose immediate spending cuts this is the only route.

          1. The House did manage to reign in the defense spending increases that Obama and the Democrats pushed through in 2009 and 2010, by your logic.

          2. That assumes that the government would not just increase the baseline based on the reinstated tax rates. The problem, of course, is that they would. If you give the government a dollar, it increases $1 in deficit spending. There is no application of increased revenues to close the gap. None.

          3. This CBO estimate does assume that the sequester will happen, among other things.

            Of course, the tax cuts lapsing in that story includes the tax cuts on the poor and middle class expiring, which Obama and the Democrats are also (at least rhetorically) against. That part of the tax cuts (the below $250k household part) form about two-thirds of the money.

            1. You are correct as you usually are. Tell John to take his factless shit elsewhere.

          4. Re: Shrike,

            The CBO report shows that the deficit dilemma would largely be solved if the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 ? and renewed in 2010 through the end of this year ? were allowed to lapse.

            “Honey, if you would just give me more money, I promise my purchase of shoes will remain exactly the same and I will save you money!”

            You should apply for a job as a court lapdo… sorry, economist, shrike. You certaily qualify.

          5. That includes everything – the child credit and so forth. That also includes the AMT not being patched. And it also includes the medicare doc path not being patched because thats in the baseline. The tax component on the “rich” 2% or whatever they used to use is about 50 billion max. And eveen if you did allt he things stated above, it would onyl be acheived via the highest effective average tax rate in history. Due to bracket kreep (wages grow faster than inflation on average) each year there is an automatic tax increase as more people enter higehr brackets. So even at the bush rates, it 2007, the federal government took the same %GDP in taxes at it did in 1997.

      2. That is only true if you think Obama had role in the FY 2009 deficit. That of course is complete bullshit. There was no budget passed for 2009. The government was run on a series on continuing resolutions, all of which were passed by an overwelmingly Democratic Congress and signed by Obama.

        Stop fucking lying Shrike. It doesn’t matter how many times I have to rub your nose in it like a dog’s in shit, you are not going to put up lies without them being pointed out.

        1. It would be even better if people would just ignore him. He’s already decided that Bush is the reason for every ill facing the US and Obama is the savior.

          Don’t try to teach the pig to sing.

        2. I sourced the CBO you lying piece of shit. Bush left town with a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for the Oct 2008-09 fiscal year.

          It will be LOWER when Obama is sworn in again.

          1. Obama was President for nine months of that fiscal year you clown. And the Democrats owned Congress for the entire time and never passed a budget. So Bush didn’t leave anything. The deficit is the product of the CRs the Democratic Congress passed nearly all of which Obama signed. And the ones he didn’t sign, he voted for in the Senate.

            Only a lying sack of shit like you could call that Bush’s deficit. Again, stop fucking lying.

            1. So was the CBO clairvoyant in Dec 08, you liar?

              When they called a $1.2 trillion deficit while Bush was president?

              And the fucker LOVED to spend and you know it.

              1. “when they called a $1.2 trillion deficit while Bush was president?”

                None of that spending was law. There was no budget. If Congress had been willing to pass a budget, you might have a point. But they didn’t. Instead they passed CRs, which Obama signed. He owns all of that spending in those CRs and the lion’s share fo the deficit. Bush didn’t leave anything.

                1. A budget was signed in February 2009.

                  1. A budget was signed in February 2009.

                    Okay. I stand corrected. And who was President in February of 2009? Thanks, you just make my point. Obama signed the FY 2009 budget and owns the resulting deficit.

          2. This is really just a reduction in planned increases (but still increases), not “cuts”.

          3. Bush left town with a $1.2 trillion budget deficit for the Oct 2008-09 fiscal year.

            No, he didn’t. Bush left town with around a $400BB deficit budgeted. Obama immediately pushed through the Dem Congress the stimulus, which accounts for most of the difference.

      3. Of course, those “savings” are obtained by following exactly the Bush timetable for withdrawal. Would you be crediting Bush with “war savings?”

        Another, equally factual comment is that defense spending under Obama is higher both as a percentage of GDP and in real dollar terms than under any year of Bush. $612.4B/4.3% of GDP in 2008, $656.8B/4.7% in 2009, $689B/4.8% in 2010, and $699.8/4.7% in 2011.

        By your logic, only the election of a Republican House managed to restrain defense spending.

        (Of cousre, all this is “savings” compared to a mythical baseline.)

      4. Let me know when they pass a budget.

        1. A budget was passed last fall.

          1. So many lies. . . .

          2. A budget was passed last fall.

            citation needed.

  3. So if Ron Paul were put into the cocoon pool these people would vote for him?

    1. I’ve swum in that pool. My friends parents owned that house…

  4. I fail to see what makes Romney so “electable.” He couldn’t convince me to vote for him. If he wins the nomination, this will be the last year I remain a registered Republican. Hell, the only reason that I’ve stayed a Republican for this long is because FL is a closed primary state. But now, it is clear to me that Republicans in FL have no clue what the majority of the people in this country want if they consider Romney “electable.”

    1. Well, the polls that say he is electable is what makes him electable. He’s the one who has consistently been within striking distance of Obama; the others have gotten close at times, but they have come and gone.

      Appropriate.

      1. I’d like to see the Obama circle logo with a read circle and slash.

        1. Guess I should have Googled first.

          http://rlv.zcache.com/anti_oba…..xz_400.jpg

    2. He’s clearly not a popular candidate. I mean, he couldn’t beat McInsane?

    3. But now, it is clear to me that Republicans in FL have no clue what the majority of the people in this country want if they consider Romney “electable.”

      While I have grave reservations about what makes Romney electable, you’re the one who has no clue about what the majority of the people in this country want if you think that Romney isn’t “electable” compared to his competition (especially Gingrich.)

      Unless all the polls are wrong. Paul does better than Santorum and Gingrich, for sure.

      1. I am with JT here – WE may not like Romney, or be concerned about those things that make him “electable”, but we are out of touch with the electorate, not the pollsters. Sorry guys.

    4. You think it would be relevant for the media to mention that the only two GOP candidates that poll about even with Obama are Romney AND Ron Paul.

      God forbid they let people know that there is more than one rational choice for GOP nominee.

      1. The media doesn’t consider Paul a “rational choice”.

    5. He was the only candidate they figure scare the soccer moms and the delicate “independents”. Obama is just a failure, the Republican establishment figures they just need a guy to run out the clock and show up with a suit on.

  5. Primary day in Florida must be like the “Grey Dawn” episode of South Park:

    “When Randy finds out about the meeting he realizes that when the meeting is over, all the seniors will be driving on the road at the same time. Horrified by the thought, Randy goes into town and shouts out a cry of alarm, causing mass panic. He asks Gerald where the boys are, who tells him that the boys are playing street hockey. Randy manages to save the boys and they flee from the many cars recklessly wandering the streets, eventually hiding in an abandoned house. Moments later, the house gets overrun by seniors making wrong turns and going the wrong way (even on the second floor).”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Dawn

  6. So who wants to bet that the guy who said he can’t vote for Paul because of his age also voted for McCain in 2008?

    You know because Paul, a healthy 77 year old man, is in much worse shape than McCain, who was a 73 year old man with a history of skin cancer and injuries from his time in captivity.

    1. Maybe there is a big difference between 77 and 73. If this guy has seen both ages, maybe he knows that and we don’t.

      1. Maybe he just picked a reason out of the air to justify a ridiculous decision.

        1. Or maybe he just doesn’t like Ron Paul.

      2. The people at my office are largely in the tank for Romney. Interestingly, they are contorting themselves more and more to justify not supporting Paul.Romney is the “safe” Republican in their minds.

        1. They hate Paul for his foreign policy view. When Paul got up and said 9-11 was blowback, he was done.

          1. The look on my coworkers’ faces when I pointed out that a former head of the CIA’s bin Laden unit had endorsed Paul was priceless.

            1. So what? If Paul is such a tough guy on America’s enemies, he should have made that point instead of engaging in Rothbardite masturbation about 9-11.

              1. Oh please, John,

                Ron Paul is right, and you’re butthurt about it, because you want to believe that the guys in the State Department, CIA & Pentagon weren’t hurting real human beings when they used them as pieces on a chess-board.

                From attacking Iran in order to prevent its government from stopping the systematic fraud in Anglo-Persian Oil company’s royalty payments to arming and training repressive regimes in the middle east, the U.S. has been going out of its ways to make enemies over there. It’s really a shame because large numbers of people think Americans are brutal, murderous, treacherous hypocrites based on their misapprehension that United States government is controlled by the citizenry.

                You may think it Rothbardian masturbation, but it is in fact being grounded in reality.

                1. No. Paul is losing a nomination he could have won because he would rather score meaningless political points than win.

                  And there is nothing grounded in reality about Paul’s Rothbard rants. They are both wildly naive and grossly self absorbed. Listening to Paul is to hear how all the evil in the world is the United State’s fault, every bad thing that has ever happened to the US was something it had coming, and every other country in the world is justly aggrieved and totally in the right against the United States.

                  If believes that, good for him. But he will never get elected President spouting that horseshit. You are just butthurt Paul tuned out to be a loser of a candidate. So am I to be honest because he is right about a lot of things. But he pissed away his chance to tell the world how sorry he feels for the Iranians and how the US had it coming on 9-11.

                  1. Listening to Paul is to hear how all the evil in the world is the United State’s fault, every bad thing that has ever happened to the US was something it had coming, and every other country in the world is justly aggrieved and totally in the right against the United States.

                    You’ll have to point me to where Ron Paul said anything like that, because that would be a first.

                    You are just butthurt Paul tuned out to be a loser of a candidate.

                    Since I’ve been telling people that Ron Paul would be a terrible president since 2008, I am curious why you think I could be butthurt about any disappointing thing Ron Paul does.

                    You are arguing against the Ron Paul and tarran in your head, not the ones out in the real world. And it shows.

  7. Heard an interesting point made yesterday regarding entitlements.

    The argument was that the age cohort which is adamant, and voting, that SocSec and Medicare not be cut isn’t so much the geezers collecting checks today, as the boomers in their 50s and early 60s who are counting on those checks. Later, but soon.

    The fools apparently didn’t start their retirement planning by assuming there would be no government checks.

    According to my handy Fidelity calculator, I could retire today and die at age 90 with a million bucks in the bank, if I assume that SocSec and Medicare will just roll along as they have. Zero out that assumption, and I’m looking at working my ass off and saving half my gross (one way or another) in order to retire a few years early.

    1. Zero out that assumption, and I’m looking at working my ass off and saving half my gross (one way or another) in order to retire a few years early.

      And I am sure the Tonys of the world will let you keep every cent of that. No they wouldn’t steal it and fuck you up the ass royally for being responsible. They would never do something like that.

  8. Many here, like retired Marine Harry Goble, 87, called themselves Ron Paul fans but said they could not vote for the Texas congressman because of his age.

    “If he was a little younger I would have voted for Paul. He served during Korea. I like that,” Goble said.

    I don’t know about Paul, but this guy is certainly too old to vote.

    1. Paul would have been what, 12 when MacArthur landed in Inchon?

  9. I’m beginning to realize that it is not quite yet February and we have 9 more moths of this shit coming. I’m starting to really wish that I didn’t care.

  10. Romney’s like Obama, only somewhat more corporatist, pro-war and anti-immigration. Sadly, of the remaining GOP candidates not named Ron Paul, he’s the least nauseating of the three. So I guess this means I’d prefer Obama to anyone but Paul. This fact makes me want to vomit. Still, another dose of technocracy and debt doesn’t sound quite as heinous as a war with Iran plus more debt.

    1. Same here. If Romney and Obama are on the ballot, I’ll vote for Obama. Either one guarantees war with Iran, lots of corporate bailouts and subsidies, lots more horror stories about TSA goons and their curious interpretation of the 4th Amendment, full-on War on Teh Drooogz, and tiresome grandstanding about how to “fix education” by throwing a lot more money at it.

      Hell, I live in a blue state, I might not even have to vote at all.

  11. “Even Chuck Norris called me,”

    Damn, and I was hoping for a Norris/ Nugent ticket, but looks like he’s endorseing Titties. If nothing else the commercials would be hilarious.

    “Chuck Norris could defeat Al-Quaeda… with his bare hands!”

    “Chuck Norris’s tears can balance the budget. Too bad he never cries.”

    1. “Chuck Norris could defeat Al-Quaeda… with his bare hands!”

      “Chuck Norris’s tears can balance the budget. Too bad he never cries.”

      So… Chuck Norris is an ass?

      1. I was trying to reference the old Chuck Norris internet meme from a few years back, but it seems I failed.

        1. No, you weren’t the one who failed.

  12. Given those challenges one might expect to hear economic concerns from local voters, but everyone I talked to was focused soley on electability.

    Electability is an economic concern.

    Nominating an unelectable candidate means four more years of Obamanomics.

    1. Electing Romney means four more years of Obamanomics too, just with slightly different spending and slightly different subsidies…

      1. No, it doesn’t. This assertion is made over and over and over and over on these threads, with no evidence, and all it does is lend succor to Gingrich and Obama.

        1. This assertion is made over and over and over and over on these threads, with no evidence,

          I guess this statement is true if you pretend Romney’s tenure here in Massachusetts didn’t happen.

          1. Yes, because Massachusetts before and after the Romney regime was a hotbed of free market thinking and rugged individualism.

  13. Gingrich has proven himself a master at reinventing himself for voters like these, who profess fears about a nation slipping away from them in some undefinable way. “I love my country and I want it to go back to what I loved about it,” says Barbara McLeod, 68. Her friend Joyce Sweeney, 60, held a sign that read “Newter the Bamster: Bring on the Debates.” A foreign journalist asked her to explain what the term Bamster meant. “That’s what Rush Limbaugh calls Obama,” she explained. “It’s like a gangster.”

    Sally Cummings, a retiree from Brooksville, was strolling around the hangar after the rally broke up with a sign of her own: “Tea Party vs. Cocktail Party!” it read, above Gingrich’s name. “He’s more of a grassroots, common person,” she says. “And Romney is very much the cocktail party. He is the elite.”

    If a man with a 5,000 sq. ft. mansion in McLean, Virginia can sell this juxtaposition, how can you ignore the possibility that he will rise from the ashes yet again?

    Don’t make me post that Blazing Saddles “morons” comment again, Newt.

  14. Of course the old farts down there lined up behind Romney. He is the successful, presentable son they all wish they had.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.