The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Exactly. The phrase in itself is harmless, although I'm not sure I agree 100% with it. You can't blame the dems/other GOP candidates for jumping on it though. That's just politics, unfortunately.

Presumably, Romney has a team of strategists that are paid to come up with stuff like this

Very true. It was a huge blunder.

Quote:

Presumably, Romney has a team of strategists that are paid to come up with stuff like this

If that is true then the attacks on Romney personally are even more baseless. You're 100% right, though, it was extremely careless on the part of everyone involved.

I agree that it's his own fault for accepting and using a slogan without knowing its history, but I was referring to the people trying to label him a closet KKK member when I said baseless. Which it is considering he most likely didn't even come up with it. But, like I said, that's just politics.

The National Review, a Republican establishment publication, rather plaintively urges it readers to not support Newt. It does not, though, suggest support for another candidate.

I know that, Cyclo. The vitriol amongst the Republican candidates and the factions within the party is what catches my ear. Is it somewhat beyond what is typical?

I think I heard the word "zany" applied to Newt today. Romney slams Newt over his spending at Tiffany's. And tonight, Bachmann hints that there "...might be money changing hands" in South Carolina in exchange for votes (for Newt).

The editorial board of National Review most strongly came out against former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who’s quickly seized the top spot in the GOP presidential horserace.

While the editors admitted Gingrich has made an “amazing comeback,” given his uncommon marriage history and near-death campaign experience earlier this year, they insisted his narrative as a nominee would be more damaging than productive for the Republican Party.

“If he is the nominee, a campaign that should be about whether the country will continue on the path to social democracy would inevitably become to a large extent a referendum on Gingrich instead,” the article states.

The editors cited what they considered a number of character flaws for Gingrich while he was speaker - “his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas” - and argued they have little reason to believe he has changed.

“Gingrich has always said he wants to transform the country. He appears unable to transform, or even govern, himself. He should be an adviser to the Republican party, but not again its head,” they wrote.

The editors also discouraged voters from choosing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who they say seems “persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage.” Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Texas Rep. Ron Paul also made the list of unwanted candidates.

Instead, National Review suggested voters take a second look at Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who’s struggled to make big gains in national polls. The magazine rates him as someone with a “solid record” despite his “apparent inability, so far, to forge a connection with conservative voters outside Utah.”

In the last election cycle, the magazine endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and again offered support for the candidate this time around, saying “he would make a fine president.” But it ceded that “time and ceaseless effort have not yet overcome conservative voters’ skepticism about the liberal aspects of his record.”

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum also won the magazine’s support. The editors praised his experience as a legislator, serving two terms in the Senate in addition to two terms in the House of Representatives.

I’m driving to my Atlanta residence from Peachtree-DeKalb Airport yesterday … down Peachtree at 5:00 p.m. It was by far the most dangerous part of my trip from Naples. Somewhere around Lenox Square I see in front of me is a Saab (I think) convertible with the top down. A blonde is driving – never see the passenger. On the rear bumper is an Obama “2012” sticker. Now --- hours later --- I must say that I’m glad I never caught up with that convertible in traffic because I felt this overwhelming desire to look at the driver and say “Really? Are you really that ignorant?”

Actually the proper line would have been “Are you really that stupid?” Ignorant means you haven’t learned. Stupid means you can’t. Considering the state or our economy in 2008 you might be excused for voting for Obama the first time around … but to do it a second time? You must either be living off the government in some manner – or you’re just hopelessly out of your freaking mind. If this woman in the convertible hasn’t learned in the last three years that Barack Obama is the most incompetent, dangerous and un-American president we’ve ever seen; if she hasn’t learned that our Republic might well not survive another four more years under this man’s anti-capitalist class warfare rule, then she simply isn’t capable of absorbing and processing information. That’s the very definition of “stupid.”

Maybe she was borrowing the car! Don’t let this happen to you. If you borrow a car from someone suffering from ObamaDementia, put duct tape over any Obama bumper stickers – at least the positive ones. If you have a “Change You Can Step In” bumper sticker complete with the Obama logo on a little round pile of doggie squeeze …. Then Drive proudly!