Romney vs. Santorum; It's ON!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The latest polls show Romney taking a slight lead in Ohio. This looks like exactly what he did in Michigan. If he wins 6-7 states tomorrow with one of them being Ohio this nominating process is all but over.[/quote]

And, interestingly, Romney appears to be doing very well with Catholic voters, better than Santorum.[/quote]

Has anybody offered any explanation as to why that may be so? (That Romney is doing better than Santorum among Catholic voters?)

Mufasa[/quote]I know exactly why, but that is another thread and I refuse to already break my commitment to living free from the bondage of thread hijacking. =]

482

And a new example pops up…

“We should be first to propose a Republican plan to bring health insurance to all Americans, one based on market dynamics, free choice, and personal responsibility. I think what we did in Massachusetts is a good model to start from, but whatever direction we take, let?s not simply react to what the Democrats do. Their own plan would undoubtedly create a vast new system of costly entitlements and bureaucratic dictates, burdening the people and threatening the economy. Americans will be looking for a better alternative. Let?s give it to them.”

483

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The latest polls show Romney taking a slight lead in Ohio. This looks like exactly what he did in Michigan. If he wins 6-7 states tomorrow with one of them being Ohio this nominating process is all but over.[/quote]

And, interestingly, Romney appears to be doing very well with Catholic voters, better than Santorum.[/quote]

Because (as I’ve been saying) the most important issue to most republican primary voters is who can beat Obama. And the majority of those voters are saying Santorum. that’s why he is currently in the lead nation wide. And that’s why he will most likely do well today.

484

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The latest polls show Romney taking a slight lead in Ohio. This looks like exactly what he did in Michigan. If he wins 6-7 states tomorrow with one of them being Ohio this nominating process is all but over.[/quote]

And, interestingly, Romney appears to be doing very well with Catholic voters, better than Santorum.[/quote]

Has anybody offered any explanation as to why that may be so? (That Romney is doing better than Santorum among Catholic voters?)

Mufasa[/quote]I know exactly why, but that is another thread and I refuse to already break my commitment to living free from the bondage of thread hijacking. =]
[/quote]

I don’t know, Tiribulus.

I think your thoughts would be pretty pertinent to this thread! (Otherwise, you could put it in the “HiJack” Thread?)

Mufasa

485

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The latest polls show Romney taking a slight lead in Ohio. This looks like exactly what he did in Michigan. If he wins 6-7 states tomorrow with one of them being Ohio this nominating process is all but over.[/quote]

And, interestingly, Romney appears to be doing very well with Catholic voters, better than Santorum.[/quote]

Being Catholic doesn’t make them immune from the “the most electable narrative.” Sadly.

486

Too bad Newt didn’t drop…

487

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

The latest polls show Romney taking a slight lead in Ohio. This looks like exactly what he did in Michigan. If he wins 6-7 states tomorrow with one of them being Ohio this nominating process is all but over.[/quote]

And, interestingly, Romney appears to be doing very well with Catholic voters, better than Santorum.[/quote]

Being Catholic doesn’t make them immune from the “the most electable narrative.” Sadly.[/quote]

Santorum and Gingrich might also be splitting the Not-Romney Catholic vote in Ohio, too.

488

President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke, the college student at the center of the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, after thinking about how his own daughters would have handled the criticism.

“I thought about Malia and Sasha,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference. “And one of the things I want them to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens. I wanted Sandra to know that her parents ought to be proud of her.”

Sandra Fluke is a “tireless advocate” for mandated “gender reassignment” surgery. Sandra Fluke “believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance.”

“Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons,” there is a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits.” Both Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits that they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place.

“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.”

Their “prime example” of discrimination, according to Fluke and Hu is not covering sex change operations.

“A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”

In a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services:”

“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”

I can’t believe that the left can get away with this stuff. Obama is now pretending to be fighting for women’s rights. Fluke and the left are attempting to silence conservatives. She is sueing Limbaugh - even after his apology. She’s going after his sponsors. She’s going after Beck. How convenient for Obama. He pulls a slight of hand over Obamacare by turning it into women’s rights issue and Fluke and co. take out the conservative media. Over free contraception of all things. It sickens me that people are this stupid.

489

Why are they only just now getting around to putting this stuff together…
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/did-romney-support-federal-mandate-during-obamacare-debate_633135.html

491

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me something, folks in the know - why all the hubbub over which candidate “wins” a particular state when that state awards its delegates on a proportional basis?[/quote]

The folks not in the know jump on the popular vote train.

492

Newt has got to drop.

493

Oops. My last post was in the wrong thread. But as it’s here now I’ll continue -

Investors flee Carbonite after Limbaugh announcement:

Yesterday Obama was talking about his daughters and about how he called Ms Fluke the LGBTQ advocate against heterosexists who won’t provide free sex change operations. A reporter asked him about Bill Maher’s comments and million dollar contribution to Obama’s campaign. Obama ignored the question and solicited another journalist from CNN to ask him a different question.

And Louis C K. Democrat hack liberal “comedian.” Louis C K will be the headlining act at the 16th Annual Radio and Television Congressional Correspondents Association Dinner. This is what Louis C K said about Sarah Palin in 2010:

“Her(Sarah Palin) baby was one-year-old. It doesn’t matter that it’s retarded at that age…When she was standing on that stage at the fking convention and holding a baby that just came out of her fking disgusting ct - her fking retard making ct(laughs) - and she held it up and said this is really hard raising this. Really? It’s a baby, stick your fking tit in its mouth.(more laughter)”

The level of filth and hypocrisy from the left is staggering.

496

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke, the college student at the center of the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, after thinking about how his own daughters would have handled the criticism.

“I thought about Malia and Sasha,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference. “And one of the things I want them to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens. I wanted Sandra to know that her parents ought to be proud of her.”

Sandra Fluke is a “tireless advocate” for mandated “gender reassignment” surgery. Sandra Fluke “believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance.”

“Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons,” there is a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits.” Both Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits that they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place.

“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.”

Their “prime example” of discrimination, according to Fluke and Hu is not covering sex change operations.

“A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”

In a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services:”

“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”

I can’t believe that the left can get away with this stuff. Obama is now pretending to be fighting for women’s rights. Fluke and the left are attempting to silence conservatives. She is sueing Limbaugh - even after his apology. She’s going after his sponsors. She’s going after Beck. How convenient for Obama. He pulls a slight of hand over Obamacare by turning it into women’s rights issue and Fluke and co. take out the conservative media. Over free contraception of all things. It sickens me that people are this stupid.[/quote]

I don’t think you could be any more redactive if you tried.

497

[quote]Bambi wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
President Obama said he called Sandra Fluke, the college student at the center of the latest Rush Limbaugh controversy, after thinking about how his own daughters would have handled the criticism.

“I thought about Malia and Sasha,” Obama said Tuesday at a news conference. “And one of the things I want them to be able to do is speak their minds in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names when they’re being good citizens. I wanted Sandra to know that her parents ought to be proud of her.”

Sandra Fluke is a “tireless advocate” for mandated “gender reassignment” surgery. Sandra Fluke “believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance.”

“Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons,” there is a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits.” Both Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits that they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place.

“Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.”

Their “prime example” of discrimination, according to Fluke and Hu is not covering sex change operations.

“A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.”

In a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services:”

“Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.”

I can’t believe that the left can get away with this stuff. Obama is now pretending to be fighting for women’s rights. Fluke and the left are attempting to silence conservatives. She is sueing Limbaugh - even after his apology. She’s going after his sponsors. She’s going after Beck. How convenient for Obama. He pulls a slight of hand over Obamacare by turning it into women’s rights issue and Fluke and co. take out the conservative media. Over free contraception of all things. It sickens me that people are this stupid.[/quote]

I don’t think you could be any more redactive if you tried.[/quote]

Not sure if you mean reductive or if you mean I have redacted parts of the quotes in an attempt to misrepresent Obama or Ms Fluke. I have not misrepresented either nor the situation.

498

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me something, folks in the know - why all the hubbub over which candidate “wins” a particular state when that state awards its delegates on a proportional basis?[/quote]

The folks not in the know jump on the popular vote train. [/quote]

It just seems so doggone disingenuous to claim a “BIG WIN!!” for Romney in Ohio when because of the proportional delegate award process he barely gets just a few more delegates for the convention.[/quote]

The real loser last night was the republican national committee for concocting such an asinine way of dividing the delegates. If they did this the old fashion way Romney would be the clear winner by now and the race would be over.

They are idiots. This process does not help defeat Obama. All it does is keep everyone in the race as they all feel they have a chance given the new system. And this causes damage to the republican party as they slug it out for a miniscule number of delegates each time thus damaging the eventual winner in both their pocket books and reputations. And it further divides the party between the final contenders. Most likely to the point where someone who is a die hard Santorum or Gingrich fan will have a difficult time voting for Romney. They wanted to prevent what happened four years ago giving McCain the early win. But they far over stepped their original goal. I assure you that this will be the first and last time delegates are decided in this way.

It truly makes me sick. Obama sits there on top of a pile of money untouched and the three leading candidates continue to attack each other depleting their resources. Obama truly is the luckiest man who ever lived.

499

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Has anybody offered any explanation as to why that may be so? (That Romney is doing better than Santorum among Catholic voters?)[/quote]

My best guess, not being Catholic? Catholics find the current president to be very hostile to things they find very important, and now Catholics are thinking “anyone but Obama, we have to win this” - in other words, electability has become the number one priority.

And, many of them are (hopefully) wise enough that Romney can play defense on RomneyCare in a general election where ObamaCare is going to be an issue better than Santorum can play defense on his vote for the unfunded liability of Medicare Part D (the colossal drug prescription bill) in a general electiopn where deficits and entitlements are going to be an issue.

In short, Santorum - as much as I like some of what he says - was inextricably part of the problem he now says he wants to correct. Anyone serving in that Congress and voting for Part D is going to have an incredible time taking on the mantle of “deficit reformer” against Obama in 2012.

And I think a number of GOP primary voters get that, Catholics included.

500

As a side note if combine all of the delegates won by Santorum, Gingrich and Paul they still do not eqaul the amount won by Mitt Romney.