Magox

That's just crass. And Ok JA, the people of Pennsylvania believe he is despicable and whatever other adjectives DiN used because he lost the election by 16 points. That's top notch logic you got there Oh, and there is no difference, you and DiN are likeminded

Really? I know it was late when you posted this, but come on.

My father owned some Mr. Softy trucks back in the days... That's all I got

Hey, you're the one who agrees with him on voter related issues.

Remember the health insurance debate? I provided lots of information on the bill, spoke about it at length and in substance. When Bmore decided to chime in, he would try to refute what I was saying, when I responded and made my case and explained to him in detail to why he was wrong, he responded by placing me on ignore. So much for "debate"

Oh the Irony

Believing someone is incompetent doesn't equate to hatred. I'm sure in your opaque narrow world, everything is either black or white, sorry Din, that's not how I roll.

I'm sure Old (*^*&%^$^#over at Meet the press won't show this clip this weekend while interviewing one of the whitehouse's mouthpieces

I hate to quote the DNC, but this election is about a choice, Obama or whoever the conservatives put up. Is Santorum my kinda guy? nope. Would I rather have him in office over Obama "You betcha". It's one thing for Senators and congressman to pander to their local constituencies it's another to govern as the president. What Im saying is that although I don't like his view on social matters, I won't automatically disqualify him for it.

Check this video out. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/08/obama_in_2007_you_cant_be_against_outside_groups_and_then_for_them.html

DiN said that, then I responded that only likeminded people feel that way, then you said so do the people of Penn. Sorry, but losing by 17 points doesn't equate to people feeling the way he described. It just says that people were ready for change, they didn't like his policies and that it was a bad year to be a Conservative that agreed with Bush's policies. Also, I'm not quite sure one can be a champion of reason while being astigmatic. Sort of a oxymoronic....

Good luck with the new business

Fiscal conservatives who are socially liberal are usually the more rational thinking people. This in a perfect world is where the future should move to.

Sorry JA, your opinion on this topic doesn't really qualify you to be the most objective person regarding this discussion, considering your semi obsessive myopic viewed tendency to bash conservatives who express a desire to have religion influence their policies (which btw, I disagree with as well). By characterizing a person with terms such as "despicable", "very dislikable person", "hateful bastard" and somehow equating that to the results of his last election is a bit of a stretch and is an awfully shallow observation to conclude, specially by someone of your standards. It's ok to not like his politics or his demeanor but he is hardly seen as the characterizations used earlier by the majority of people of his state. Remember, you are an agreement with the "troll" Just for perspective

I think Spiller showed enough towards the end of the season that he could be the man. His explosiveness and playmaking ability was quite impressive and remember, he would of had another 40-50 yard touchdown run if it wasnt for that stupid penalty that had no impact on the play. Ideally I'd like see FJ extended, but I believe they are taking the right approach, there is no real hurry to extend him now, there is another year left on his contract. If anything, if he continues to play well (FJ) he could be in line for a decent contract as a FA. Lets not overreact, he will most likely get extended before the season end, barring injury.

Only people of your ilk feel that way.

I can answer that for you (from JAs perspective) no one. Not any of the one's running anyway. Which btw, I'm sure there are alot of guys wishing they did run this year. Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels and Huck to name a few. Hell, I bet Mike Pence could of won it this year. I will say this, JA's dogmatic like view is bit narrow when it comes to politicians and their expression for religion. I usually find that absolutist points of view obstruct clarity and truth. However, most reasonable people don't like when people push their religious views on people and that is something that Santorum would have to work on, without a doubt. Yeah, I agree with you about Romney, and you may be right about Santorum. But without a doubt, I'm impressed with his campaign and his intelligence. He definitely has increased in value from my perspective.

Romney had a horrible nite, really no way to spin it. He's the unloved "conservative", they just don't like him, it's as simple as that. I always said that getting out of the primaries would be his greatest challenge. Having said that, he has some serious image issues he has to deal with, it appears he needs work with working class folks, alot of these people specially in the rustbelt aren't enamored with Obama either, which means that Romney's VP selection is critical, someone that can help sure up his base and rustbelt blue collar workers. Voter turnout is down as well, people aren't enthused to go out and vote, and that's a potential problem. Without a doubt, they aren't enthused about Romney, he's been winning with his Biz bio and negative attacks on his opponents. Let's face it negative attacks works, but it also appears that it depresses turnout. The anti Romney sentiment is strong within the conservative movement, like I said earlier, I knew it would be an issue, so it's something that he is gonna have to continue to deal with. In regards to Santorum, I like him, he's genuine, intelligent, has a good manufacturing economic plan that will appeal to rust best folks, tenacious debater and likeable. His negative is that he is seen as too religious for some people. It's something that he can overcome, as long as he doesn't overly talk about pro-life issues and how god guides him in his decisions, then he could be ok. One really big advantage he will have is with white working class people in states like Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, N.C and Pennsylvania. The guy has become a more legitimate contender, also regarding his azz kicking he received in PA, lets face it, people were ready for change, he backed Bush's war policies and it cost him. I don't want to fully discredit it, because it is something to consider, but there were more issues to take into account as well.

Maybe some, but not nearly the majority. Alot of people just don't care.

I'm not saying that Romney is gonna be more likeable than Obama, because he's not. I'm arguing that he will be a better campaigner in the general elections than he is in the primaries. Independents for the most part are turned off at people pandering to their irrespective bases, what I'm saying is that Mitt's core is alot closer to the middle than to the far right, which is closer to his comfort zone. Like I said, so many variables to consider. This isn't 2004, the number one issue back then was the war and fight against Al Qaeda, and Karl Rove outflanked the D's. They were able to control the narrative and thats why they won. The issue now is the economy, and that is Romney's strong point, and if Karl Rove and team Romney can control that narrative then they have a good shot at winning. I would argue that likeability, albeit still an important trait to possess is less important in this years elecions than we saw in 2004, considering that there are so many people still suffering from the terrible economy. I would argue, all campaigns being equal, with equally effective messaging, that a Mr."fixit" campaign focusing on the economy, jobs and deficit trumps a campaign focused on "fairness" and "inequality". Reports are that with the super pacs, that Conservatives warchest will be equal to that of team Obama. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-insiders/post/obama-loses-the-advantage-on-fundraising/2012/02/02/gIQAoDDFkQ_blog.html I can't find the link that I read a few weeks ago, but this one pertains to that subject. There is gonna be alot of money this year on the conservative side with some very effective political operatives working on their behalf. Negative favorability ratings will rise on both sides, that you can be sure of.

Damn those Chinese and their "unchecked" communist policies.

Mitt will be a better General election campaigner than a primary one. In the primaries he has to pander to his base, whereas in the general election, he will get to talk more about topics that are in his comfort zone which is the economy and the deficit. He is closer to be a true independent than an ideological conservative.

I don't believe so, there is a possibility that they could demagogue Ryan's plan so much that they could scare away some voters,but there are some indications that wouldn't be the case. One of them is that Ryans favorability ratings are throught the roof including with Seniors in his home state. Two, the plan he has introduced doesn't touch anyone on Medicare's plan unless they are the age of 53 or less. And last but not least, Ryan is about as intelligent as they come, he understands policies at an exceptionaly high level, he knows his **** and he is a phenomenal communicator. He is the type of guy that independents would love, and he would be able to communicate conservative causes much more effectively than Romney ever could without sounding like your typical partisan Republican. I'm not saying that choosing Ryan comes without risk, because without a doubt the DNC would attack Ryan's medicare plan. Having said that, he is one of the few men that have the balls to actually attempt to address our Medicare problems, where was the president on this issue? That will be a contrast that could work to their favor, while Obama created a defict commission that came out with their solutions, what did the president do about it? Nothing. Ryan layed out his budget and attemp to solve Medicare and for that without a doubt he will pick up independents that care about the deficit and that have an interest at solving our entitlement issues.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72531.html#ixzz1li8pI9nT

You and I see him as a disaster, put ideological purists see things from a different lens. You should know that. Having said that, Romney is not your ideal conservative, by almost any means, from a personal perspective, I don't give a **** about this, I want someone who is going to be more fiscally responsible than Obama, I want someone who is going to improve the economy more so than Obama, and that's pretty much what it boils down to. Independents by in large aren't ideologically driven, so the election is going to be about a few different things 1) which candidate wins the message war Obama's message: a) I care about the middle class more and Romney is out of touch b) I will fight against income inequality, Romney wants to protect the rich Mitt's message: a) I can fix this economy,Obama doesn't understand economics and the proof is in the pudding. b) Obama believes in overreaching government with centralized power, crony capitalism and is your typical tax and spend liberal. c) Obama hasn't lived up to his promises. Wait till the super pacs really begin hammering Obama on Solyndra, Keystone, the healthcare bill, Catholic contraceptive scandal (which btw is now beginning to pick up lots of steam) and failed promises, you will see the presidents negative ratings rise. Karl Rove is most likely going to raise approximately $200 Million for this election cycle and let's face it, the guy is a political genius and the roll he has now as fundraiser and strategist for the largest super pac in the universe fits him perfectly, look at his results. Got Bush elected twice and look at the 2010 results. The guy is gonna effectively hammer away at the president, and he will do it in the districts that matter that can make the difference, that you can count on. 2) The economy, well this could go either way, if the economy improves then so do the presidents chances of getting elected, if the economy begins to sputter again, then Romney's Mr. "I can fix it" message gets a whole lot stronger. 3) Who Romney's VP selection is. He needs someone that can fire up the base, this is going to be a critical selection. He has to strike the right balance, he has to get someone who gins up the ideologues, while not alienating independents. There are two people that I can think of right now, that could deliver, and that is Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio. Many variables that will change between now and the elections. But those are the three main issues I see affecting this upcoming elections.