The GOP Field is packed with morons

Are these really the best we can do?



Gingrich failed to get on the ballot in his home state because they didn't understand the rules. Perry and Santorum also failed to meet the requirements for Virginia.



Santorum failed to get on the ballot in Indiana because he didn't understand the rules, but Indiana gave him a pass after his showing in Missouri, Colorado, and Minnesota.



Ohio now reveals that Santorum failed to file paperwork to designate his primary delegates, so even if he sweeps Ohio, he is ineligible for at least 18 delegates from Ohio because his campaign apparently can't read or can't meet a deadline.



http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/report-santorum-could-be-ineligible-for-ohio-delegates-116275.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



What cracks me up is that everytime this happens, they blame the "establishment" and claim they are fighting against the man and spin conspiracy theories.....but somehow Ron Paul is meeting all these requirements they can't seem to get their heads around.



Are these really the guys we want to trust with executing all the laws of Congress? Guys who can't even be bothered to submit the right paperwork for primaries and caucuses?

snoscythe wrote:
Are these really the guys we want to trust with executing all the laws of Congress? Guys who can't even be bothered to submit the right paperwork for primaries and caucuses?

I would say "NO!!!!," but I'm saying "HELL NO!!!!!"



I say that we need to vote for somebody who's been tested and found able to come through any trial or tribulation thrown at them. Someone who is able to face a depressing future in the eye and say "GO EAT &%@*!!!" without a flinch or any hesitation.



I say in a loud voice, a cry resonating like thunder, pride, obstreperous, and finally a truly callithumpian voice:

"VOTE FOR LADY HAWKE!!!!! IF SHE CAN MANAGE HAWKEWING, THOSE HEART BLEEDING, MONEY GRUBBING, LIFE SUCKING LIBERALS ARE JUST CHILD'S PLAY!!!!!"



Gentlemen and Schmoe, who stands with me?????

What's funny is that today Rick Santorum's people have labeled Matt Drudge as part of "The Establishment."



Apparently, (they said it, not me), the test for whether someone is part of "The Establishment" is whether or not they are pulling for Mitt Romney:



http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/rick-santorum-says-drudge-report-is-showing-for-mitt-romney-.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I'm elected, I promise my first order of business will be to ban Utes from the country. And I will make Cosmo my Vice President. I'm betting he can't do worse than what we've had.

She's hired!



And Santorum is the epitome of arrogant stupidity. Almost to Gingrich levels.

LOL! For a moment or two I thought your title said GOP is packed with mormons....And I thought "This is newsworthy?"

Really good points Sno.



back when Rick was in 18th place and sitting so far off center in the debates that he had curtains in his hair, I thought he was the best non-Romney of the bunch.



I now think Paul is the best Non-Romney. Hilarious that he has trouble getting on the ballot. #sinkingship

Yes, but any would be better than Obama who is about to unleash his unaccountable 2nd term as POTUS. Without any gains in the Senate in 2012 we're about to see an avalanche of deprivation in America.

I about laugh my head off every time I hear Newt talk about "him against the establishment." He's the most "establishment" of them all.

mizzoucoug wrote:
Yes, but any would be better than Obama who is about to unleash his unaccountable 2nd term as POTUS. Without any gains in the Senate in 2012 we're about to see an avalanche of deprivation in America.

Newt would be worse. Far worse.

A few things I've wanted to get off my chest:

1. Newt complains about Romney's "lies" and "negative advertising" - yet the only really negative advertising I've seen (as in completely false accusations, etc.) have come from the Santorum camp. Also, although I've heard Newt often complain about Romney's lies, I've never once heard him say what those supposed lies were. What's almost worse is that none of his interviewers have even tried to pin him down on it.

2. Newt tries to sell himself as the conservative alternative to Romney, yet every argument he makes against Romney comes from the left - Is no-one paying attention?

3. Santorum has made a fool of himself in a number of debates (he don't appear t'have gud grammr), yet he keeps getting a lot of votes, and is winning in a lot of states.

4. The press keeps talking about the "Not Romney" vote. This is really just code for "Anti-Mormon" vote. As we see which states are toughest for Romney, they are generally the states with the biggest population of "Anti's".

5. Since when was a Catholic able to sell himself to the "born-again" crowd as one of them? (please see point #4 above).

hawkwing wrote:
She's hired!



And Santorum is the epitome of arrogant stupidity. Almost to Gingrich levels.

If she's elected, Hawk will be "first gentleman." :)

urroner wrote:

Are these really the guys we want to trust with executing all the laws of Congress? Guys who can't even be bothered to submit the right paperwork for primaries and caucuses?

I would say "NO!!!!," but I'm saying "HELL NO!!!!!"



I say that we need to vote for somebody who's been tested and found able to come through any trial or tribulation thrown at them. Someone who is able to face a depressing future in the eye and say "GO EAT &%@*!!!" without a flinch or any hesitation.



I say in a loud voice, a cry resonating like thunder, pride, obstreperous, and finally a truly callithumpian voice:

"VOTE FOR LADY HAWKE!!!!! IF SHE CAN MANAGE HAWKEWING, THOSE HEART BLEEDING, MONEY GRUBBING, LIFE SUCKING LIBERALS ARE JUST CHILD'S PLAY!!!!!"



Gentlemen and Schmoe, who stands with me?????

Or perhaps.....Lady Urroner!! :crazy:

jvquarterback wrote:

Yes, but any would be better than Obama who is about to unleash his unaccountable 2nd term as POTUS. Without any gains in the Senate in 2012 we're about to see an avalanche of deprivation in America.

Newt would be worse. Far worse.

Nobody who remotely likes the USA would be worse than the muslim, now in office, who is working quite sucessfully to destroy us. One more term, and we'll be living in a Marxist dictatorship. We have to do something now, because a second term will give him a mandate and time to complete what he has started.

IowaCougar wrote:
A few things I've wanted to get off my chest:

1. Newt complains about Romney's "lies" and "negative advertising" - yet the only really negative advertising I've seen (as in completely false accusations, etc.) have come from the Santorum camp. Also, although I've heard Newt often complain about Romney's lies, I've never once heard him say what those supposed lies were. What's almost worse is that none of his interviewers have even tried to pin him down on it.

2. Newt tries to sell himself as the conservative alternative to Romney, yet every argument he makes against Romney comes from the left - Is no-one paying attention?

3. Santorum has made a fool of himself in a number of debates (he don't appear t'have gud grammr), yet he keeps getting a lot of votes, and is winning in a lot of states.

4. The press keeps talking about the "Not Romney" vote. This is really just code for "Anti-Mormon" vote. As we see which states are toughest for Romney, they are generally the states with the biggest population of "Anti's".

5. Since when was a Catholic able to sell himself to the "born-again" crowd as one of them? (please see point #4 above).

I've seen a few misleading Romney ads. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-attack-ad-against-newt-gingrich-in-florida/2012/01/24/gIQAB66uNQ_blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)



He especially went to town on Gingrich in Florida and it's largely been the way Romney's won this race. negative ads against his opponent. Sad, but they work -- especially against candidates with as much negative history as Santy and Noot.

CougarClaw wrote:
I've seen a few misleading Romney ads. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-attack-ad-against-newt-gingrich-in-florida/2012/01/24/gIQAB66uNQ_blog.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)



He especially went to town on Gingrich in Florida and it's largely been the way Romney's won this race. negative ads against his opponent. Sad, but they work -- especially against candidates with as much negative history as Santy and Noot.

Yeah, misleading, but not lies or false. That only got two pinocchios--for a false, misleading presentation mostly for putting "ethics violations" and "resigned in disgrace" back-to-back. That falls short of the 3 or 4 pinnochios they reserve for outright lies.



What really gets my goat is how Santorum never gets called out for his obvious lies, even when they are exposed. First he claims to be "the consistent conservative who never supported a bailout unlike the others," but then he gets called out for bailing out the airlines and the steel industry. Whoops. So he abandons that tack and becomes "the consistent conservative who has never supported an individual mandate for healthcare," until someone digs up the 1996 speech he gave in campaigning for House where he called for greater government involvement in healthcare, and a requirement that every American have insurance if necessary. Whoops. But no one seems to care when the "social conservative"/"consistent conservative" who ran as a pro-choice House candidate in the mid-90s proves to have quite the spotty record that he persistently flat-out misrepresents. It's mind-bottling.



For a general summary of where the big three fall in general as to honesty on the stump, here's the politifact pages on each of them (I lumped anything "half true" or better at T, everything else as F):



Romney (61% T, 39% F): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mitt-romney/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Santorum (50/50 T/F): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/rick-santorum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Gingrich (41/59 T/F): http://www.politifact.com/personalities/newt-gingrich/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;