The South & the Mid-West Must Defeat the Romney Sleaze Machine

As a Florida resident I have to apologize to conservatives for what happened here in our primary election. There’s an axiom regarding Florida that if you are –in- Florida, “you have to go north in order to go south”. The remnants of “old Florida” went solidly for Newt but predictably areas like Miami-Dade and Palm Beach County where I live are areas of transplanted northerners who are known for telling us “this is how we do it up north”, which begs the question - if it’s so great in New York, New Jersey, Boston… – then why did you come here?  


The same thing has been done to the state of North Carolina where northerners, especially eastern seaboard, are violating their fiduciary duties to posterity by voting for leftists like Romney in their home states. THEN, when they lose their jobs or they retire, they don’t want to pay the concomitant taxes which come from voting for leftists, so they relocate to Florida and Charlotte or Raleigh North Carolina and “repeat the causes to which they are owing and which again will produce them” as the Roman orator Cato once said in regard to the “vast fund of stupidity in human nature”.


Be that as it is, we are counting on the real South, what’s left of it – to do the right thing and make up for our delusions.


I must confess that yesterday I discovered that I had not fully conducted my own due diligence on Mitt Romney. I dismissed him early on as a liberal imposter after learning that he –invented- Obamacare and after seeing him propitiously flip his position on virtually every significant issue that matters to conservatives just in time to run for him to President.

Yesterday as I was doing some research for my video published this morning called "A Mitt Romney nomination could be GOP Death Knell" (Below)



I was going through the veritable litany of liberals being used to –sell- Romney to the people who like voting for salt & pepper hair and nice jaw lines. Some of the names being utilized to sell him are of course none other than John McCain, Bob Dole, Charlie Crist & even Tom Brokaw (to his consternation). But I was wondering if I might add his fellow Massachusetts liberal Senator Scott Brown to the list.

What I found is that the FACT that this character is a leftist was so overwhelming - that I stopped doing my research too soon. This guy is the gift that keeps on giving (to the Democrats) and it's no wonder that Obama and the Dems are salivating at the prospect of Mitt being the GOP nominee.

When I "Googled" the words mitt + romney + Scott + brown I found another -hair brained- scheme created by Mitt that although may not be the albatross that his healthcare program is - it is perhaps every bit as appalling to basic sense and conservative principles. Romney’s other hair-brained scam was called "Wheels for Welfare" and it was so expensive that Scott Brown opposed it and the liberal governor who succeeded him scrapped it because it was so exorbitant.

According to This piece at ABC, "it was a program that gave welfare recipients free cars, free car repairs, free insurance and even free AAA." http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/the-top-three-conservative-arguments-about-romneys-record-that-no-one-has-made/

There is plenty of information regarding this legalized scam all over the Internet. It certainly gives us further insight into the type of "expertise" and business acumen we can expect a President Romney to bring to the table. After all, aside from spending tens of millions of dollars slandering and libeling his challengers who have track records with distorted and out of context sleaze, his SINGULAR theme upon which he is running is “I was a businessman who made hundreds of millions of dollars; therefore I will fix the waste in Washington DC.”

Well, there we have an example of exactly the type of sagacity we should expect if Mitt Romney were to secure his legacy and become President – not only cash for clunkers – but free auto insurance, free auto repairs and even free towing! “Now how much would you pay?”

Moronic.  It really does require a willful suspension of disbelief to contend that this fellow would do anything but betray our party like every legacy seeking liberal who has hi-jacked our party nomination before him.


I know Newt has baggage - but so does our first self-admitted cocaine snorting President. Obama is not about to open the door to the valley of dry bones in HIS closet. The morality question was never broached by John McCain and certainly not by the media in the past election. It is certain that Barack and the O-media will damned well never make this election into a beauty pageant of moral rectitude because they know that Newt will pounce on the opportunity to compare histories of which Obama voting drones know little.

So despite what the man with holy underwear, Mitt Romney contends while dredging up Newt’s past sins, the contentions are as shallow as Mitt Romney’s campaign platform. 

In a closer to perfect world I would today have voted for Jim Demint. Instead I voted for a conservative who can be judged as such my looking at the totality of his record - versus an imposter who has to run on John McCain, Bob Dole endorsements and Tom Brokaw sound bites.

I am truly sorry and embarrassed for those, including Ann Coulter who have been seduced by this modern day Elmer Gantry.

I have voted for every Republican since turning 18 in 1988 - BUT this time around, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, I will NOT debase my country or myself by voting for this sleaze.

For the past two months of being deluged by the underhanded commercials onto which Romney has attached his name, and after watching his sophomoric behavior at his rally in The Villages (Florida) yesterday where he taunted Newt Gingrich - I can say emphatically that this is no gentleman and this is no statesman.

3rd party or independent conservative it will be if Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee.

Contact: mrarbitrage@tableofwisdom.com

Romney Pledges to be "True to his Faith" as President - Just what might that entail?

Glenn Beck is hitting Newt pretty hard by his own admission. His reasons are primarily tangential as they focus less on Newt’s legislative record and more on Newt’s comments as a historian. He attacks Newt because he supposedly said nice things about “Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR.”

I’m not even sure what context it was in when Newt said whatever he said about these presidents - and I’m not about to waste my time searching for the answer. 

Beck wants to compare tangential opinions of the candidates as opposed to their legislative RECORDS as the basis for deciding which candidate has better judgment?

Aside perhaps from FDR, I’m sure the prior litany of US Presidents have said and done isolated things in their time that were worthy of a few plaudits. So is it possible for someone to mention their names or quote them in a speech or conversation - without subscribing to the totality of their views?

I’ve been reading David Barton’s books for the past 22 years, a frequent guest of Beck's show and I remember specifically reading quotes of Woodrow Wilson, proffered by Mr. Barton to illustrate important points. Such quotes shed a favorable light on certain aspects of Woodrow Wilson in those cases. Yet I don’t see Beck attacking David Barton’s conservative credentials.

As for Mitt Romney’s (and Beck's) personal beliefs:
For anyone who actually takes their faith seriously, their religious beliefs –shape- their world view. Their world-view affects the way they interpret events that happen in life. Their world view ABSOLUTELY determines WHAT they do when they govern.

Mitt Romney in the CNN debate in Jacksonville paid lip service to the “Judeo-Christian” history of our nation; however, his religion is neither "Judeo" or Christian. In Romney’s commercials here in Florida, Romney touts that as President, he would be “true to his faith”. That means he believes as Mormonism teaches - that he can become a god of his own planet just like –they believe Jesus did. Mormonism teaches that Jesus was a polygamist man, brother of Lucifer and product of a sexual relationship, as was God his father once a man.

This is no joke. This is offensive to Christians. Why hasn't Mitt Romney spent much time emphasizing his “Mexican” roots? That would be because his family went there to practice polygamy. The liberals are well aware of this and are sitting on it.  If Romney wins the GOP nomination, the Dems can’t wait to educate us on this - and they will - once it’s too late for us to do anything about it.

Mormonism is NOT the religion of our founding fathers. It is contrary to Christianity. Mormonism’s teaches the Bible of our founders was corrupted and they are the one true church.

The belief that one can become a god is PERFECTLY CONSISTENT – with liberalism and explains –why- Romney would promulgate the socialism he did in Massachusetts. It goes back to Genesis, the catalyst to the fall of mankind. Why wouldn’t Romney be susceptible to the arrogant notion that he is among the superior who knows more than everyone else and can save us from ourselves? That’s liberalism defined, playing God, only Romney –literally- believes this.

How long will it take before someone asks Romney, “do you believe you will become a god?” (which begs the question of the potential implications of a “god complex”) or “do you believe that the 80% of Americans who claim to be Christians are in error?” The door will be WIDE OPEN to those questions on the basis that we could potentially have “our first Mormon President”. Newly produced documentaries will be airing all over the liberal controlled media, highlighting the controversies – but they will not come directly from the campaign. Romney understands that tactic but this time it won’t just be PACs; it will be The History Channel, Discovery Channel, 60 minutes…

We might as well nominate Marshall Applewhite and wait for him to return in his space ship hidden within the tail of the Hale-Bopp Comet.

Contact: MrArbitrage@tableofwisdom.com

Obama attack would be a Welcomed Distraction for Mitt Romney

Barack Obama is expected to pounce on Mitt Romney's 14% tax rate during his State of the Union speech Tuesday night. In a Marketwatch column focusing on this topic, a discouraged Romney supporter named Michael commented that "Romney can't get a break..."

Michael and Romney supporters like him have nothing to worry about because this expected attack by Obama is exactly what Romney -WANTS. We are in the midst of a GOP PRIMARY. If this were a general election, Mitt perhaps wouldn't want this attack -BUT- right now it is a welcomed diversion.

• A direct attack in a State of the Union speech would be an honor for Romney. It would give him special attention as though he is now recognized by Obama himself as his November opponent.
• Romney would HOPE this could serve as a "rallying cry" to get impressionable GOP voters to inadvertently participate in the charade. 
• Romney also needs a new media driven narrative to take the attention of GOP voters -AWAY- from his mortifying track record as a Governor and senatorial candidate.

Distracting the voters is what he has done for the past several months. At this point nobody wants to talk about Bain Capital yet he keeps trying to milk the non-issue for all he can. Here in Florida he continues running ads talking about the other candidates "attacking capitalism..." But he's the only one talking about it. It's a tactic similar to what you will see in this football video:




What you see here is a football player using theatrics to draw a penalty. After the whistle blows and the play is over, a defensive player of the Cleveland Browns, being provoked, ever so slightly pushes an offensive player (number 89 of the Cincinnati Bengals) and #89 throws himself backwards several feet, lands on his back and then does a back roll...


That's similar to what Romney did with Newt when Newt made some comments about specific failed companies in which Bain invested. Mitt Romney runs on supposedly great business acumen. So for Newt to point out some examples where Romney failed, it is not by default an attack on the capitalist system. Romney, who has no political track record upon which to run (because it is all too embarrassing) seized upon an opportunity to create polarization. He then circumvented discussion of his political history.

This tax rate “controversy” will likely serve as the next version of the aforementioned strategy. Regardless of which GOP candidate you may support, most of us can agree it is ridiculous to contend that 14% isn't ENOUGH to give these con artists in Washington. The answer isn't that Mitt should pay MORE to the prodigals in Washington but rather EVERYONE ELSE should pay the same low rate as Mitt.

I can foresee the moderate Murdoch media going on a 24 hour a day campaign featuring Romney as a victim and subliminally manipulating viewers into joining the rally to Mitt's defense... That’s the way they operate. They did it ad nauseum with the Bain non-issue turned controversy – and you can count on this being their next desperate campaign strategy.

I've maintained that Romney is Obama's "dream opponent" because Romney would inoculate Obama on his most vulnerable weaknesses, having recently maintained the same positions as Obama when he was last in government.

If the Administration really makes an issue of this tax return, that is further confirmation that they are throwing Mitt's campaign a bone with which to run.


Contact: mrarbitrage@tableofwisdom.com

Mitt Romney: a glass jaw Candidate

After viewing the Thursday night GOP debate in Charleston, I noticed a recurring pattern with Mitt Romney.

After virtually every hard hitting, direct question - he responds by saying “I’m going to answer your question - BUT FIRST...” then he rambles on with some canned nonsense having nothing to do with the question.  It's pretty obvious that he has these remarks well memorized, having been campaigning for the past six years.

What Mitt seems to be doing is thinking of how he's going to answer the poignant question while the torrent of dribble effortlessly spills out of his mouth.

You may have noticed that sometime’s he finally follows the ensuing monologue with an insipid answer to the original question posed - and sometimes he exhausts all his time and bores the audience so much that he gets away without answering the question at all.

A classic example would be last night after he rambled on for several minutes without answering the question, he actually had to ask "where were we?"  That was when Newt paused and smiled with subtle sarcasm, then said "Gee Mitt, I don't know".  It was a masterful execution on Newt's part and demonstrated what an impressive communicator he is.  I highly recommend watching that moment again as I don't think most people appreciated it.  It's worth a rewind.

The thing is that Mitt is only fooling his disciples, the 25% GOP moderates.

The rest of us are tired of the platitudes and question dodging.  The November election is going to be a street fight and banal remarks won't get it done.  We cannot send in a paper champion with a glass jaw.  Newt is ready for prime-time.

My take from last night: Mitt Romney: a “Glass Jaw” Candidate


Contact: MrArbitrage  @tableofwisdom.com

An Avalanche of intellectual Sloth: A disquisition on the Mitt Romney Candidacy

I really feel saddened for this nation when I hear people who I greatly admire have been somehow seduced by the cult of Mitt Romney. We have only had ONE primary and some caucuses in two tiny little states. Yet, just as predicted, the establishment controlled media seemed to have successfully convinced voters in the party that the race is over and a foregone conclusion.

We have seen it every primary election since Reagan left office. I guess many find it so much easier to jump on board the bandwaggon - as long as "their friends are doing it", rather than conducting due diligence.

This is what I would call an avalanche of intellectual sloth. They start with tiny little vibrations and once they gather momentum, they are unstopable. That is exactly what the establishment media moderates are orchestrating.

Just as I said in 2008, it’s like being in a horror movie. Like lambs they blithely walk to their slaughter despite all of the evidence any rational person can plainly see. In this case it is the GOP’s death and possibly America’s.

Anyone who views this video can see that Romney is the quintessential type of imposter who has bamboozled Republicans for decades leading to the imminent destruction we now face. The glaring evidence confirms that the difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney is merely in the shade of melanin.


To objectively look at this man’s record and still contend that he is worthy of any veneration, one must be sufficiently indoctrinated into his cult of personality. It would be one thing if we didn’t have a choice but apart from that there is no excuse whatsoever.

God told King David not to number his troops because the battle is His. David made the same mistake of believing that he might defeat the unrighteous enemy by his own might. We are doing far worse if we knowingly nominate someone with such a notorious track record because we have not enough faith to elect a nominee with integrity.

As for the issue of Romney’s experience at Bain Capital, this is a media side-show that they are using to circumvent Romney’s undeniable record on Obamneycare, abortion, gay marriage and the second amendment, all of which are clearly opposed to our core values.

As the previous video demonstrates, this man, as Alexander Hamilton once said of Aaron Burr, Mitt Romney is destitute of any fixed principles aside from securing his own legacy.

When it comes to Romney's career at Bain, it's not about the rectitude or lack thereof. It's about the absurdity of trying to sell a former CEO of a Wall Street private equity firm - during a time of unprecedented animosity toward Wall Street.

Americans have the most diminutive financial education in the world - much less understanding of HIGH FINANCE. We might as well nominate Lloyd C. Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. Good luck explaining price to book ratios, tangible book value and investment paradigms to an electorate, half of whom cannot balance a checkbook. Obama can yield all of his time during the debates while Mitt buries himself.

I have made my own video enlarging upon that topic:


I will continue to speak the obvious truth and under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should authentic conservatives compromise our integrity by supporting or voting for someone of such ignoble character to represent our party.

I have plugged my nose since Reagan left office - but NEVER AGAIN. If Mitt is the nominee, third party for me it will be. That will be a first for me and I must say but I am at peace.

Contact: mrarbitrage@tableofwisdom.com

Santorum / Gingrich 2012: One must yield or the Party will be hi-jacked once again

There’s a popular mantra circulating that “Romney needs to be taken out”.


He doesn’t. It’s an illusion. He’s the ONE liberal in the race and has terrible poll numbers except for in New England, home of Frank, Dodd & Kennedy.

Romney is unworthy of the “front-runner” tag just as was McCain who was in the 30% range.

If Romney was running against ANY –ONE- of the conservatives, Gingrich, Santorum or Perry -ALONE - Romney would lose by an unmitigated LANDSLIDE.

It would be such a landslide that he would be utterly humiliated out of politics, rightfully so because he is a glass jawed paper tiger marked by a career replete with political duplicity.

I am embarrassed on behalf of the voters who consider this guy worthy of serious consideration; but if I were a snake oil salesman I would pay a fortune for their names and phone numbers.

If conservatives lose it’s because we have 3 choices and cannot coalesce. I have for years been campaigning for a required run-off election until a candidate can earn a majority of the GOP vote before securing the nomination. It’s simple math; the vast majority can and will reject Snake-Oil Romney - yet he can still win like McCain.

Scott Ryan
Contact: mrarbitrage@tableofwisdom.com

An unfortunate prediction about Romney: We can stop him but one conservative candidate MUST yield

I just found this post that I wrote at www.Freerepublic.com two years ago titled "Coming Sequel to the Romulan-GOP Schism & The irony of Romney celebrating Scott Brown's election". 

It basically panned out as most of us knew it would. The thing that didn't hold true is the list of conservative candidates. But the thesis of our party splitting our conservative votes over multiple candidates, thereby being in danger of electing the ONE liberal in the race (who will not have other liberals to dilute HIS VOTE) is tragically close to reality if we don't see one of these conservatives sacrifice his personal ambition for the sake of the nation.

Personally I think Rick Perry should be the one to yield. I like him but I think he is wasting precious conservative votes at this point.  Conservatives must coalesce – before Romney gets momentum

Following is the content of the original post with link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2452795/posts

Feb 16, 2010

Coming Sequel to the Romulan-GOP Schism & The irony of Romney celebrating Scott Brown's election
by Scott Ryan

"I can tell you exactly how we will screw this up and at the end of this column – how we can AVOID screwing this up. The way we can screw this up is the same way we screwed it up last time around. We can screw this up by having pundits trying to shove that snake oil salesman Mitt Romney down our throats in the next Presidential primary.

I am absolutely stunned by the emotional intoxication some prominent conservatives have had for this impetuous RINO. Mitt Romney was and is the Republican’s Slick Willie. He will say anything to anyone at any time in order to get elected. I consider Ann to be an intelligent women and I am stunned to see her fall for the same chicanery that we have always criticized soccer moms for falling for. All it apparently takes is a handsome man with a silver tongue -claiming- to be a “conservative”.

I mean, it’s not as though the clear cut evidence isn’t there. We have plenty of video of Romney on every side of every issue depending on who he was running against in recent years. This guy was so obviously trying to hit hot buttons in the last presidential primary as he dropped the name of Ronald Reagan ad nauseam. Meanwhile we have video of Romney like Peter before the cock crowed, DENOUNCING President Reagan in a televised debate as he ran against Ted Kennedy a few years back for the Senate seat. (See with your own eyes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPY61w2mjRc)
 

We have seen Romney on both sides of the gay “marriage” issue. Last year he said he was pro-life just in time for the primary yet in the gubernatorial race we saw the man bragging about how pro-abortion he and his mother were and how he will “never waver” on that issue.

Ok, so maybe you are a country club Republican and you only care about what affects your wallet and could care less about Ronald Reagan, aborted babies or the sanctity of marriage. Well, we have all of the evidence in the world that this guy is even a fiscal left-winger.

The audacity of this swashbuckler is not even surpassed by Obama. Just a month ago this character was up on the stage in Massachusetts trying to ride the momentum of Scott Brown at his victory celebration! What is incredibly ironic about that is that this guy Scott Brown campaigned and was thrust into office primarily as the man who would vote -against- Hussein & Pelosi’s socialist healthcare plan! This plan was modeled and dubbed as a national version of the same Massachusetts plan that was promulgated as Mitt Romney’s baby!

The people of Massachusetts clearly do not like it and they have been warning the rest of the country NOT to adopt it. You KNOW it has to be horrendous when a left-winged nut case of a state like Mass puts a Republican in that seat in order to stop it, after what? 60 years? This is the state whose gracious contribution to the federalist system has been Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy for how many decades?

If any past Romulan including, Coulter, Ingraham, Hannity or Krauthammer try to palliate this fact by claiming that Romney didn’t really like this plan and had no choice but to go along, just take a look at the recently unveiled portrait Romney had painted of himself proudly hanging in the capitol. Romney instructed the artist to paint a copy of the healthcare bill prominently in the portrait.

So what, the guy made a half billion running a private equity chop shop. There are plenty of others who have done that; but does that make them a leader? We might as well elect Carl Icahn. Romney’s just a poor man’s version of Icahn or Kerkorian.

Why not hire the best??? I have never witnessed a more glass-jawed, paper candidate to have enchanted so many in this party. This is a guy who is exceedingly high on charm while low on substance and appears to be destitute of any fixed principles aside from a lifelong ambition to be President.

This brings me to my point. We are trying to avoid dealing with a major problem and if we do not confront that problem NOW, we will have another disaster like we did in the last presidential election and like the one we had in 1996. IF the Republican Party wants to avoid another schism, we MUST require a run-off election in the presidential primaries when ANY presidential candidate “wins” without a majority of the party’s votes. I know there are going to be intense factions within this party no matter what happens between now and 2012.

There is a faction right now that can’t move on from the past who are saying “run Sarah run”. I am not one of them. I like Sarah Palin and think she can do a great deal of good for this country, perhaps as Chairman of the GOP but I emphatically do not want her to be our presidential candidate.

We will have factions for Palin, for Huckabee, for Romney, for Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal and perhaps Fred Thompson (not likely). They will split the conservative vote so that we will give the nomination to the candidate we all loathe, the liberal candidate, which we WILL secure by our inability to coalesce. That is the ONLY way John McCain could have won this nomination. The same thing happened with Dole in 1996.

If we require a run-off between the top two candidates when no candidate receives a majority in the primary, we will never again be hi-jacked by the liberal minority of this party in a presidential election. We are a conservative party and the only thing liberal Republicans should be given in this party is asylum, if anything at all.

In spite of my opposition to Palin being our nominee, I don’t for a second question her conservatism and would definitely throw my support behind her in the general election - if she won in a run-off. That would assure us a strong candidate and leave the party less disillusioned after the primaries. I could not get enthusiastic for McCain. In fact, I was disgusted listening to him try to sound like a conservative while he bashed corporations, said the pharmaceuticals were “evil” and promoted “climate change” propaganda while standing in front of a green back-drop. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it and I know most conservatives felt the same way.

Sean and Ann also discussed the “tea party” movement. She said there isn’t a leader and wished there was. I would say to Ann, if you want to contact the head of the Tea Party Movement, call Rick Santelli. The way I remember it, Rick Santelli on CNBC made this appealing remonstrance during which he jested about having a tea party in Lake Michigan. (See original http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA) 

I remember going to something dubbed a “tea party” after the 2008 election but as far as I can remember, it all just happened organically. There was no need for a national organization to organize it. Even though I attended the tea party, I saw it as an event – not - an identity. Some of our venerable founding fathers participated in a “tea party” but they certainly didn’t stop there and they didn’t find their identity in a single act.
In reality, if we were to have a –true- tea party, if we were to do something actually similar in weight to the founding patriot’s tea party, we would be mailing the IRS a tea bag –in lieu of – a tax return. I don’t think we quite measure up to that standard as of yet and the name is a little bit silly.

If the movement is going to serve as a GOP plumbing tool, I think it will be worthwhile. Great things are happening all over the country regardless of whether a movement officially incorporates.

I really like what Jim Demint is doing to financially support conservative candidates around the country by “money bombing” those conservatives who are running to unseat RINOs. That is powerful. It has certainly worked for Marco Rubio who is running against Charlie Crist in Florida.

If conservatives around the country unite to fund primary challengers of the biggest RINO incumbents, we will indeed take our party back. As I write this, I just heard the news that J.D. Hayworth is going to challenge John McCain.

I cannot WAIT to throw a few bucks in Hayworth’s campaign coffer. McCain, it is time to retire. Thank you for your “service”; now step aside. The next to go should be Lindsey Graham."

Contact: mrarbitrage@TableOfWisdom.com

Iowa got it right: 75 percent unite and say NO to Mitt Romney

Transcript:

I would like to thank the people of the state of Iowa who participated in the caucuses. As I make this video, 97 percent of the results have been reported – but- it is clear that the vast majority of them got it right.

I KNEW that the people of Iowa, middle-America – had a lot of sense. Yet I stand amazed by how the moderates on Fox News subtly portray this.
The prudent people of Iowa tonight have outright rejected the ONLY liberal in this campaign -MITT ROMNEY.

But you wouldn’t KNOW that if you listen to these panels.

Here’s a study for Brent Bozell. Let’s have a COUNT on which candidates NAME was mentioned the MOST tonight. I gurantee you it will be Mitt Romney by far, followed by Rick Santorum.

Santorum should be the name uttered the most because what has happened with Santorum is impressive. The 300 appearances he made have a lot to do with his surge. He earned it.

Mitt Romney has earned NOTHING.

What Romney has shown is that money can only buy you so much in politics, LESS THAN 30%. Roughly 25% of the electorate falls for the Ken doll appearance, elegant hair and the hollow narrative about Romney’s “business experience” being transferable to what he would do in government.

The other 75% DO THEIR RESEARCH.

What this indicates is that this multi-millionaire has spent almost eight years campaigning in Iowa and tens of millions of dollars yet -75%- of the people soundly reject the foolish notion that Romney’s business experience before becoming a career politician means that he’s going to be any different than any other moderate before him.

There is simply no evidence to support that notion. The fact that he conceived of, much more, promulgated the notorious hair brain scheme that was a precursor to Obamacare – is all the proof one needs to demonstrate his lack of judgment.

Then there’s his duplicity on every social issue and his denouncing of Ronald Reagan.

I can go on but all one has to do is look at Romney’s record. Do your due diligence. The vast majority of Iowan’s did.

The majority of those who identify themselves as evangelical Christians and the majority of those who identify themselves as Tea Party participants split their votes between Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.
Who do we have left? The moderates certainly were not throwing their vote behind Gingrich, Rick Perry & Michelle Bachman!

So let me ask you, WHY does Fox News for the past 4 years declare Mitt Romney the “front runner”???
Why is it that almost every time they release Obama’s poll numbers, Mitt Romney gets to be the ONE CANDIDATE whom they use to demonstrate “HOW OBAMA would fair if the elections were held today?”

Throughout the evening I frustratingly listened to them declare Santorum as the generic “anti-Romney candidate”.

If they are going to be fair and balanced, WHAT is it that gives a guy who campaigns for 8 years and spends $100 million dollars – yet – cannot get above 30% - why does one of the many candidates garnering such a dismal amount of support merit the constant mention?

Why would Santorum be the "anti-Romney candidate" when Romney is the Republican candidate that polls CONSTANLY demonstrate is hands down the candidate that 75% of the Republican voters LEAST WANT?

Why not call Santorum the “anti-Perry vote or the anti-Bachman vote? This is one example of the subtle bias employed by the establishment GOP pundits like Charles Krauthammer whom they employ.

If you are going to be fair and balanced, Mitt Romney should be dismissed by the media because all five of the other candidates consistently receive THE ANTI-ROMNEY VOTE.

Mitt Romney is the Democrats DREAM CANDIDATE because he successfully inoculates Obama from just about all of his most ignominious positions, including Obama’s biggest weakness OBAMACARE.

ROMNEY would be unable to criticize Obama’s worst positions with any rectitude from Abortion, gay “marriage” to Obamacare because Romney has supported ALL OF THEM. Inoculation at its finest.

What’s left for Romney to highlight? Romney’s experience running a chop shop on Wall Street? Oh, yes, that’s going to go over exceptionally with the vast majority of American voters.

But cooler heads have and will continue to prevail among GOP voters. The only question is –WILL COOLER HEADS PREVAIL AMONG THE LOWER TIER CANDIDATES WHO HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE TO SHINE BUT BLEW IT?

If those heads do not come to their senses and drop out of the race, our party will ONCE AGAIN – be hijacked by the ONE CANDIDATE that the we all agree we detest the most.

Contact: anderson@cbpatriot.com

Mitigate Romney before we get Bush Dole McCained - Again