Mitt, why?!?!?

[YOhio]

Smackdown by Richard Lugar!

[LA Ute]

Smackdown by Richard Lugar!

Wow, Democrats and moderate Republicans (some of whom are approaching ossification) are don't agree with Romney on foreign policy. This is devastating to him. I hope he can recover.

[YOhio]

Wow, Democrats and moderate Republicans (some of whom are approaching ossification) are don't agree with Romney on foreign policy. This is devastating to him. I hope he can recover.

I think that's unfair to the fine Hoosier State Senator. Outside of the fact that he looks like Lady Elaine from the Land of Make Believe, Senator Lugar is a good and thoughtful politician. A real statesman. He might be moderate, but he's certainly not a demagogue or headline seeker.

[LA Ute]

I think that's unfair to the fine Hoosier State Senator. Outside of the fact that he looks like Lady Elaine from the Land of Make Believe, Senator Lugar is a good and thoughtful politician. A real statesman. He might be moderate, but he's certainly not a demagogue or headline seeker.

I really hate it when you start calling me names.

[YOhio]

I really hate it when you start calling me names.

I think you're one of the most thoughtful political posters on this board.

[LA Ute]

I think you're one of the most thoughtful political posters on this board.

So I am not a demagogue or a headline seeker?

(It is no fun to tweak you when you won't play along.)

[LA Ute]

Smack down for Mitt by Jim Talent, former Missouri Senator.

His concluding paragraph:

So far, supporters of START have acted as if the treaty were a kind of aspirational expression of the desire for a nuclear-free world, and that anyone who opposes it is an enemy of such a future. But no one should doubt that this START treaty, like its predecessors, will require real changes that will have a real impact on American security. The more the administration ignores or dismisses the concerns of critics, the clearer it is that the changes embodied in this treaty will not be for the better, and could be disastrous. As the case now stands, the Senate should vote against ratification.

[statman]

Slate had a repudiation of Mitt's speech that contained a bunch of factual errors, and concluded that Mitt was crazy basically because how could anyone who opposes any kind of nuclear reduction be anything other than crazy. I think it was meant as a serious piece of commentary.

Obama has volunteered that the US would give up WAY more then the Russians on the deal. He has abandoned Eastern Europe and the promises that we've made in the past to protect them. This is a huge setback. The Senate should just table the whole thing like we did with Kyoto...

[myboynoah]

Slate had a repudiation of Mitt's speech that contained a bunch of factual errors, and concluded that Mitt was crazy basically because how could anyone who opposes any kind of nuclear reduction be anything other than crazy. I think it was meant as a serious piece of commentary.

Obama has volunteered that the US would give up WAY more then the Russians on the deal. He has abandoned Eastern Europe and the promises that we've made in the past to protect them. This is a huge setback. The Senate should just table the whole thing like we did with Kyoto...

Doh, I'm an idiot.

Mitt is a genius. The Senate will never approve this thing. Mitt goes on record early, leading the way in protecting America!

[Green Lantern]

Slate had a repudiation of Mitt's speech that contained a bunch of factual errors, and concluded that Mitt was crazy basically because how could anyone who opposes any kind of nuclear reduction be anything other than crazy. I think it was meant as a serious piece of commentary.

Obama has volunteered that the US would give up WAY more then the Russians on the deal. He has abandoned Eastern Europe and the promises that we've made in the past to protect them. This is a huge setback. The Senate should just table the whole thing like we did with Kyoto...

Just curious--what were the factual errors in the Slate piece? I saw the headline but haven't read the article.

[myboynoah]

Again, Mitt leading the way. Go Mitt!

Romney eclipses other possible GOP contenders in fundraising

[LA Ute]

Again, Mitt leading the way. Go Mitt!

Romney eclipses other possible GOP contenders in fundraising

One thing's for sure about Mitt: He will never be out-organized or out-hustled by the other guys. For a BYU grad he's a pretty impressive guy.

[statman]

Just curious--what were the factual errors in the Slate piece? I saw the headline but haven't read the article.

Read the comments after the piece - they're laid out there. Stuff like the author saying silly Mitt, there's no such thing as an air-launched ICBM - Uh yeah there is. We had one in the 60's that we canceled. There are many more. Just look for the author's most condescending tone, and you'll find errors.

[YOhio]

LAU and mbn will be all over this article.

[LA Ute]

LAU and mbn will be all over this article.

Yep. the Pew poll suggests Romney is pu9lling independent voters, which is what you need to do to become president. It certainly worked for BHO. But you need Republicans to get nominated. I think Mitt will run a bit closer to the middle than he did last time. The McCain voters will be his and the conservatives can fight over the Evangelicals.

Caveat: My political predictions are almost always wrong.