Mitt Romney sparks new 2016 competition among GOP establishment

[chuckd]

Willard Mitt Romney (his full name) and George Walker Bush are awol on this issue when they need to speak out on it, as does every Republican candidate for president.

Peter Whener, former adviser to Willard for president and a former Bush White House staffer has spoken out and is the only Republican I've seen at the presidential level who has made a statement that is decisive, affirmative, supportive of moderation and even handedness in the Republican party and in the Republican controlled Congress..

The Chicago Tribune says Scalise needs to quit his Republican leadership role in the Congress and here's why.....Knight referenced in the quote is the KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's former campaign manager from when Duke was openly elected to the Louisiana legislature.....

Peter Wehner, who has been an adviser to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and an aide to President George W. Bush, said the obvious on Twitter: "The party of Lincoln shouldn't have as its #3 a keynoter at a white supremacist convention." Scalise needs to step down from his leadership post, or House Republicans need to remove him

But that didn't stop him from accepting a 2008 campaign contribution from Knight. The trouble with Scalise is not that he is a racist. It's that he is more than willing to indulge white bigots and their sentiments when it suits his political needs.

By playing footsie with this group, Scalise has disqualified himself from a position of leadership in a party that needs to do a better job of understanding and addressing the suspicions it arouses among many minority Americans.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-scalise-edit-1231-20141230-story.html

Has Hussein Obama weighed in on this heavy matter yet?

It would be interesting to note what the Democratic Party leader feels about this after his party supported Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) for 51 years.

Byrd was a KKK member for years and personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ancient history?

In politics, 12 years is ancient history.

[Ulysses G.]

The right wing hyper-partisans need to decide if he's

A: completely incompetent

or

B: thoroughly undermining the Constitution in a thinly veiled pursuit to destroy the United States.

May I add?

C. all of the above.

Obama? It's GOT to be C. all of the above.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

One of our most prolific and biased posters seems distraught that Romney goes by his middle name and not his first name, which is Willard.

That makes me wonder why the current President doesn't go by his middle name, ala Mitt?

Naw, never mind.

Hussein Obama doesn't have quite the ring to it that Barack Obama has.

Let's go back a little further the way the Birthers like to do with Barack Hussein Obama........

Willard Mitt Romney likes to be called by his middle name Mitt, which i myself use very often in typing the name.

Barack Hussein Obama uses his first name, as do most of us, even including some posters (or presumably so). I've used his full name only occasionally, however, but I have used Romney's full name for some time now in other media. I've grown fond of using it so I sometimes use it here now that Williard Mitt Romney is back in the daily news and features.

Bye the bye, Barack won Romney's birth state of Michigan twice, in 2008 and again in 2012 when Romney lost to Barack for prez. In 2008 Barack Hussein Obama defeated John Sidney McCain

[chuckd]

Deleted by chuckd...except for this

Edit in: Bet it didn't take you as long to find Romney's birth certificate as it did for the world to find Obama's birth certificate.

Edited January 16, 2015 by chuckd

[Chicog]

Of course. For most Republicans, their dislike of the man in the White House has nothing to do with him being "black".

When the Number 3 Republican in the House has been found to have given speeches to David Duke's buddies and is still being protected by his peers,

ONE Republican spoke ONE time to a group called the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, on taxes, 12 years ago and has shown no signs of racism since, That is some powerful evidence that they are ALL white supremacists.

A few weeks ago, Duke threatened to out more Republican (and Democrat) sympathisers if they kick him out. Recent enough for you? Edited January 16, 2015 by Chicog

[up-country_sinclair]

The right wing hyper-partisans need to decide if he's

A: completely incompetent

or

B: thoroughly undermining the Constitution in a thinly veiled pursuit to destroy the United States.

May I add?

C. all of the above.

Obama? It's GOT to be C. all of the above.

I find it interesting that the two of you have such little faith in the US Constitution (not to mention those who wrote it) and the Republic itself, that you believe it could be undermined by someone you've deemed as an incompetent.

[up-country_sinclair]

Obama's birth certificate.

You're a "birther"?

[chuckd]

As I recall Senator Byrd was hauled int the Senate on a wheelchair so he could cast his "aye" vote on Obamacare.

It wasn't really that long ago, now was it?

Edited January 16, 2015 by chuckd

[Publicus]

As I recall Senator Byrd was hauled int the Senate on a wheelchair so he could cast his "aye" vote on Obamacare.

It wasn't really that long ago, now was it?

Yep, thought he was voting for Romneycare.....holy batman, he basically was and did vote for Rombamacare!

[bendejo]

Ancient history.

Used to be the 'solid south' was all Democrats, in response to that no-good n___o-loving Republican Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves and destroyed their beloved way of life. Then in 1964 came Civil Rights. White folks down south didn't take that too well. Lyndon Johnson, Democratic president at the time who pushed for it (if there was one thing LBJ could do it was push through legislation) said the consequence was that the Dems would lose the south for a generation. Clock's still ticking on that one, Lyndon!

I have to wonder how Mitt would have handled the GOP if he became president. During the campaign he would bend with whatever the party's stance of the day was to gain in the polls and keep the leadership appeased, even to the point where he had to turn his back on his peak political acheivement, health care. Would he have re-assumed his own identity (which he would never show during the campaign) if he had won the White House, to the point of telling the party poobahs "I'm the president, and this is what I'm doing!"

[Bakeman]

Rick Perry may be a good choice.

[Jingthing]

Rick Perry may be a good choice.

Maybe for the separatist nation of TEXAS.

[neverdie]

So painful these American elections, so much money and time is input into it and generally as history has proven the results have been very mediocre !

How can such a great country have such a flawed and wasteful system.

[CMNightRider]

Well since you repeatedly claim Obama doesn't have any qualities, and the republican candidates were without doubt fully qualified and experienced, that's the only thing one can make from your statement.

Just to be perfectly clear, this is what "one can make from my previous statements" in regards to Obama. Obama has proven over and over again, he is incompetent, lacks leadership skills, is dishonest, vengeful, racists, and has a lack of moral compass. What is even more disturbing, these are some of his better qualities.

I believe the liberals along with their nonsensical political correctness will be going the way of the buffalo in 2016. The political pendulum is starting to swing back to the right.

[Jay Sata]

The headline is incorrect.

I doubt Mitt Romney could spark anything.

A damp squib more like.

[samran]

The Wall St. Journal editorial page took a big swipe at Romney yesterday. Maybe Rupert Murdoch is supporting Jeb Bush?

Thai visa's conservative warriors are going to have to get in line. The boss as spoken...

http://www.businessinsider.com/murdoch-i-thought-romney-was-a-terrible-candidate-2015-1

[chuckd]

The Wall St. Journal editorial page took a big swipe at Romney yesterday. Maybe Rupert Murdoch is supporting Jeb Bush?

Thai visa's conservative warriors are going to have to get in line. The boss as spoken...

http://www.businessinsider.com/murdoch-i-thought-romney-was-a-terrible-candidate-2015-1

Romney isn't going to be the Republican nominee. You folks can make all the conjecture you want. He ain't gonna happen.

By the way, who is going to run on the Democratic side of the aisle?

There is some doubt about Hillary:

EDITORIAL WARNING ; COULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO LIBERAL BRAINS

Why Hillary Clinton won’t run for president

By Wesley Pruden - - Thursday, January 15, 2015

Hillary can’t win, and that’s why she won’t run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she’s all they’ve got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/#ixzz3P3Sj9cSS

[Anthony5]

The Wall St. Journal editorial page took a big swipe at Romney yesterday. Maybe Rupert Murdoch is supporting Jeb Bush?

Thai visa's conservative warriors are going to have to get in line. The boss as spoken...

http://www.businessinsider.com/murdoch-i-thought-romney-was-a-terrible-candidate-2015-1

Romney isn't going to be the Republican nominee. You folks can make all the conjecture you want. He ain't gonna happen.

By the way, who is going to run on the Democratic side of the aisle?

There is some doubt about Hillary:

EDITORIAL WARNING ; COULD CAUSE DAMAGE TO LIBERAL BRAINS

Why Hillary Clinton won’t run for president

By Wesley Pruden - - Thursday, January 15, 2015

Hillary can’t win, and that’s why she won’t run. She may not know that yet herself, but a lot of Democrats want her because she’s all they’ve got. The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat in what looks from here like it could be a Republican year.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/#ixzz3P3Sj9cSS

The Republicans are counting on her to run because they think she’s the candidate they can beat

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

So the Republicans admit that their only chance to win is if the Democrats deploy a candidate that is doomed to lose.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Anthony5

[chuckd]

Wow!

Liberals already spinning the article and it's only been seven minutes since it was posted.

[Anthony5]

Wow!

Liberals already spinning the article and it's only been seven minutes since it was posted.

No need to spin an article written by a journalist with a Republican agenda.

Some more info on Wesley Pruden.

On November 17, 2009, Pruden published an opinion piece in the Washington Times titled "Obama bows, the nation cringes," where he set forth his thoughts on what he considered President Obama's breaches of etiquette committed on his tour of Asia, such as bowing to Emperor Akihito of Japan. In the article, he expressed the opinion that since President Obama was "sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii," he "has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what [America] is about."^[11] A number of commentators criticized the column as racist.^[12][13]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Pruden}

[Jingthing]

Well, I'm a liberal democrat and I realize Hillary Clinton, if nominated, is certainly beatable. My heart (and head) says she should have been elected instead of Obama but that didn't happen of course. So now pushing on eight years later yes she is old and it shows, and unfair as that is, that's a bigger problem as far as public perception for a woman than a man. Though it didn't help McCain either. So yes it's definitely "her turn" in fact well overdue for "her turn" but I do think if there was someone of great substance who could beat her in the primary, that would be fine. But who exactly? I don't have a name. As you might expect I like Elizabeth Warren but she REALLY can't win the general. So WHO?

BTW -- yes I do think Hillary IS running.

Duh.

Double Duh.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[up-country_sinclair]

Former Secretary of State Clinton carries a lot of baggage with her (former President Clinton and the myriad scandals) and in my opinion is not the guaranteed 2016 victor everyone on the left seems to think she is. She would also be 69 years old on election day, and I'm not sure how the younger generations will feel about that. However, she is a moderate who will unquestionably have a special appeal to at least half of the electorate. If I were going to place a bet at this early date, I'd say she could beat Former Gov. Romney easily in the electoral college.

[chuckd]

The four leading Democrats to run against Romney (or the Republican nominee) are:

Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

[Jingthing]

The four leading Democrats to run against Romney (or the Republican nominee) are:

Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

Like I said, give me a better name, someone who can win, than Hillary. Not in that list! Warren can't win but maybe would be competitive if the republican was caught having sex with an albino child. Biden, he's adorable, but he's not running if Clinton runs. Sanders ... are you having a laugh?

[up-country_sinclair]

The four leading Democrats to run against Romney (or the Republican nominee) are:

Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

According to whom, moveon.org? That list could have also been generated by a fictitious Hyper-partisan Research Center (HPRC).

Bernie Sanders is not even a member of the Democratic Party. He's a socialist, for God's sake.

Elizabeth Warren has made it abundantly clear that she isn't running and she'd never get the funding required to run a national campaign.

In addition to Secretary Clinton and VP Biden, actual front runners would include former Senator Jim Webb and Governor Martin O'Malley.

[Publicus]

Romney reentering the race for president emphasizes the fact the Republican party has too many candidates.

The R party has more candidates than is good or practical as was obvious in 2012 when nine of 'em chewed each other up while one after the other rose to the top only to crash back down again. Romney ended up crawling out from the political scrum too tattered and torn to win.

The Democratic party bench is nowhere near as deep as the R party bench which as noted is a scruffle of wannabes and warmed up leftovers.

Entering the final and championship round in September 2016 the D party has the long ball cleanup hitter, former SecState Hillary Clinton, while the R party has the washouts, the rookies, the wannabes..

With the game on the line in November next year I want my cleanup hitter coming to bat with the bases full rather than have a wannabe who has to be pointed in the right direction and whose father is sitting in the owner's box.

[Chicog]

I see the GOP are doing their best to reduce the number of opportunities for their candidates to put their feet in their mouths by limiting the number of debates and controlling who gets to ask the questions.

I'm guessing the liberal media will have a field day with that.

"So tell us Mr. Romney, why are your super brilliant economic policies going to put millions in the pockets of decent hardworking Americans while that nasty Hillary Clinton is spending tax dollars eating babies?".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rnc-set-to-issue-rules-to-cut-regulate-presidential-debates/2015/01/15/6d381d72-9cf7-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

[Publicus]

Hillary Clinton is the Republican's enemy in November next year but until the one R among the dozen candidates gets the nomination in the summer before then, each and every other Republican in the race and his supporters are the enemy first and foremost. For each R party candidate, it is the one against all the other R candidates, each and every one of 'em, all of 'em.

Romney is going to hammer Bush as vice versa, and Romney will hammer Gov Chris Cristie and vice versa, as Bush will hammer Romney and also hammer Christie while......these guys are natural born competitors who deal in big money, they have won elections, and they play to win. Twelve guys want to be king of the hill and each believes he can and will king if he can get to the hill, the nomination.

The worst place to be with any guy like that is in his direct line of advance, his war path to the booty at the top of the hill.

It ain't gonna be pretty no matter who makes the rules or what the rules are, and the R party knows it. The R party powers that be are once more trying to prevent the boulder they're pushing from rolling back down over them again but everyone knows how that works out. If the R party turns the contest into a walk in the park for everyone concerned then the sun will also stop in the sky so the party can bathe in it and everyone will live happily ever after.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

The four leading Democrats to run against Romney (or the Republican nominee) are:

Hillary Clinton

Elizabeth Warren

Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders

According to whom, moveon.org? That list could have also been generated by a fictitious Hyper-partisan Research Center (HPRC).

Bernie Sanders is not even a member of the Democratic Party. He's a socialist, for God's sake.

Elizabeth Warren has made it abundantly clear that she isn't running and she'd never get the funding required to run a national campaign.

In addition to Secretary Clinton and VP Biden, actual front runners would include former Senator Jim Webb and Governor Martin O'Malley.

Well, no, it wasn't moveon.org. That's Soros' Democratic party PAC.

It was actually a compilation by Real Clear Politics of several polls, namely:

CNN Opinion Research

ABC/Washington Post

Fox News

McClatchy/Marist

Quinnipiac

Rasmussen Reports

Their results came out thusly:

Clinton - 61.7%

Warren - 12.2%

Biden - 9.8%

Sanders - 3.6%

Webb - 1.5%

Cuomo - 1.5%

O'Malley - 1.0%

Sanders has more support that your two viable candidates of Webb and O'Malley...combined.

And there sits Bernie Sanders in fourth place. You are correct. He is a socialist and is registered as an Independent.

He has caucused with the Democratic Party in the Senate since he took office in 2007 and just assumed his new position as the Ranking.Democratic Member of the Senate Budget Committee.

He will be running on the Democratic ticket if nominated.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

[NeverSure]

Well, I'm a liberal democrat and I realize Hillary Clinton, if nominated, is certainly beatable. My heart (and head) says she should have been elected instead of Obama but that didn't happen of course. So now pushing on eight years later yes she is old and it shows, and unfair as that is, that's a bigger problem as far as public perception for a woman than a man. Though it didn't help McCain either. So yes it's definitely "her turn" in fact well overdue for "her turn" but I do think if there was someone of great substance who could beat her in the primary, that would be fine. But who exactly? I don't have a name. As you might expect I like Elizabeth Warren but she REALLY can't win the general. So WHO?

BTW -- yes I do think Hillary IS running.

Duh.

Double Duh.

Hillary was pushed by the MSM as the anointed and was presumed to be winning the Democratic nomination the last time we were in this position until an unknown named Obama came out of nowhere and knocked her off. That should be very telling as to how deep her support actually is.

Romney knocked off all of the establishment Republicans to win the nomination.

Hillary and Romney are historical losers. Why should we think one of them will win? Personally, I'm tired of both of those losers.

Point is, it's too early to call it. I still suspect that at least the Republican nominee is going to come out of nowhere as Romney and Obama did. It's possible that the Dem will too.