Today’s TOP 10 Romney Distortions, Half-truths, & Lies

[PoplarGuy]

Think Progress: Your Progress Report
Today’s TOP 10 Romney Distortions, Half-truths, & Lies

By ThinkProgress War Room on Apr 4, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Mendacious Mitt

While the media rushed to declare the Republican presidential primary effectively over after last night’s victories for Mitt Romney in Wisconsin, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, they have been considerably less eager to call out Romney’s numerous and oft-repeated distortions, half-truths, and outright lies.

Here’s the rundown of Romney’s top ten lies from just today’s big speech alone.

1. The president has been “apologizing for America abroad.”

Romney, who has absolutely no foreign policy experience, levels this charge almost daily with regard to the president’s efforts to repair America’s image and alliances, which were of course both badly damaged by the disastrous policies of the Bush administration. This accusation is an outright lie, with PolitiFact rating it “Pants on Fire” way back in September. After Romney once again leveled this baseless charge today, PolitiFact tweeted a reminder that they have rated it Pants on Fire “over and over.”

2. ”As I have said many times before, the President did not cause the economic crisis, but he made it worse.”

Last July, Romney went so far as to deny that he’d ever even said that the president made the economy “worse.” Romney then of course went back to alleging just that, just as he did in today’s speech.

After the very same policies that Romney is now advocating a return to caused our economy to collapse, President Obama and his policies saved the country from another Great Depression and have created millions of jobs since, including a million in just the past five months alone. By no objective measure can anyone credibly claim that the president somehow made the economic crisis worse.

3. “[President Obama] is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

This charge is false in several ways. First, as we’ve documented before, presidents of both parties have made changes, sometimes extensive, to Medicare over the years. Second, Obamacare achieves its Medicare savings mostly by eliminating unnecessary overpayments to insurance companies. Third, the Ryan Republican budget that Mitt Romney has fully and repeatedly embraced includes the same $500 BILLION in “cuts” to Medicare as Obamacare, except the money is used to give tax breaks to the wealthy and corporate special interests rather than for strengthening Medicare and expanding health insurance coverage to 31 MILLION Americans.

4. The president “has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.”

This is another common Republican accusation that is simply an outright lie. Last September, after months of fruitless negotiations with unreliable Republican congressional leaders, the president did in fact propose a serious plan to deal with entitlements and our debt and deficit. It would reduce the deficit by $4.4 TRILLION and achieve an additional $320 BILLION in savings to Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs.

5. The president “has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.”

In an effort to distract from the Republican plan to actually end Medicare as we know it, Romney and other Republicans have begun leveling this charge. It too is an outright lie and was rated Pants on Fire by PolitiFact last month. Far from ending Medicare, Obamacare strengthened it and extended the solvency of the Medicare trust fund by eight years. As ThinkProgress Health Editor Igor Volsky put it today, “if the question is, which candidate ends Medicare for seniors, it’s hard to see how Romney’s plan to push future retirees into private insurance doesn’t fit the bill.”

6. The president is “destroying the Medicare Advantage program, eliminating the coverage that millions of seniors depend on.”

Far from “destroying” Medicare Advantage (the optional privately-administered insurance plans seniors can choose instead of traditional Medicare), Obamacare has resulted in increased enrollment and decreased premiums.

7. The president has “delayed the development of our oil.”

Domestic oil production is at an 8-year high, the number of oil drilling rigs is at a record high and has quadrupled in the past three years, and we recently became a net exporter of petroleum products for the first time since 1949.

8. The president has “added regulations at a staggering rate.”

The Obama administration has put in place new regulations at a slower rate than the Bush administration.

9. “I have already proposed a plan that will save and strengthen Medicare and Social Security for future generations.”

Romney’s plan would neither save nor strengthen Medicare or Social Security; it would destroy them both. His plan would explicitly end Medicare as we know it and Romney’s proposal for trillions of dollars in new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and increased defense spending — coupled with an unrealistically low spending cap — would require draconian, program-ending cuts to both Medicare and Social Security.

10. The president has instituted a “government takeover of healthcare.”

As was extensively discussed at the Supreme Court last week, Obamacare goes out of its way to preserve the private health insurance system in this country through market-based reforms. PolitiFact gave this Tea Party-inspired claim by Romney a Pants on Fire rating way back in May of 2011.

Romney did include two sentences in his speech that are undeniably true:

Given the number and scale of our nation’s current challenges, the November election will have particular consequence. It will be a defining event. President Obama and I have very different visions for America, both of what it means to be an American today and what it will mean in the future.

IN ONE SENTENCE: Mitt Romney is entitled to wage a campaign based on his own opinions, but he’s not entitled to wage one based on his own facts, many of which happen to be blatantly untrue.

http://thinkprogress.org/progress-re...0-romney-lies/

[whprsnpr]

This should come as no surprise to anyone, the bull butter and half truths from the mouths of any politician.

Just take a look at the knot head sitting in the white house.

I say, let us skip one cycle of having a president. Given the greed involved and how badly they lust for power,
could be the time has come to allow the people of this great nation run the show.

[PoplarGuy]

The National Memo
Memo Pad

Romney’s Gaffes Won’t Cost Him As Many Votes As His Views
April 6th, 2012 3:02 pm Jonathan Alter

If Barack Obama prevails this November, it will be in large part because of what has come out of Mitt Romney’s mouth in the last year.

I’m not talking about gaffes, for which the presumptive Republican nominee has a Freudian propensity. It’s as if the gaffe that ended his beloved father’s 1968 presidential campaign (George Romney said he had been subject to “brainwashing” on a trip to South Vietnam) puts Mitt Romney into “Don’t think of an elephant” mode. He’s so conscious of not making a gaffe that his subconscious insists on one every couple of weeks.

But gaffes are overrated as decisive campaign events. With the possible exception of President Gerald Ford saying during a televised debate a month before the 1976 election that Poland was not under Soviet domination (a howler that slowed an amazing comeback against Jimmy Carter), it’s hard to think of a misstatement that has determined the outcome.

Romney letting slip that he pals around with Nascar owners, or that corporations are people, too, or that his wife drives a couple of Cadillacs may cement his position as the out-of-touch poster boy of the 1 percent. But if he convinces people he can fix an ailing economy, not much else will matter. Swing voters rarely vote against someone just because he’s rich.

Between now and the election, these and other cable-ready boo-boos will become distant memories. Web ads about them may go viral, but they aren’t likely to sway anyone who hasn’t already decided against Romney.
The bigger problem is what the soon-to-be Republican nominee has said on substance. The news media doesn’t focus much on issues, which are duller than the circus but usually more lethal politically. Unlike gaffes, political positions are fair game for Obama to exploit in front of 60 million voters watching the fall debates.

Romney has flip-flopped so much that he now has little room to back away from what he said during the primaries. The “lamestream media” would crucify him for it; so would conservative base voters. Their “meh” on Mitt would quickly morph into a sense of betrayal. (The same logic explains why Romney, whatever his background, can’t possibly govern as a moderate.)

Obviously, Romney needed to prove during the primaries that he was a stout conservative, but he went overboard. He was never going to convince right-wingers he was the most conservative candidate in the race, so why harm his chances in the fall by trying? If Romney loses, historians will ask whether he really had to box himself in so tightly to win the Republican nomination.

Let’s say that instead of repeating his 2009 flat-out opposition to the successful auto bailouts, Romney had said they were structured wrong. Or instead of declaring Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan “marvelous” (a word Obama mocked in his speech attacking the plan this week), Romney had said that Ryan had many good ideas but that if he was elected, he would have his own budget blueprint. I’m not defending this kind of politically convenient fudge, but would it have destroyed his chances of being nominated?

Romney went the other way. He has so lashed himself to Ryan, an Ayn Rand libertarian, that there’s talk of Ryan going on the ticket. The Ryan-Romney plan — from slashing federally funded scientific research to forcing seniors from nursing homes because of draconian Medicaid cuts — will be wildly unpopular if Obama and his team find the resonant language to exploit it.

Even if one argues that fudging the Ryan plan was impractical (after all, Republicans in Congress overwhelmingly approved it), on two other critical issues — women’s health and immigration — Romney clearly went further than was necessary to claim the nomination. These issues happen to be of great concern to the two constituencies that account for his lagging behind Obama in the polls. If Romney can’t break 40 percent with women and Latinos, it’s hard to see how he wins.

Let’s stipulate that Romney’s history left him no room to dissent on the Blunt amendment, which would permit employers to strip their health plans of birth control or anything else they find objectionable to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Romneycare in Massachusetts gave employers (including religious institutions) no such exemptions. Conservatives would have endlessly hassled Romney if he fell short of a full repudiation of everything he did on health care as governor.

But does his attendance at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser in 1994 and previous support of abortion rights really compel him to race to the other extreme and proclaim that he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood? (His spokesman later clarified that he meant all federal support for Planned Parenthood.) Over the last 40 years, this organization provided the first birth control to millions of middle-class swing-vote suburban women. They haven’t forgotten.

It’s hard to believe that Romney would have lost the Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin primaries to Rick Santorum if he had refused to attack Planned Parenthood hammer and tong. By pandering unnecessarily, he worsened his chances with women in these and other battleground states in the fall.

Immigration put Romney in a similar pickle. Attacked during the 2008 campaign for hiring a lawn care agency that employed undocumented workers, Romney tried to be tougher than all the other Republican candidates on this issue. He was so worried about Rick Perry that he cold-****ed him during an early debate for allowing the innocent children of undocumented immigrants to attend the University of Texas. Even after Perry had been marginalized, Romney was still touting “self-deportation” and other anti-immigrant ideas.

Suppose instead that Romney had talked tough on border enforcement but, like Gingrich, left the door open to working out a solution for the children of immigrants. (His current position of making allowances only for those who join the military satisfies no one.) A more vague position would hardly have cost him the Republican nomination. But it would have protected him against Obama clobbering him with the Dream Act in a debate.

What Romney thought was de rigueur in the primaries may bring rigor mortis in the general. He seems to have forgotten that everything he said to win the nomination is now etch-a-sketched in stone.

(Jonathan Alter is a Bloomberg View columnist and the author of “The Promise: President Obama, Year One.” The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.nationalmemo.com/romney-g...er-cost-votes/

[PoplarGuy]

This should come as no surprise to anyone, the bull butter and half truths from the mouths of any politician.

Just take a look at the knot head sitting in the white house.

I say, let us skip one cycle of having a president. Given the greed involved and how badly they lust for power,
could be the time has come to allow the people of this great nation run the show.

Does this mean that you are not voting for the presumptive Republican nominee, Mittens Romney, whprsnpr?

[PoplarGuy]

Comment from the above posted article:
joyscarbo
Like I said in another thread:

How can a conservative or Republican be truly happy or even optomistic about their chances of wining the upcoming election? No Republican has stepped foward with a plan that resembles something that the beleaugered American people can get with!!!

It's going to be fun to watch Obama debate Romney. Mitt is so incredibly ill-equpped to participate in a debate without flip-flopping and making more damaging gaffes. Does Mitt even know what his platform is?
Obama is masterfully and keenly articulate. He's a highly skilled at debate. Does anyone remember how he ran circles around McCain?! I felt sorry for the guy. It was never even a contest. Romney best not make the same mistake that McCain made in a running mate. Palin was a disaster!!!

A question to those conservatives and Republicans who cruise the this website...
Is this the best your party could come up with? REALLY??!! Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich? You' can only blame so much on the "liberal media." These are YOUR GUYS and you have to own them. Wow...

[PoplarGuy]

The National Memo
Memo Pad

To Win GOP Nomination, Mitt Romney Erased His Only Credential
April 5th, 2012 7:35 am Joe Conason

Mitt Romney raised eyebrows by delivering a speech on Wednesday suggesting that President Obama is an unreliable figure, devoid of principle, program, and purpose. “He wants us to re-elect him,” the presumptive GOP nominee practically sneered, “so we can find out what he will actually do.” Someone clearly advised him that an audacious attack on Obama’s character would please the partisan base, distract voters from his own opportunistic gyrations, and create space for him to draw a new, flattering, resolute portrait of himself.

But as a presdidential nominee who spent most of the primary season erasing his own political record, Romney may already have eliminated any positive rationale for his candidacy. After disowning the most important programs and positions he advocated as Massachusetts governor, what can he present as his qualifications for the presidency? Please don’t say Bain Capital, because the nation is in no mood to elevate a ruthless private equity mega-millionaire into the Oval Office. And don’t say Summer Olympics, because that doesn’t sound quite big enough for a would-be leader of the free world.

Adopting the favored cliché of conventional politics, Romney’s friends and advisors — even his wife Ann — assure us that he will now pivot toward the broader electorate, returning to positions that once marked him as an acceptably moderate Republican. When everyone learns his true views, we won’t have to worry about his pandering to the Tea Party, the religious extremists and the corporate right. But even if he can persuasively distance himself from the far right on such issues as contraception — the surprise controversy that reopened the partisan gender gap — he will not be able to retrieve the gubernatorial record he has discarded.

Romney’s obsessive erasure of his own achievements began before the last presidential cycle, while he prepared to enter the 2008 Republican primary. During those years, he notoriously shifted long-held positions on abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, illegal immigration, and other key issues in an effort to outflank John McCain on the right. The makeover went well beyond social issues. Having vowed in 2003 that he would never sign Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge as governor, he signed the same pledge with a flourish four years later. And having spent millions of taxpayer dollars in the pursuit of alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels as a hedge against climate change in 2003, he spun around to denounce such notions in a 2007 press release. His enthusiasm for fossil fuels — and his disdain for “green jobs” — can scarcely be matched today by Sarah “Drill Baby” Palin.

If Romney can convince voters of his newfound right-wing orthodoxy, that won’t help him explain why he should be president. Given the partisan gridlock that has confronted the inexperienced Obama, a candidate boasting of success as Republican governor of a Democratic state could arguably offer an alternative. But while Romney often talks about his role in working with legislators of the other party, he can no longer describe what they did without eroding his own party’s enthusiasm. Certainly he cannot “pivot” back to the universal health coverage that became his signature accomplishment — a bill that inspired the Obama administration’s insurance mandate and required substantial state spending (and taxes) to achieve its worthy objective. Indeed, he hasn’t been able to talk about the goal of universal coverage, which is simply unacceptable to the “let ‘em die” ideologues of the Tea Party. He can’t even brag too loudly about eliminating the state’s budget deficit because that too involved increasing taxes — or hiking fees and closing loopholes for the wealthy, viewed with equal contempt in his party.

Reforming health care and balancing budgets frame the entirety of Romney’s single term as governor. The final blow to any bipartisan credibility that Romney might still retain came when he endorsed the “marvelous” Ryan budget, a plan that undermines both of those goals while symbolizing the dysfunctional divisiveness of the Republican Congressional majority.

Maybe he should start talking about the Olympics after all. It isn’t an impressive credential for the American presidency — but when the summer games begin, at least he won’t have to pretend that he never supported them.

http://www2.nationalmemo.com/romney-erased-credentials/

[PoplarGuy]

Reader Supported News
Obama By Default

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig
05 April 12

The Republicans are a sick joke, and their narrow ideological stupidity has left rational voters no choice in the coming presidential election but Barack Obama. With Ron Paul out of it and warmongering hedge fund hustler Mitt Romney the likely Republican nominee, the GOP has defined itself indelibly as the party of moneyed greed and unfettered imperialism.

It is with chilling certainty that one can predict that a single Romney appointee to the Supreme Court would seal the coup of the 1 percent that already is well on its way toward purchasing the nation's political soul. Romney is the quintessential Citizens United super PAC candidate, a man who has turned avarice into virtue and comes to us now as a once-moderate politician transformed into the ultimate prophet of imperial hubris, blaming everyone from the Chinese to laid-off American workers for our problems. Everyone, that is, except the Wall Street-dominated GOP, which midwifed the Great Recession under George W. Bush and now seeks to blame Obama for the enormous deficit spawned by the party's wanton behavior.

Without a militarily sophisticated enemy anywhere on the planet, the United States, thanks to the Bush-bloated budget, now spends almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. Yet the GOP honchos dare claim they are for small government even as their chosen candidate champs at the bit to go to war with Iran.

They obviously learned nothing from the disasters of Bush the Second, who hijacked the tragedy of 9/11 to launch the most wasteful orgy of military spending in U.S. history in his failed effort to take out an al-Qaida enemy that had no significant military arsenal. That enemy was later eliminated by Obama, whom the Republicans still obstinately refuse to credit for accomplishing what Bush failed to. Can you imagine the explosion of preening self-congratulation that would have resulted if a GOP president had done the deed?

The red-ink deficits that had been stanched under Bill Clinton came to gush uncontrollably because of the swollen military budgets, compounded by the severe costs of the recession that occurred on Bush's watch.

But the Republicans refuse to take ownership of the collapse resulting from their longstanding advocacy of radical financial deregulation that led to the derivatives bubble, hundreds of trillions of dollars of toxic junk, now a permanent, nightmarish feature of the world's economy. Romney, who made his fortune through such financial finagling, even has the effrontery to call for more of the same and blame Obama's tepid efforts at establishing some sane speed limits for the financial highway as a cause of our ongoing crisis.

So insanely gullible are Republican voters that they buy Mitt's line that bailing out the auto industry to save the heart of America's legendary industrial base was an example of big-government waste. Yet to them the almost unimaginable sum spent on the Wall Street bailout represents prudent small-government fiscal responsibility.

The incumbent president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought. As Obama put it in a speech before a journalism group this week, we are saddled with a national debt "that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, [and] that will have to be paid down." But instead of dealing with the causes of that debt, Romney has called for an increase in military spending, continued tax breaks for the rich and reversal of the very limited restraints on corporate greed that Obama managed to get through Congress. He has endorsed the House-passed Paul Ryan budget, which, as Obama noted, even Newt Gingrich once derided as "radical" and an effort at "right-wing social engineering."

Such radicalism leaves Obama as the "moderate" choice in the coming election, defending centrist programs that Republicans in the past helped originate. Indeed, the big attack on Obama will involve what the Republicans call Obamacare - which was modeled in every important respect on Romneycare, enacted when the GOP candidate was governor of Massachusetts.

The overarching lesson of this primary season is that Romney and the Republicans he seeks to win over are incapable of embracing the very moderation that, particularly in the golden era of Dwight Eisenhower, defined the party. Instead, they are now a reckless force bent on destroying the essential social contract that has been the basis of America's economic and social progress.

As Obama said Tuesday in addressing the editors and reporters: "... We're going to have to answer a central question as a nation. ... Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? ... This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. ... It's the defining issue of our time."

http://www.readersupportednews.org/o...ama-by-default

[Sabro]

I saw a nice graphic on facebook today with Romney's face, a quote, and a graph of the jobs situation behind him refuting the quote. I wish I could post it here.

[PoplarGuy]

Reader Supported News
Frank Rich on the National Circus: Romney Is the Only One Playing ‘Hide-and-Seek’
by Frank Rich

Yesterday Romney accused the president of running a "hide-and-seek" campaign. Is claiming that we still don't know the "real Barack Obama" a winning play?

This tactic tells us little about Obama but a lot about the continued haplessness of the Romney campaign even as he wins the nomination. “Hide-and-seek” was chosen for no other reason than it’s a three-syllable children’s game that Romney’s handlers hope will vanquish the three-syllable children’s toy “Etch A Sketch” from campaign rhetoric — just as they hope that Obama’s “hot mike” gaffe will make everyone forget their “Etch A Sketch” gaffe. The only problem is that “Etch A Sketch” perfectly and perhaps permanently summed up Romney’s biggest failing as a candidate — his utter lack of a spine. “Hide-and-seek,” by contrast, is a political non sequitur when applied to Obama. The president’s biggest critics may think he’s a socialist or a snob or an appeaser or whatever, but no one thinks he’s “hiding” anything unless it’s the hard-core crazies who think he’s hiding his “real” birth certificate.

Romney’s message seems to be one sustained attack on Obama. When is his positive campaign vision going to kick in?
Does anyone, including in the Republican party, know what it is? Romney has outsourced what upbeat message he has to Francis Scott Key, Katherine Lee Bates, Irving Berlin and the other deceased lyricists who wrote the patriotic anthems he mangles in public. Maybe the time has come for him to solicit some fresh ideas from his campaign's official troubadour, Kid Rock.

Romney’s “hide-and-seek” speech was preceded by Obama’s attack on the Republican budget that passed the House. The president called the budget “social Darwinism” — is this a strategy the Democrats can keep up throughout the general election?
“Social Darwinism” that budget clearly is, for it enshrines two principles: More tax cuts for the rich, and the gutting of programs that might benefit those who have not reached the pinnacle of economic evolution. Not just Medicare and Medicaid, but Head Start, Pell grants, and federal regulation of toxins as various as derivatives on Wall Street and “pink slime” in food. The House budget is a Pandora’s box of potential horrors that Democrats can roll out throughout 2012. And that political task is made easier by the fact that the Republicans, including Romney, are leaving the details blank, allowing voters (with Democratic prodding) to let their imaginations and fears run riot. Romney actually told The Weekly Standard that he would not “give you a list right now” of what federal departments and programs he would eliminate as President — and he said this just two weeks before he had the audacity to accuse Obama of playing "hide-and-seek." Freud had a term for this — projection.

What does it say about Romney’s psyche that he called the House’s budget “marvelous”?
That it is impervious to the American language as spoken by 99 percent of his fellow citizens. This is his best locution since he described himself as “severely conservative.” Whatever else happens in the 2012 campaign, one thing is certain. We’re going to stop hearing ridicule from the right about Obama’s use of a TelePrompTer. Romney is using two TelePrompTers at speeches, and yet he still yields a risible soundbite (or two) nearly every week.

Will it help or hurt Obama that the GOP budget’s author, Paul Ryan, is a relative newcomer to the national stage? Even Americans who know his name probably only have a vague idea of who he is other than a "Wisconsin budget wonk." Ryan is too dull to serve as a political piñata — he’s “9-9-9” without the charisma. Should Romney pick him for Veep, as Washington’s current “whispering” has it, the GOP will at least have an all-white-male ticket in perfect sync with the party’s demographics. The bland leading the bland.

Isn’t that precisely why Romney shouldn’t choose Ryan? You’d think. Then again, it’s hard to imagine how any vice-presidential choice could undo his and his party’s poor standing with two minorities, African-Americans and Hispanics, and one majority, women. This week Romney became clenched, awkward, and terse when asked to expound on the Mormon church’s egregious and tardy history in awarding blacks equal status to whites. He has endorsed Arizona’s Draconian anti-immigration law, which would punish Latinos for the crime of acting or looking “Latino,” and he has given the nation the concept of “self-deportation,” which some Hispanic voters might rightfully mistake for “self-flagellation," or perhaps “self-annihilation.” Romney has also endorsed the so-called Blunt Amendment, and called for the elimination of Title X and Planned Parenthood funding — which would collectively deny poor and working women alike coverage not just for contraception but for cancer screening, among other health-care essentials.

Does that mean it is too late for Ann Romney’s recently stated antidote for her husband’s steep polling decline among women voters — that the campaign “unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out”? To quote The Producers, “When you’ve got it, flaunt it.” An unzipped Mitt would certainly make everyone forget about Seamus the dog.

On the most recent Mad Men, a character who is an aide for John Lindsay referred to George Romney as "a clown." A bunch of conservatives and Mitt's son Tagg got worked up about it. Is everything going to be a subject of feigned outrage from now until November? In a word, yes ... Let’s not forget, by the way, that just twenty years ago, the sitting Vice-President, Dan Quayle, tried to drum up support for the Republican ticket’s reelection campaign by expressing outrage about a fictional television sitcom character, Murphy Brown, who offended his notions of traditional womanhood. Quayle was last seen playing golf in Sunbelt oblivion while the actress who played Murphy, Candice Bergen, opened last week on Broadway in Gore Vidal’s The Best Man.

http://www.readersupportednews.org/o...-hide-and-seek

[whprsnpr]

Sorry PG, been trying to catch up on my rest. This driving job really wears me out.
Actually, I have not completely decided who I will cast my vote in favor of.
Truthfully, in my humble opinion, there is but one true choice, that being Dr Ron Paul.
Problem is, he has very little chance of capturing the nomonation.

On the other hand, I am not 100% on the meaning of a Brokered Convention. The way I understand it, if the candidates all stay in the race to the end and somehow prevent Romney from getting the required number of delegates, chances are he may not become the nominee. Hopefully then, Dr Paul's views and positions may become at least part of the official positions from the Republican party.

Like I said, I do not fully grasp the entire program. One can only hope.

One thing you can count on and that is, even if John McCain decides to run again, my vote will NEVER be given again to Obama. He has done nothing I can agree with and this has caused me much disappointment.