Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Herman is raising cain on Romney presumably not being electable.

It appears Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandment has been tossed aside by Herman Cain. Reagan said "Thou shall not speak ill of another republican". I loved Reagan, but I never accepted nor embraced that commandment. I've always spoken much more then ill of any liberal, moderate or neo conservative republican. Herman Cain apparently feels the same way as I am many traditional conservatives do. He's taking the gloves off early against the GOP front runner Mitt "Mittens" Romney. Since I am not a fan of Romney, I really can't fault Herman on this approach. Recently at a function, Herman Cain brought up several key points that some Republicans might not want to hear nor accept, but the points are still very validate on why Romney can't win the nomination nor the presidency.



When Obama came out and said that Obamacare was basically patented off of Romneycare, what can Mitt Romney say to that?



A lot of people want Obamacare repealed, and they have a very uneasy feeling listening to the man who created the Massachusetts prototype for Obamacare saying that if he is elected, he will do way with Obamacare. The repeal of Obamacare is way too important to just elect Romney and "hope" he does what he promised. As for the south, Herman is right again. Romney did terrible in the south. Romney is a Northeastern Republican. In many ways, Mitt Romney comes off appearing and sounding like the Republican version of John Kerry. I said back during the 2008 primaries that Mike Huckabee made it possible for John McCain to win the Republican nomination. In the overall delegate count, Romney only won 271 delegates to McCain's 1575. Though I believe independents voted in open Republican primaries, the fact remains that Romney was slaughtered. I also took a look at the results from the southern states, and Herman was right. Romney didn't win any southern states. In what are the three crucial battle ground states in a presidential election, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, Romney lost in all three of those states in the primaries. The saying goes, "Don't hate the messenger, hate the message". Republicans and conservatives need to take to heart what Cain said, because everything he said was factually accurate. I joke on Mittens, but I don't dislike him personally. I know how some conservatives point out the supposed flaws of say a Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, well these same folks should put on the magnifying glasses and take a good hard look at Mitt Romney's obvious flaws. As for Mitt's religion, I wish it wouldn't' be an issue, because it shouldn't' be an issue. Barack Obama came from one very theologically warped and racist church, and he was elected president. So in the perfect world, if Barry can get elected president why not Mitt? Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world where two sides of a coin aren't judged equally. I predict other candidates will also start to turn their knives away from Obama and redirect them towards Romney also as the Iowa Caucus approaches.

8 Comments:

Blogger Speedy G said...

I can spell Romney. "R-I-N-O".

2:51 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"As for Mitt's religion, I wish it wouldn't' be an issue, because it shouldn't' be an issue. Barack Obama came from one very theologically warped and racist church, and he was elected president. So in the perfect world, if Barry can get elected president why not Mitt? Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world where two sides of a coin aren't judged equally".

So what are you saying Tyrone?

You say that you wish Romney's religion wasn't, and shouldn't be an issue. Then you say the worlds not perfect because President Obama got elected even though you think his religion is warped. Yet in a "perfect world" if Obama got elected with a "warped" religion, then Romney should be judged equally to get elected...with a warped religion!

Are you saying you wish Romney's religion wasn't warped? Or, are you saying it doesn't matter what a candidates religion is, as long as they have an (R) after their name? How about Muslim conservative, President Abdul Haseeb(R)? Cain has made it clear that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... would you?

Yet, Cain seems to have a major problem with people who of a different religion than his own. Why should Romney have to "communicate" his religion?

10:55 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Looks like the republican attack machine has revved up it's engines on one of it's own. Michelle Bachmann get's it few skid marks on her personal health.

Republican campaign politics seem to have taken a strange turn. Personal attacks on a candidates religion, youthful indiscretions, minor health issues, even consensual adult sexual activities bears no incite to a candidates public policy.

12:36 AM  
Blogger Alpha Conservative Male said...

P Allen "You say that you wish Romney's religion wasn't, and shouldn't be an issue. Then you say the worlds not perfect because President Obama got elected even though you think his religion is warped. Yet in a "perfect world" if Obama got elected with a "warped" religion, then Romney should be judged equally to get elected...with a warped religion!"

It shouldn't be an issue the same way the media and people like you made sure it wasn't an issue with Obama allen. In other words, far is far. The media unlike with Obama is already runing stories on Romney and the Moron religion. They were dragging kicking and screwing to even do a nugget of a story on Obama's black liberation theology BS passed off as Christianity. Romney won't be judge equally by you progressives who claim to be all "fairness", give me freaking break.

p allen "Are you saying you wish Romney's religion wasn't warped? Or, are you saying it doesn't matter what a candidates religion is, as long as they have an (R) after their name? How about Muslim conservative, President Abdul Haseeb(R)? Cain has made it clear that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... would you?"

Unless Romney's church has in 2011, the "white value system", I can care less. I know Obama's Trinity United had the "black value system" if I recall. Would I vote for a Muslim? For what political office? As president, no I wouldn't. You should know by now allen that I am no Republican Party Cheerleader unlike you as a rock solid Democratic pom pom waving cheerleader.

p allen "Yet, Cain seems to have a major problem with people who of a different religion than his own. Why should Romney have to "communicate" his religion?"

Who's saying Romney has to communicate anything allen? Who's asking Romney to explain himself?

p allen "Republican campaign politics seem to have taken a strange turn. Personal attacks on a candidates religion, youthful indiscretions, minor health issues, even consensual adult sexual activities bears no incite to a candidates public policy."

Weak allen!!! Of course Cain is going to attack Romney. He is the front runner. Of course Bachman is going to be attacked by other Republican candidates, she is a front runner. It is only common sense that if a person wants to win the nomination he or she is going to have to try and bring down the current front runners in order to elevate themselves. Your comment is fake allen, because you know better. Can was simply trying to elevate himself and create a contrast between himself and the front runner Romney.

12:30 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

CB;"Who's saying Romney has to communicate anything allen? Who's asking Romney to explain himself?.

Cain, in the video "YOU" posted;

"He [Romney] will have a difficult time winning the south because, when he ran the first time he did not do a good job of COMMUNICATING his religion".

Romney is a Mormon. You and Cain have to explain how, and why Romney should do a "better" job in communicating that he's a Mormon....

CB;"Can was simply trying to elevate himself and create a contrast between himself and the front runner Romney".

Elevate himself by questioning someone else's religion?

"no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States".
-Article VI, paragraph 3, U.S. Constitution-

Along with his comments about the religious freedoms of American Muslims, it seems that Mr. Cain has issues with the U.S. Constitution.

5:41 PM  
Blogger Mr. Tent Trash said...

I am a Mormon and I am not a Romney fan. His religion plays no role in my mistrust of him on healthcare and his flip-flopping on issues

9:49 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Trent;"I am a Mormon and I am not a Romney fan. His religion plays no role in my mistrust of him on healthcare and his flip-flopping on issues".

Perhaps it was a typo (although I really don't think so) but, Tyrone refers to it as; "Romney and the Moron religion". Hope I'm not starting a fight...

Romney, on several issues, has gone beyond flip-flopping. The Romney flip-flop has become- a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by the intellectual reassignment of one conceptual world view, and replacing it with another- more or less, a paradigm shift (and, oh...then back again).

3:53 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

On the health care issue, I totally understand the conservative point of view. Conservatives don't agree with the idea of having tax dollars pay for someone else's "bad health habits" such as obesity, bad diets, drug and alcohol abuse, reckless behavior, unprotected promiscuous sex, smoking, etc... That in itself is a fair argument.

However, the argument doesn't address the results of "not" providing tax payer health care... or for that matter, any other government service.

Look at it this way; If you neighbor is a welfare recipient, on Social Security, or even a tax cheat, they receive tax dollars, but don't pay them. That being said, should he or she be provided all the services (fire and police protection, access to roads, sidewalks and public facilities, clean and safe food, air and water, access to an education, protection from terrorist, etc...) that your tax dollars pay for?

Giving a far fetched example, lets say your neighbor is a HIV positive obese diabetic alcoholic who fell asleep smoking a cigarette and set his house on fire. Should your tax dollars pay for the local fire department to come and put out the fire at his house? Or, should we allow the possibility of the entire neighborhood burning down?

My point is this, the argument of not wanting to pay higher taxes to support someone else's health, or lack of good health, is appreciably fair. I simply put forth the question of the results of not doing so.

As long as there is money to be made from bad habits, such as sales of tobacco, alcohol, fast foods, firearms (yes firearms...reckless behavior occurs with firearms. Ask Dick Cheny's friend) chronic health issues will remain among our society. As long as we're a society based on freedom and free will, people will do as they please.

The results of having "bad habits" and not having any health care is obvious. The question conservatives need to answer is this; (read and understand the statement carefully)

If no government tax dollars should treat the health concerns of the citizens with "bad health habits", should those citizens be allowed to suffer and possibly die because of their own bad choices?.

Simply put, should the government allow the entire neighborhood burn down?

4:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home