Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

GOP: Larger problem looms for Republicans

Letter by Robert L. Humphries, Puyallup on March 8, 2012 at 4:40 pm with 46 Comments »
March 9, 2012 10:39 am

There may be a much larger issue for the Republican Party than the obvious fact that Mitt Romney has yet to lock up the nomination.

After the primary results in Tennessee, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, it is becoming ever more evident that many conservatives do not believe Romney wholly represents their conservative values. They also know that if Romney gets the nomination, he will have to move even further away from them in order to be competitive against Barack Obama in the general election (and Romney already has a tag of “Obama-lite).

I can understand how nervous the GOP bluebloods are about how this in-house battle is playing out in the media. Much more serious, however, is that these primary results have exposed the expanding cracks in the Nixon-Reagan-Bush winning alliance of the old-money GOP with Southern conservatives.

Southern Republicans are relative newcomers to the GOP. They broke from the Democratic Party and – other than a brief hope for a third party under the likes of Strom Thurmond or George Wallace – had nowhere else to go but the “Party of Lincoln.”

Moreover, the GOP has never been able to get a firm grip on the tea party movement and now has to deal with Southern conservatives who are not falling in line for Romney. It will be interesting to see Romney move closer to the center if he gets the nomination – leaving many conservatives (who are already voting against him) out on a limb.

Leave a comment Comments → 46
  1. The real game change will be that after all the campaigning and debates, the four candidates for the Republicans will meet at a divided and brokered convention. That well could result in a totally different candidate like Sarah Palin, Jeb Bush or others being the final nominee.

    Plus, Ron Paul, who still has tons of money, may well continue on as a 3rd Party possibly Libertarian Candidate.

    The GOP is in total disarray. The reelection of President Obama is almost guaranteed because of it.

  2. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Robert, hate to interrupt your talking points sing-song, but maybe you are forgetting this:


    And yet her supporters got behind “the one” once it was decided.

    I know there’s more fun to poke when you’re backing the party whose candidate is already selected, but you surly must remember how the system works. There’s a lot of time until the Republican convention. When all is said and done, the Republican party will unite around their candidate (probably Romney) – just as the Democrats did after their convention in ’08 – and focus on defeating the campaigner-in-chief.

  3. Vox, I really think you are wrong about Romney. If there ever was a time ripe for a brokered convention, this looks like it. The Republican Party is very fragmented right now, and the current crop of candidates can’t really do much to quell that. A new candidate will probably need to emerge to bring the party back together.

  4. SandHills says:

    Vox, I read it as a fairly factual assessment – your argument that the GOP will join the fractures they now have is more about vpting against Obama than really being motivated about voting for Romney. The quest will be, how motivated?

    The letter writer is correct in pointing out the major split between conservative Southern Republicans and others in the GOP. Again, I beleive those Southerners now voting against Romney will have no other choice in November but Romney – given they have deeper and darker (racial) reasons to vote for anyone other than Obama. I didn’t read this as anti-GOP, rather a bit more insight in why Romney has not closed the deal on the nomination yet. Making a comparison of the Clinton-Obama contest in 2008 is also a weak one, as I seriously doubt the schism between the supporters of those two run as deep as what’s going on in the GOP – and I would bet if Romney did get elected he probably wouldn’t make Gringrich or Santorum SecState (unless a brokered deal is done pretty soon).

  5. BlaineCGarver says:

    Repubs have their favorites, but Obama is so far in left field, I doubt any R will protest by voting for him if their man does not get the nod….The great hope for Obama is for idiot Paul to break off into a third party, which WILL result in a Big O win….Oh, well…we survived Carter and Klinton. It’s a shame that liberals only come to their senses when disaster looms…

  6. pantomancer says:

    hmmm, “voting against someone instead of for”. We’ve never seen that before.

  7. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Then you miss my point, SandHills. And, like the writer, you completely ignore the fractiousness of the ’08 Democrat primary.

    The letter writer, and you, state the obvious when referring to more conservative Southern Republicans, and other conservatives, current lack of overwhelming enthusiasm for Romney. But more conservative Democrats were not even close to being on 0bama’s bandwagon at this juncture in 2008 – when the primary was a 2-person race, as opposed to the 3-person race that is the 2012 Republican primary.

    The “point” is it’s pointless to draw conclusions at this point.

    Also, your allegations of racism sound curiously leftist to me. Along with much of the remainder of your opinions, it belies your self-identified conservative leanings.

    And I’ll bet you had Hillary pegged as SecState all the way, back in March of 2008. Please.

  8. SandHills says:

    Vox if you want an argument for arguments sake have at it – if you feed on Fox analysis, you can have that too. The fact that dems came together in 2008 is not the issue. It’s the underlying point that Southern Republicans have shown that they don’t want Romney – even though He will probably get their votes more as an anti-Obama vote than a pro-Romney vote. i happen to believe Southern Republicans have a deeper resentment for Obama than any enthusiasm for Romney. In my opinion that is a much deeper divide within the GOP than the Clinton – Obama 2008 example you give.

    Will the Tea Party and Bible-belt conservatives vote AGAINST Obama instead of FOR Romney is the issue? They may in fact support Romney just much as Clinton supporters voted for Obama – I just don’t think their motivation is based as much on liking Romney as hating Obama.

    Will the anti-Obama vote propel Romey into the White House? The GOP has to hope so, because I dont’t believe Romney has enought support within his own party otherwise. My opinion. I think the letter writer only put the facts put their – how Souuthern conservatives reconcile themselves to Romney is yet to be seen – and I can see how anyone who is a Romney supporter looks to the 2008 Democratic nomination as a hopeful sign. i just think, like the letter writer, that the dynamics of Southern conservatives should be more of a concern for the GOP than how the Dems fell in behind Obama in 2008.

  9. menopaws says:

    It’s hard for this Democrat to have much sympathy for the Republicans, but I actually do. I believe strongly in our two party system and know how it nutures our democracy. I have come to believe that the Republicans have moved too far to the right to be electable by a vast majority of Americans. I honestly believe a huge loss might make the party move towards some serious introspection about how and why they lost their bearings. I used to vote as a moderate Republican, but as the party moved further right, I began to vote Democrat. Politicians like Olympia Snowe, Bob Dole, Howard Baker worked across the aisle with Democrats to govern. The politicians of today have forgotten that it is their job to govern, not set up an obstacle course to stop the necessary work that needs to get done. We need to respect our democracy enough to make it thrive—not shut it down. I hope they figure out that Americans want their government to work and accomplish important goals. It seems like they have lost touch with the average voter and they need to remedy that.

  10. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    You’re certainly entitled to your own opinions, as long as they’re not presented as fact.

    Attempting to paint a voting decision as one “AGAINST Obama instead of FOR Romney” is certainly not the issue, unless you feed on MSNBC analysis. (I think your slip is showing, SH.)

    But in case you missed it, I have already stated there are obvious questions about Romney on the part of Southern Conservatives, as well as more fiscally conservative Republicans – you can count the Tea Party among them, if you wish. And there were similar concerns with 0bama on the part of more conservative wing of the Democrat Party, who preferred Hillary in 2008. This is a common struggle in primaries.

    Regions often tend to vote as a block. How well have Gingrich and Santorum down in the Northeast? Should this too be a concern for Republicans?

    One candidate is always more conservative or liberal than others in any particular party primary. This is not news.

    And you can count me among the “anti-0bama” voters if you like. But not because I’m a Bible-thumper, Tea Party member, racist, etc, etc, etc. In fact I am none of those, nor have I been an active supporter of any Republican candidate thus far. However, like every conservative I know, I will vote for whomever the Republican Party nominates because I think 0bama is a disastrously ineffective, big-government, weak on foreign policy president. (FWIW, unless they really surprised, it’s quite likely I would have felt the same about Kerry, Hillary, Gore, or Edwards.)

    I do business with folks in the south, and I can tell you I see a lot more support for Santorum and Gingrich there. But I have yet to communicate with anyone who would not support the eventual nominee – regardless.

    As I said, The point is it’s pointless to draw conclusions at this point.

  11. SandHills says:

    There is one conclusion Vox – many Southern Republicans and Tea Party folks will be motivated to vote against Obama rather than for Romney, who else could they vote for? Another conclusion is that unless Romney gets them to change by the time the convention rolls around, well the fat lady ain’t sung yet – and that will be a problem for the GOP to get a brokered convention – and Gingrich, Santorum, and Paul are a long way from conceding anything.

    If anything is NOT conclusive it is that Romney will be the eventual GOP nominee – the article was simply pointing out something about Southern Republicans that is a looming problem for Romney if not for the GOP. you doing business with Southerners does not give you any insight into the obvious fact we all see – so far Romney has not won a southern state with either Gingrich or Santorum on the ballot. Now he has thrown out a very “yankeefied” “hey y’all” in his run through Mississsippi, where he will come in 3rd at best. No, nothing is conclusive – especially about Romney getting the nomination, but those southern states are upsetting the GOP apple cart big time, and that is a fact we all can see except those wanting to spin it another way.

  12. bobcat1a says:

    Anybody remember how the super conservative Craswell was going to appeal to the red meat conservative hiding inside most of us Washingtonians? Remind me; how did that work out, now?

  13. How does any republican or conservative or whatever they are calling themselves this week think that ANY of their candidates will win in the general election?
    The party itself is destroying itself from the inside out and running amok with these idiotic social issues like birth control and abortion, so how can anyone think they have a chance?

  14. Mr. Humphries, I’m surprised they allowed your letter to find print!

    Everyone knows that here in Washington it is politically incorrect and offensive to write naughty words (“Republican”)!!! Haaaaa!

  15. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    kluwer, your fairytale description of the current state of the Republican Party vis-a-vis the primary process reminds me of the famous quote by New York liberal film critic and journalist Pauline Kael. After Nixon’s landslide victory over McGovern in 1972, she was asks to comment and replied that she “couldn’t because she didn’t even know anyone who had voted for Nixon.”

    You need to broaden your horizons a bit – be more… what’s the liberal cliché… oh yeah, “open-minded”.

  16. Sonofwashington says:

    Well said, Menopaws. In the face of one of America’s most serious fiscal crises, out Congress is frozen in place because of the strident, anti-Obama fever of the tea-party right that has so effectively cleaved the Republican Party. And it’s all spurned by hate-talk radio and the Murdoch/Ailes zealot network who love to weave in some clever racial slams and question our President’s citizenship and religion whenever they don’t seem to make headway on the real issues.

    As an Obama supporter, I would like to believe that the racist tendencies and the current anti-women rants will reveal the true colors of the right to America and thereby ensure an Obama win. But that is dangerous complacency because they have an incredible message machine and the benefit of huge, Super-Pacs funded by monster corporations (many of them fully or partially foreign-owned). As a result they can pretty well command the airwaves.

  17. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I honestly believe a huge loss might make the party move towards some serious introspection about how and why they lost their bearings.

    LOL, many years ago I lost my “bearings” from the rear sprocket of my 10-speed racer… in super low… while standing on the pedals… ouch, that hurt.

    But it’s you libs, with your overwrought analysis’, that are really cracking me up.

  18. “You need to broaden your horizons a bit”

    I have to laugh at that when right before it you completely, and I do mean completely missed the point of Pauline Kael, remark!
    Not only that but you surely didn’t read my comment because you failed, utterly, to address it.
    I have to say, you do represent your party well and I could not have proven my point any better than you did, thank you.

  19. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    SH, I have stated, up-thread, that Romney is the “probable” nominee. I doubt any serious analyst would disagree with that. And while I have no trouble moving that north a bit to “highly likely” I have never stated it is inevitable.

    But the whole “brokered convention” narrative makes for good subject material for the hacks at MSNBC, and the like-thinking libs who lap that stuff up and parrot it here. However, the chances of it happening are as remote as 0bama correctly picking the eventual NCAA men’s basketball champ. (He’s 0-fer in his attempts so far – with two of his picks losing in the first round. Can the guy get anything right?)

    Aside from the fact that new rules make a brokered convention a near impossibility, there is also the fact that Romney is more than a third of the way to having the needed 1144 delegates to win on the first ballot, and he has more than double the amount of delegates as his closest competitor – Rick Santorum. The obvious fact you seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that the longer Gingrich stays in the race, the more unlikely it is that Santorum will be able to make up much ground on Romney. Really, although it will take some time, all Romney has to do is win the states he is expected to win, and collect as many delegates from the non-winner-take-all states as he can.

    But what the heck, I’ll play along for a bit. The scenario for a brokered convention would have to shake out something like this:

    – Gingrich would have to bow out. (Not likely any time soon.)
    – Santorum would have to win the remaining Deep South primaries: North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. (Not unlikely, but if Gingrich stays in, Romney will pick up a proportionally fair amount of delegates as a result of the split vote.)
    – Santorum would then have to capture both the preference primaries and most of the delegates in Pennsylvania and Texas. (Actually not a stretch, given he’s from Pennsylvania and is leading by a wide margin in TX, but again, these are not winner-take-all primaries – Romney still picks up delegates and Gingrich still hurts in TX if he hasn’t dropped out).
    – Which outcomes would then bring everything to bear on the June 5 winner-take-all primaries (incidentally, this is the same date that 0bama secured enough delegates to win the ’08 D nomination – less Florida and Michigan). But here’s where the going gets impossibly tough for Santorum and the “brokered convention” (conspiracy) theorists; New Jersey’s 50 delegates are a lock for Romney, and California’s hybrid winner-take-all 169 delegates will largely also break for Romney.

    Mitt Romney = highly likely as the Republican nominee. But rather than argue with you for the sake of arguing, lets just revisit the subject… say, June 4th, 2012. If all of the other scenarios pan out for Santorum prior to that date, it will be interesting. But then, so was the ’08 D primary at that point.

  20. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Ohh please kluwer, please tell me exactly what Ms Kael meant when she so impetuously revealed that she didn’t know a single Republican, as I am obviously too thick to get her deeper meaning.

    At least she had the good sense to not comment on something about which she had no clue.

    Good advice, k.

  21. Sonofwashington says:

    Vox, I think you layed out a well-reasoned and articulate analysis on the “brokered convention” question. Where us libs don’t necessarily agree with is the parallel you draw with the Clinton-Obama campaign. I don’t believe that the factions that exist in the Republican party compare to the Democrats at that time.

    Assuming that Romney gets the nomination (and I agree with you that is most probable but a brokered convention remains a possibility) his real challenge will be his ability to tack back to “moderation” to win the general election. Seems he would be driven to bury himself in “flip-flops to pull that off, while facing the stridency of the tea-partiers and the media power of hard right conservatives, i.e., Rush, FOX, and the super-pacs.

    I’d be curious to know your assessment of Romney’s strategy in that regard and how he would fare in the general election given the lack of enthusiasm for him by the Republican base.

  22. “Good advice, k.”

    Which you clearly can’t follow.
    It does no good to explain things to people like you vox, none what so ever, your eyes are wide shut to reality as your many posts show.

  23. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    your eyes are wide shut

    Hey, “eyes wide shut”… wasn’t that a movie? This reminds me of another movie; remember what Morpheus offers Neo in the movie Matrix? Neo takes the red pill and escapes from the matrix into the ulterior world.

    Take the red pill, k.

  24. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Son, I don’t think many likely Romney voters would agree that he needs to “tack” very far to appeal to the middle. Certainly no more so than 0bama will need to tack right for the same reason, as Clinton did in 1996.

    But Clinton had the advantage of being politically savvy enough to govern from the center after his disastrous first two years. 0bama surrounds himself with rigid ideologues instead of the pragmatists of the Clinton administrations. Thus I think the distinctions between the candidates will be quite manifest. But if Romney is the nominee, he should clearly be viewed as the more centrist of the two.

    And I doubt the 0bama camp will be so eager to get into the “flip-flop” issues – though their allies in the MSM will certainly carry the water for them on that, while conveniently forgetting 0bama’s own flip-flops, e.g.: Not taking public funded election money in ’08 after pledging he would (thus allowing him to spend unlimited private money), forming a super PAC for ’12 after saying he wouldn’t, Guantanamo, support of Israel, military tribunals, rendition of terror suspects, ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval, dropping Third Site missile defences in Poland and the Czech Republic after pledging to support them, letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide, the Mubarak “stalwart ally” back-stab, killing the NASA manned-space program, etc, etc…

    There are plenty of flip-flops hanging in the 0bama wardrobe too.

    As for your perceived lack of enthusiasm by the Republican base, I think I’ve already addressed that here. I believe the base will be energized to re-take the White House – no matter whom the nominee may be.

  25. SandHills says:

    Vox, you stated you dealt with Southerners – their dislike of Romney is only as bad as their dislike of Obama – so in that regards I have no argument. But it is pure spin to suggest the gaps among Republicans in 2012 are no worse than the differences between the Dems in 2008. So other than this spin, you have basicallly been inside a glass bubble in regards to the basic point being made by the letter writer – that there are problems looming down the road within the GOP. Maybe you don’t see the problem in the short-term, because those who dislike Romney will most likely vote against Obama anyway. But in the long term, if the GOP wants candidates like Romney then it may force the more conservative/Tea Party to break away – again I don’t think the letter writer was off-base to suggest this as a problem for the GOP down the road. I’m thinking in terms of 2016 if Romney doesn’t win.

  26. concernedtacoma7 says:


    Not looking good for BHO.

    I will consider the extra price at the pump a donation to the anybody but BHO fund.

  27. Now you’re using rasmussen??!!
    Wow it has to be really bad for you rightists!
    American thinker and rasmussen in one day!!
    Really sucks to be a conservative!

  28. bobcat1a says:

    Come on kluwer, Rasmussen earns every penny that Fox News pays him for his analysis. He somehow has to make all those numbers match the desired result.

  29. concernedtacoma7 says:

    No data to dispute. Whining and excuses are all the left has. No pride. Type B. pathetic.

  30. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Vox, you stated you dealt with Southerners – their dislike of Romney is only as bad as their dislike of Obama – so in that regards I have no argument.

    No… I said they obviously prefer the more conservative Santorum and Gingrich, but will eventually be committed to whomever the nominee is as the choice is so clear. As for 0bama, you could say they dislike_________________ (insert Democrat Presidential candidates name here). If it were Hillary, the claims would probably be sexism. There is always an “ism” responsible for not voting for the liberal, right?

    And the letter-writer’s comment that “after the primary results in Tennessee, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, it is becoming ever more evident that many conservatives do not believe Romney wholly represents their conservative values” is even more laughable when you consider Romney won Florida. And what should we read into the fact that Gingrich won his home state (Georgia) and its neighbor (South Carolina)?

    But it is pure spin to suggest the gaps among Republicans in 2012 are no worse than the differences between the Dems in 2008.

    Who is spinning what here? I have the history of the ’08 Democrat primary to point to, all you have is your take. The fact is that your and the letter writers entire premise is spin.

    Do me a huge favor and read the following piece by an African American blogger:


    Vass’ points are in complete agreement with what I have said here, but I really don’t wish to take the time and space it would take to explain this to you once again. And Vass sums up every point I have made in so much more compelling manner than I.

    this as a problem for the GOP down the road. I’m thinking in terms of 2016 if Romney doesn’t win.

    LOL, now we’re moving the goal posts?

  31. Pacman33 says:

    Is their one crazy lefty that tells the rest of them what to say or are they all, collectively, a bunch of nutbars? It is amazing how much the left can “forget” in less than 4 years.

    Four years ago, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tore each other apart in a pitched battle for the Democratic presidential nomination that didn’t end until June. No, JUNE is not a typo. How soon the looney left forgets the bitter divisions between the Obama and Hillary Clinton camps in 2008, when so-called pro-Clinton PUMAS — an acronym for Party Unity My A$$ — railed against Obama’s ascendancy, with some even calling for the former first lady to run as an independent.

  32. Pacman33 says:

    The prolonged and nasty 2008 democratic primaries got so heated even Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton had to get involved. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary wrote this in his blog on January 24, 2008:
    “Bill Clinton’s ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former President, his legacy, or his wife’s campaign. Nor are they helping the Democratic party. While it may be that all is fair in love, war, and politics, it’s not fair—indeed, it’s demeaning—for a former President to say things that are patently untrue (such as Obama’s anti-war position is a “fairy tale”) or to insinuate that Obama is injecting race into the race when the former President is himself doing it.”

  33. Pacman33 says:

    The Birth of ……… Birtherism. That’s right, we have the ’08 Democrat primary and Hillary Clinton, her supporters more specifically, to thank for the birther soap opera. It was during the deeply divided ’08 Democrat primary that e-mails from supporters of Hillary Clinton surfaced that questioned Obama’s origin, religion and birth certificate/citizenship in an attempt to revive Clinton’s faltering primary election campaign. Issues raised were his place of birth (America? Kenya?), his middle name (Muhammad rather than Hussein), his given first name (Barry? Barack?) and even his religion.

    There is no comparison to Republicans in 2012 and the Democrats/Birthers in 2008, unless the comparison conveys the Dem primary in ’08 makes the current “in-house battle” look like a pillow-fight.

    2008: The Fogotten Year – Collective Leftist Amnesia

    Birtherism: Where it all began

  34. pacman – Birtherism was, indeed, started by an over zealous Hillary supporter. And it died within the Democratic side of things almost immediately.

    Orly Taitz and friends are still claiming that the birth certificate was forged.

    See, here’s the thing, rational people can say stupid, irrational things and, once they realize how stupid and irrational it was, acknowledge that they were wrong and move on. That is what makes them rational people.

    But irrational, stupid people, after hearing a rational person saying something irrational and stupid see that as a rationalization for them to keep saying irrational, stupid things long after the rational person has acknowledged that it is irrational and stupid.

  35. You are correct bobcat, poor conservatives they have to rely on liars and thieves like fox and rasmussen to feed their agenda.
    It is as someone said, “type B pathetic”.

  36. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    I see someone elected to take the “blue” pill… again.

    How’s that matrix working’ out for ‘ya, k?

    Water’s fine here in the real world.

  37. Did someone say crazy?

    “What circumstance exempts early 21st century North America from the memes that ravaged Europe in the 20th? Nothing, save a common sense which kept the balance and the design margin. But once that design margin was stripped away the last bulwark was potentially gone and the tiger came in from the night.

    Ironically America paid for all of it themselves. Paid for all the tenured leftist professors and teachers who made its sons and daughters like to unto Scorpio. Paid for the apparatus of propaganda and repression that may be unleashed upon it. Irony was never this thick. Never think the Left is stupid. Crazy yes. Stupid, no.”

    Richard Fernandez

  38. “Paid for the apparatus of propaganda and repression that may be unleashed upon it”

    We paid for the republican party?

  39. Sonofwashington says:

    Well said, Beerboy.

    Vox, how you can suggest that if Romney is the nominee, he should clearly be viewed as the more centrist of himself and Pres. Obama. Mr. Romney has proclaimed himself a “severe conservative” and, from a “leftist” point of view, we surely do not thing Obama has surrounded himself with idealogues (despite FOX talking-head claims). To our view he has been too willing to accomodate the right and taken on too many of the Clinton tactics. Lately, he has seemed to take a firmer stand on progressive issues and defending the middle class from the corporate/wall street interests.

    You throw out a litany of so-called flip-flops on the part of the president, but these are more like campaign promises not fulfilled, than actual flip-flops in substantive principles. For example, Mr. Romeny who once emphatically promised to defend Roe v. Wade but no more with his new-found “severe conservatism”. I know the right keeps trying to paint Pres. Obama as an “extreme leftist” (if not a socialist, communist, Muslim, etc.) but any asture observer of his state philosophy and actions belie that silliness.

    As a “libruhl” I will be more than happy to watch the debate work out between Mr. Romney, the ultimate 1 percenter defending the corporate classes and the incumbent president, who will be defending the middle class.

  40. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Son, you asked me for my opinion, I gave it to you. I could list a dozen radicals who currently serve on his administration -from his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, to his Attorney General, but I’m sure you think these ideologues are all just regular Americans.

    And I love how you moved the goal posts on flip-flops for 0bama. I’m sure you’ll forgive Romney his transgressions in the same manner. (e.g. His comments on Roe-v-Wade were made during his failed run at Kennedy’s House seat in 1994. But that wouldn’t be the same as broken campaign promise… even though it was made during a campaign? Okey-dokey.)

    The fact that is you and I are never going to agree on much, so I don’t think another lengthy reply here is worth the effort.

  41. Pacman33 says:

    Well said, beerboy?

    I would have to disrespectfully disagree.
    To be honest, I found his 5:24AM response
    to be rather ….. well, irrational.
    I might even go as far as ….. describing
    it as … stupid?

    Seriously though, I did find it interesting. beerBoy was the last person I’d ever figure for a birther-er-est-er-est dueler. I’ve witnessed bB in his “Recess Lady” role break up far more senseless schoolyard squabbles than that on these threads. One would have to be quite irrational to suggest the right didn’t have the birther market cornered, if there is much of one to corner still.

    One thing is for sure, beerBoy sure doesn’t take kindly to being called a birther. He got so riled up, I’m not sure if he realized or not, that my post was addressing the inane and numerous comparisons of the current primary to the Dem’s ’08 bloodbath.

  42. It makes sense that my attempt to parody an absurd post would be followed by one that makes even less sense.

  43. Sonofwashington says:

    Vox – (forgive me for a reply and for breathing…)
    I’m not suggesting Obama should not be held accountable for not living up to campaign promises. He has dissappointed many of us on the left for not living up to our expectations (thus apparently failing the standards of the idealogues you seem to think hold him in shackles. They surely don’t compare to the rightist idealogues like Limbaugh, Norquist, et al, who currently rule the Republican party with an iron fist.)

    But to compare these to Romney’s many flip-flops (as so well voiced by his Republican competitors numerous times) is just another example of false equivalency that the conservative right has honed to a fine art.

    In any event, the general election will be a fine forum for America to compare the two on how well they live up to their stated principles. Unless of course the whole thing is drowned out by the blaring megaphones of the super-pacs from either side.

  44. “No data to dispute. Whining and excuses are all the left has. No pride. Type B. pathetic.”

    Ahem. Once again, when you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

  45. SonofWashington writes,

    “As an Obama supporter, I would like to believe that the racist tendencies and the current anti-women rants will reveal the true colors of the right to America and thereby ensure an Obama win.”

    So, Conservatives are racist women haters?

    I’d love to be able to say ‘I cant believe you suggested that’ with a straight face, but I just cant do it! If your totally moronic, left wing stereotype (dont you people hate THAT word!) is really the best you characters can come up with, you deserve Obama! HAAA!

    Sheesh you liberal jokers take the bloody cake! Haa!

  46. averageJoseph says:


We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0