Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

[wardd]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

Yours? I have no idea, tell me.You brought it all up.I did not mention the term "hobbled" you did.Or have you forgotten so soon?

you're grasping

[wardd]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

I agree... this could become especially sticky for Romney. The Supreme Court will deliver a ruling on this issue well before the election. If the Supremes rule the mandate is constitutional, then Romney will be on the worng side of the issue, according to his current talking points.... if they rule against it, he will be shown to have been wrong on his previous talking points. It's a no-win for the guy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/in-health-care-brief-obama-doj-needles-scalia-on-precedent.php?ref=fpa

[TomF]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

I frankly think that the whole Rep primary process this time out is every bit as pro forma as it was in 2008. All protestations and the last few years' obstructionism aside, in the wee small hours of the night I think that the Rep machine really doesn't want to win in 2012, any more than they really wanted to win in 2008. The country is in a difficult enough position that any President will be smeared by it, regardless of their actual responsibility for it. Much better to run a Primary season which pacifies the competing party sectors, annoints a Candidate who looks somewhat credible, but really can't win, and really target 2012 when (God willing) the economy will be rebounding, and the incoming administration can take credit.Frankly, I couldn't understand why Obama wanted the job in 2008, and entirely understood why the Reps ran McCain/Palin.

[S.V. Airlie]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

you're grasping

Hope you recover soon enough to get back on your mule even with your saddle sores wardd.

[wardd]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

Hope you recover soon enough to get back on your mule even with your saddle sores wardd.

you silly man

[S.V. Airlie]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

Well, numbers.. Huffypoop was brought up on a poll that went poof earl er today whci stated that it took Romney 5 years to reach 40% in NH. Well, Obama came in second in 08 with a bit over 36% and he only was faxing one other candidate Why only 36% I don't know. I guess a heck of a lot of people stayed home. Well he is president now even with that showing in NH so, I'm not sure that Romney's showing against several candidates should be any different than the Dem primary in 08..*

[John Smith]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

You still don't understand this? Even after a bunch of different people from both sides of the aisle tried to explain it to you in another thread recently?

Do you even read the replies to your numerous dumb questions?

But stewart's guest is the only one who cites the constitution when he makes the point, and he agrees with me.

Maybe I'm not the one who isn't understanding this.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Re: Now that Romney's won New Hampshire

I frankly think that the whole Rep primary process this time out is every bit as pro forma as it was in 2008. All protestations and the last few years' obstructionism aside, in the wee small hours of the night I think that the Rep machine really doesn't want to win in 2012, any more than they really wanted to win in 2008. The country is in a difficult enough position that any President will be smeared by it, regardless of their actual responsibility for it. Much better to run a Primary season which pacifies the competing party sectors, annoints a Candidate who looks somewhat credible, but really can't win, and really target 2012 when (God willing) the economy will be rebounding, and the incoming administration can take credit.Frankly, I couldn't understand why Obama wanted the job in 2008, and entirely understood why the Reps ran McCain/Palin.

A more precise definition of the Republian candidate is, "sacrificial goat".