Sane Mitt versus Pandering Mitt.

If the GOP ran Sane Mitt, they just might prevail in the general.

Yep, that’s true. But Mitt is too far gone for that now.

I’ll be interested in reading your report on how much of this is taken out of context…..can’t wait to read all about it, especially given the attention this baord gave to the DNC/Obama on Mitt’s last ad.

Hmmmmmmm…..how long will I have to wait?

How about when Mitt at one of the debates reminded us all that Health Care Reform as he created it in Mass. was inspired by Newt Gingrich’s foundation?  Jeezus!! It’s like playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon!!

Conservatives told us during the 2004 presidential campaign that flip-flopping was an unacceptable quality for a presidential candidate. 

Hmmm cant wait for Mitts response with all of Obamas flip flops.  Or his great leadership…displayed with the BP oil spill.  How Obamas #1 course of action is always blame bush and do nothing. 

New Republican Mitt is going to have to go after the older Republican Mitt version hard, in order to persuade  the suspicious Tea Party/Republicans of his latest credentials…

Hope to see an ad for that.

…It will be impressive, if he can keep up with old Mitt’s shifting positions.

Wow, this ad is quite brilliant. Mitt Romney’s definitely going to be the nominee, no one else is feasible. I predict Obama winning by a modest margin, maybe 51% vs 48%? Probably even more if someone like Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate which, if Romney and Obama are the two main choices, is defenitely a possibility.

All politicians flip at one time or another … it’s the nature of the beast.  Mitt’s problem is that his flips have been on core values and not just policy.  Obama has not flipped on core values.

Problem is he can’t complain about the ad after that absurd lying ad last week. Obama is going to win again. God save us.

Cons before you get too upset, you can see this same video on Redstate under this heading:

“Why Mitt Romney Will Be A Terrible Nominee”

Posted by Erick Eric

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/11/28/why-mitt-romney-will-be-a-terrible-nominee/

Simple Arithmetics: ROMNEY + NOMINATION = OBAMA 2ND TERM

Hah! Your “report”!

Miss Tina Tampa Prissy Hiffington P. Asta Smelling Saltzburger III is a LAUGH RIOT!

Hoo boy, that was fun …. I should think the answer is very likely somewhere between after your natural demise and before the Sun runs out and leaves all us Earthlings to die as frozen dessert for microbes. 

How on Earth would Colby, who’s not very likely to have been tasked by his employers at Mediaite to do whatever it is you suggest, even BEGIN to address such a task?You could write a message of inquiry to the DCCC, who produced the two ads; I’m sure they’s be overjoyed to hear from you & respond to your every question – indeed, I very much expect they’ve got answer already prepared for ANY question you ever might think to ask on this.BTW – wasn’t the show wonderful? It’s based on a long time favorite, Willard Mittens & Flippsie & Floppsie, so it’s SURE to be a hit with everyone on Family Night! And the premise is every bit as wild as that Gilda Radner classic – Mittens is funnier than Emily Litella: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3FnpaWQJO0

Awesome ad. Sorry Tina. Our side doesn’t stoop to the right’s level. Only problem I can remotely see in a context area is when he was talking about illegals because it was a company he hired who hired the illegals. But I’m running for office for Pete’s sake!

Mitt’s ad was a bald faced lie.  As is every second sentence that comes out of his mouth. He says what you righties want to hear not what he believes and who knows what he really believes.

Mitt is running on Romney/Romney ticket. He has flipped/flopped so many times, he has the undercard covered, too.

Don’t forget it’s NEWT – so that would be the Noblesse Ogingrich:

6 degrees of Kevin Bacon on Triple Chinned Ham & Pulled Porkburger – with Extra Cheese! 

(In Paris, they call it the Royale Newt.)

Yeah but they’ve backed off that completely and now are saying the exact opposite. 

Whatdyacallit, that thing named after that guy with the problem, where he was always for, then against, then for, then who the heck knows, they named the syndrome right after THAT guy … no, not Alzeimer’s, not Parkinson’s; okay, let me visualize: It’s a different mental condition, named for the guy who does it all the time — SHOOT, it’s right out there on the tip of my mouth but I just can’t seem to swallow it … no, not Kerry, that guy was a Democrat, this guy’s a Republican I think … Buffy, Muffy, Biffy …

Ohhhh, supe … too bad.

To be candid, it might just need work – a LOT of work. Because right now, the way it is here, it’s just Not Ready For Prime Time Mediaite. 

A tip: you have to avoid becoming one of those supremely mockable chronic unfunny types, like Stuart Smalley, the guy Al Franken used to play with the self-esteem issues.

Great idea – it could be like a political remake of the Rumble in the Jungle, Foreman versus Ali – Ali Boom-a-yay, Ali Boom-a-yay, Willard the Centrist coming out all young and strong and naive, then Mitt eh Magnificent goes to the ropes, not dancing dancing dancing like he promised, but bobbing and weaving up against the turnbuckle – the GOP-A-Dope!

You know, I just don’t see that happening, not next year, not ever. Dr Paul has a lot of reasons to get his messages out to a national audience and the primaries debates plus his tours of the late night comedy shows pretty much satisfy those. I don’t really think he even WANTS to be president, it’s just something you have to say to get a place on that stage.

It would be nice to spell President Reagan’s name correctly, among other things.

Well I think the ad is evidence of who exactly the DNC is afraid of running against.  Gingrich is ahead in the polls, yet they are attacking Romney.  Why?  Gingrich doesn’t stand a chance against Obama, but Romney could very well beat him.  So the Obama admin is no doubt praying that Gingrich comes out on top.

Yep. The one candidate that could actually win is the one that Republicans seem hell bent on not nominating.

They also said that Obama’s “inexperience” was disqualifying — just before they nominated Sarah Palin for VP.

lol….Tina Tampa….lmao………why dont you point how much the ad has taken Mitt Romney’s words out of context if  the ad actually did so.

MITT ROMNEY IS CLEARLY A FLIP FLOPPER!

Everyone here can see that you are a partisan douch£ that defends a republican candidate no matter what. At this stage, it is safe to assume from the fervor you put into this partisanship that you are either a paid right wing troll or just a dummy clinging to guns, religion and GOP talking pionts 

Mitt the flip flopper, who says there’s no political truth in advertising

Why do you have to wait for others to write something when you can do the research yourself?  Let’s examine. 

Romney ad strategy:  Quote Obama quoting John McCain, and try to make it seem like those were Obama’s own words.  When called out on it, Romney campaign basically says “yeah, what’s the big deal?”

DNC ad strategy:  Use Romney’s long history of directly contradicting his past positions in his own speeches/answers and highlight them in a political ad.

How much more context do you need Tina? 

You’re not alone in this assessment.

http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/

Mitt’s going to use Bill Clinton’s campaign mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’.  

I’ll laugh really hard if Romney isn’t the nominee.  The DNC will have wasted millions of dollars for nothing.  

The dems took every single flip-flop out of context except for abortion.  They are scared to death of Mitt.

And let’s not forget that when it comes to “Flip-Flopping” nobody but nobody beats the “King of the Flip-Floppers”, Newt Gingrich. I’m pretty sure Newt taught Mitt everything he knows about “Flip-Flopping”.

Same as Liz, she’s right.

Also; no one has even touched on the dog abuse story as yet! You can’t win a popularity contest (which the presidential race IS) when you’ve openly admitted to dog abuse, so candidly because it’s such normal behaviour for Mitt, evidently.

And the mormon thing is fair game, as is any religion followed. Mormonism espouses ‘lying for the lord’ I.e. It preaches to it’s members to lie about the true nature of the religion in order to protect itself. Fair game. A dog abusing member of a church that glorifies lying and keeps it’s true nature hidden.

No, they will have gotten exactly what they wanted.  Again, Romney is the only candidate the DNC is scared of running against.  Why else do you think they are running ads against him when he’s only in 2nd place?  It’s because they’d much rather run against Gingrich or Cain or Perry than Romney.

But willard is insane/

It’s in his own words, no editing. Are you slow or demented.

List O’Bama’s lies and flip flops, and also video’s of these statements please. No… then be quiet.

Yeh, an economy ravaged 8 years by shrub II.

You have lied yourself into a corner, all nut case candidates, O’Bama in a landslide… falling on the neo-nazis.

In his Wall Street Journal column, James Taranto explains how the DNC’s anti-Romney ad repeatedly quotes Romney out of context: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

It will be interesting to see if the liberal media will be as outraged by this as they were by Romney’s ad against Obama last week.

The only reason Romney’s in trouble is because the Religious Right simply won’t vote for a Mormon. They believe this is a Christian Nation, all non-Christians are literally evil and doomed to hell. Electing a servant of Satan to America’s highest office they believe in many cases, would put the Anti-Christ at the seat of Jesus Christ’s American Power Base. Hence, they’ll take a repentant serial fornicator and adulterer, a marginal Roman Catholic, and loot-sniffing, pork-barrel snoutmaster over Romney. Anyone but Romney. Huckabee could have done a deal with Romney last time for a Huckabee/Romney ticked and probably won the election. Instead, Huckabee told Mitt to take his Book of Mormon and shove it. This gave us a really lame Fox panel show where we now are subjected to Pastor Mike’s hip bass riffs in a plethora of pickup bands, advanced us the losing ticket of a doddering old RINO and a ditzy but busty and Born-Again Alaskan Governor, and as a result, produced the first Black president of the United States of America. (Which could have been a good thing, but mostly hasn’t been so far…)

Don’t think the Tea-Party/Moral Majority/Silent Majority/Religious Right/Born-Again faction of the Republican base won’t give us another Ross Perot, split the base on Perry and Bachman, or throw away their vote on a symbolic write-in candidate and give us four more years for Obama to shove the rest of the economy down the toilet with both hands. You can only steal so much and funnel it back to your constituency in one term. He’s gonna need two to get the other half of America’s wealth into the pockets of his pals.

And the “good Christians” of the Republican Party are more than happy to give him all the time he needs to complete his job of destroying America as we know it, because they’re all hoping it triggers the Rapture, and if not, they just love to suffer and bemoan their suffering–just like Jesus suffered. But they’ll sure teach us.

http://lrwhitney.wordpress.com/

His religion contributes, but is certainly NOT the main problem.  I am a Mormon and do not support Mitt Romney.  He doesn’t stand for, or doesn’t have a record to prove he would stand for, true liberty as outlined by the constitution.  He represents the status quo when it comes to big government, invasion of privacy, monetary policy and foreign policy.  Please do yourself and this country a favor and SERIOUSLY study and consider Ron Paul.  I voted for Mitt 4 years ago in the primary, but I am much more informed this year and cannot bring myself to vote for him.

Go to ronpaul2012.com, ronpaulflix.com and watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo and then decide for yourself.

Not exactly.  Look at Ron Paul.  He has been advocating the same message for over 30 years.  Please consider him by taking an honest look at his positions.  Go to the source and don’t let the media and the Republican establishment continue to blind you.  Go to http://www.ronpaul2012.com , http://www.ronpaulflix.com and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo and make an honest assessment.

Not a Romney fan, but you couldn’t be farther from the truth about Mormonism.  Your bigoted statements are disgusting.  I am sure you call yourself a Christian, yet you grossly misrepresent our Savior with your hatred.

That’s absurd. 

You’re addressing a separate issue. Regardless of the merits of your argument about his actual political orientation, it is indisputable that the Religious Right, some 20-25% of the Republican base simply won’t vote for a Mormon whatever other qualifications he or she may present. That Michele Bachman appears in the national polls at all is a direct result of her 100% Born-Again credentials for example. Other than that, frankly, she has nothing going for her. And that’s not because I’m a Mormon too and she and her church has been actively engaged in anti-Mormon slander around her district. That Newt Gingrich would even surge for a moment in Iowa is again, that second-thinking going on as Bachman and the Bible-Belt factions campaign around the state casting doubt. So you’re right, Romney’s religion is a factor, but it is a major factor. It is the only factor in nearly a quarter of the Republican base. If he overcomes that stumblingblock it probably says more about the complete unpopularity or unsuitability of the other candidates in the primary than Romney’s pristine “Conservative” accredidation.

Santorum, Bachman, Perry, basically all they have is the Religious Right. And though they may have impeccable “Conservative” credentials, that does not mean that “normal” Conservatives and “Born-Again” Conservatives necessarily see eye-to-eye on political priorities. A president has absolutely no say for instance on the issue of abortion, but that’s the only credential the Religious Right certifies a candidate upon. It’s a deal-breaker. And it’s a pointless, “feel good” criteria for choosing a chief executive.