dayman

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/05/18/romney_releases_first_general_election_tv_ad/ "Day One: President Romney immediately approves the Keystone pipeline, creating thousands of jobs that Obama blocked," the announcer declares, referring to a pipeline Obama has delayed. Republicans insist his decision shows Obama's hostility toward the energy industry. "President Romney introduces tax cuts and reforms that reward job creators, not punish them," the announcer says, repeating a familiar Republican theme. Then, in an effort to ease conservative skepticism, the announcer says: "President Romney issues order to begin replacing Obamacare with common-sense health care reform." 1. Lay pipe (even if he has to do it with his bare hands) 2. Cut taxes for rich 3. Begin to address Obamacare with ... basically just a question mark ... way to ease the concerns there Mitt ...he's also getting up on stage saying he will heal the political divide in this country...we've heard that before Mitt...I wouldn't go that way if I were....nobody in America wants to hear that this time around regardless of what anybody did in the past... I'm not political expert but I really don't see how the Romney campaign is going to actually define him with any actual punch of it's own. He's still just "not Obama" and I really fail to see how he'll ever be anything different at this point. I just don't understand what will happen to make him anything more than the weak candidate he's always been.... It's undeniable Obama took over in a time of absolute FUBAR. Romney needs to come out and say Obama did "X Y and Z" in response to that, and that he would have done "A B and C" which would have had us in a better spot. Then again he's dodging what he has said in the past...b/c it doesn't look that good. He can't dodge it though. THAT IS WHAT UNDECIDEDS WANT TO HEAR. Mitt is going down in flames IMO he's going to botch this terribly. Obama will (imo) have more money, he's a vastly superior politician, and on top of that Mitt is under-performing (even relative to his own limited capabilities as a politician). Mitt could be the weakest candidate since Dukakis and that's saying something. Flame away PPP, let's have some fun.

Liberal or conservative ... doesn't matter ... Romney is a really really weak candidate. We're talking potential Dukakis level weakness...

What do you mean by "we need to go down this road?" ...just that they're pushing that way or that there is some actual reason for it?

What a joke. This should be an embarrassment to the true fiscal conservative GOP leaders in the house. $643 billion military spending bill...It exceeds the cap set for defense programs in last year's budget deal by several billion dollars. ....bar same-sex marriage ceremonies on U.S. military bases The bill also includes new funding -- opposed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta -- for certain tank upgrades, additional submarines, long-range bomber development and Air Force drones. GOP leaders, while pressing for overall spending reductions, vehemently oppose the bulk of the defense cuts... Mitt Romney is pushing for a significant defense spending increase http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/politics/house-defense-bill/index.html

Any moderate and/or liberal should begin treating 3rdnlng as the conservative DiN if all you say about DiN is true. Make it happen. Conservatives...you should discount him. Cast his idiot self off to the side. 3rdnlng!!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhh!!!!!

This is really what it comes down to. A few of the conservative posters are in attack mode from the start and you be hit hard (often w/ absolute garbage, sometimes with good points) right away from all angles. They're like a little pack helping each other or at least not discounting their own when the retardation starts flying. The liberals, hell many disagree with other liberals and even if they don't there's no gang bang from that side. I mean I haven't come here that long but I have no idea who DiN is. Also just now seeing Mark Miller is a liberal (or at least less conservative than others here). There's basically one guy I've seen (in teh ACA debates) that I would identify as "on my side"...that doesn't mean there is one liberal...that just means...we're a different type of group.

Do you or do you not support DOMA?

Ugh.

3rdnlng...you have no !@#$ing clue. It's hilarious. The biggest foot-in-mouth poster on the board but you will never understand how retarded you are...a true political idiot.

Honestly as a complete and total "when you die it's blackness" guy...I might say "God bless America" from time to time as president...and I certainly would say "so help me God" after swearing in.

LOL it WOULD surprise me to learn anything different. As it would with almost all politicians. And most people period....and yes yes I know there are faithful I'm not trying knock those people.

I would hold off if I was Romney until that point politically. SuperPac included.

Well thing is...Romney is a Mormon republican....

Well here's the thing. What the full faith and credit clause means is a matter of constitutional construction no? It doesn't mean every state law applies equally to all America that would be nonsensical. What it does mean is that states must respect other states rulings, records, etc... So why pass a federal law attempting to interfere with this as a matter of constitutional law? For the record when push comes to shove it will fail (but it has bought a LOT of time and will continue to do so to the point where the political process may ultimately deal with it first)...the point stands though. If 3rdnlng wants to say what he says...then he should be willing to say "I do not support DOMA." B/c remember we aren't talking about a hypothetical law supporting gay marriage...we're talking full faith and credit on that end. On the other end...we are very much talking DOMA. Well now we're getting into if being gay is an immutable trait. If we really want to explode this topic...this is how it's done.

Meh...in other words getting people to vote against their best interest by playing racial politics? This really isn't something that works anymore...Lee Atwater is dead...

What's ironic is think about this for a minute. SuperPacs become known. Transparent/not secret shady things. Then...almost replacing political parties (b/c that's where the money has to go)? Then the party system (gradually rising to the top and running when it's your turn and adhering to party politics as a result) and dynamic if shaken up...I don't know where I'm going with this...all I'm saying is I'm not so sure that SuperPacs have to be bad for political speech but IF IT'S TRANSPARENT. Meh...perhaps from the right that may be true but let's be real here...we're talking the Obama campaign. Manufacturing "upset" is usually a win for them. They are good where that is concerned. It's hard to deny that.

If they would expose themselves and not complain about catching flack if people don't like the adds they paid for I would have little argument. But they do complain about being pressured...Rove's superpac itself literally was donating superpac money toward a movement that was designed to keep superpac money secret...secret superpac money is...eh...I'll have to evolve on this but that doesn't taste right...at the same time I'm not ready to say everything has to be documented we would have to find an amount (then people could give right under the amount in shady ways)....and so on...meh

I would bet you are right certainly in the North (which is not where I live so it's harder to relate).

About 15% far right and 15% far left and 70% in the middle (not necessarily agreeing on everything but able to have discussion and compromise) never getting the country going? Sounds about right to me...

I think his point is the right has bought as much (if not more...but I won't speak for him) than the left even w/ union spending.

From a strict 1st amendment perspective I also am glad they exist. But let's be real here...finding a way for the political process to give off less noise (from both sides) is important. And also I would like to add...it's not like the political process has been unkind to these corporations and big single donors in the past...I would hardly call them a repressed sect... The anonymous nature of it is a huge concern for me btw...

...now that is no good....

This is what I was basically leading toward/getting it w/ my post above. But is this practical? And...the unions...shouldn't be allowed to give under this either... I am generally with you here but I wouldn't go so far as to say the superpacs give us a better opportunity to examine elected officials...

So just to get this straight...public unions could (in the past) donate an incredible amount as one lump on grounds that they represent many...but private corporations/rich individuals (often w/ private business) could not? Correct?

Look...you are an idiot. They aren't canards. I'm not an elitist for pointing out that you angrily spout of things that are just plain wrong.