News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[Jasongreat]

I think Romney is wise to keep his focus on President Obama - this appeals to all Republicans.

I think Ronmey focusing on Romneycare would quiet all republicans, however I can see that it doesn't appeal to Republicans.

 

[daveb]

Will you please give sources for this statement, the USC has said otherwise. The only time my travel can be restricted, according to the USC, is because I am making money, or a commercial driver. Why is it cars are different? Could not a horse be an danger to citizens? could not a horse and buggy be a danger to citizens? Heck, could not my walking be a danger? Why do you think government has the right to resrtict my travel when it comes to cars? Here are some cases to get you started:

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government—in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question—is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions—such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few—on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point—that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.” In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

Fascinating stuff...I'm going to have to look into this a tad more.

 

[Oltz]

Does that mean I do not need an inspection this year?

 

[ParticleGrl]

According to the constitution I have read, our rights are unalieanable.

Then perhaps you should read the US constitution, which doesn't mention inalienable or unalienable rights, or natural rights, etc. Maybe you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal document.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Will you please give sources for this statement, the USC has said otherwise. The only time my travel can be restricted, according to the USC, is because I am making money, or a commercial driver. Why is it cars are different? Could not a horse be an danger to citizens? could not a horse and buggy be a danger to citizens? Heck, could not my walking be a danger? Why do you think government has the right to resrtict my travel when it comes to cars? Here are some cases to get you started:

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS.

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government—in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question—is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions—such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few—on a citizen’s constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:

“The state cannot diminish rights of the people.”
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.”
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point—that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”

Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights.” Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question – Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding.” In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

This was more convincing before I realized that you just copy/pasted this from another website. I tried finding some of these cases to confirm what they say but I just get tons of websites citing the exact same quotes with no additional information. Do you know where the original opinions/rulings can be found?

 

[AlephZero]

I just read the fist paragraph of your quote, and I the main thing that struck me (assuming that US and UK motoring law are vaguely similar) is that it may well be correct, but irrelevant.

In the UK there is no legal restriction on anybody of any age driving any vehicle almost anywhere they want. The restrictions are about driving vehicles on public highways.

"Public highways" are legally defined very precisely in the UK. Indeed there have been court cases where a local highways department redesigned a road junction by adding a one-way slip road, somebody was been prosecuted for driving the wrong way down it. and they were acquitted because the council had forgotten to go through the correct legal process to register the new bit of tarmac as a public highway. Of course those loopholes get fixed rather fast, once they have been discovered!

 

[Jasongreat]

This was more convincing before I realized that you just copy/pasted this from another website. I tried finding some of these cases to confirm what they say but I just get tons of websites citing the exact same quotes with no additional information. Do you know where the original opinions/rulings can be found?

Go to Cornell law(one place, or just go to the USC website), enter the citations listed, and then read the court cases. Sometimes it takes more than google to find facts, even today. :)

Edit: I tried a few to make sure and even just relying on google, if you enter the citation you get the court cases. But findlaw, cornell law, and USC sites are the best choices, IMO.

 

[Jasongreat]

I just read the fist paragraph of your quote, and I the main thing that struck me (assuming that US and UK motoring law are vaguely similar) is that it may well be correct, but irrelevant.

In the UK there is no legal restriction on anybody of any age driving any vehicle almost anywhere they want. The restrictions are about driving vehicles on public highways.

"Public highways" are legally defined very precisely in the UK. Indeed there have been court cases where a local highways department redesigned a road junction by adding a one-way slip road, somebody was been prosecuted for driving the wrong way down it. and they were acquitted because the council had forgotten to go through the correct legal process to register the new bit of tarmac as a public highway. Of course those loopholes get fixed rather fast, once they have been discovered!

If the UK is anything like the US, just because the government says it should be and teaches that in public schools, doesn't make it so, but I do realize our constutuion is more set in stone(or atleast it was) than the UK version. Wasnt that one of the reasons our founders split? They felt like their rights, as englishmen under common law, were being abused. I have no problem with the laws in the UK, because I don't live under them, it is up to you to and your fellow countrymen to decide. If you like the laws in your country, please don't take my assertions as a negative, that is your government not mine.

But anyway, I feel like this discussion fits better in Ron Pauls thread, Romney I don't think has any idea of the true history of the US, he was an ivy league graduate afterall. IMO, they all seem pretty progressive, see Bill O'reilly, the Bushes, Obama just to mention recent history. The only reason I went down this path is RussWaters brought up driving restrictions to make his point, a point I disagree with emphaticaly if you haven't noticed. :)

Romney, could if he wanted, make the government more efficient, he does like to destroy inefficient companies. But to think he would rule as a consevative, in the classical liberal view is preposterous, he was taught all the wrong beliefs of the US, not saying he couldn't change, I just don't think he has, yet. All the others, save paul, are far more big government though, so my choice is Romney/Paul or Paul/Romney I prefer the latter for eight years, then a newly educated Romney/whoever for the next eight. At least that's my opinion.

 

[CAC1001]

It is commonly believed due to constant hammering of the issue from liberal politicians, but it is very wrong. The data can be found here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

The most relevant table is the mean household income of each fifth of the population. Even without adjusting for cyclic trends, the average income of the people in the bottom 20% is 21% higher (inflation adjusted) today than in 1967 when the data started to be collected. For the next two fifths the increases are 13% and 22%.

Most such data are meaningless anyway as we are talking about income quintiles, not fixed classes of people. Abstract statistical measures such as "the mean household income" for this or that "fifth" of the population tells us nothing about the actual human beings in our society over time, who move into and out of these quintiles.

 

[WhoWee]

As Romney continues to battle for the GOP nomination - the reluctance of the Right to embrace him should be a good sign and helping him with Moderates and Independents - shouldn't it?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Go to Cornell law(one place, or just go to the USC website), enter the citations listed, and then read the court cases. Sometimes it takes more than google to find facts, even today. :)

Edit: I tried a few to make sure and even just relying on google, if you enter the citation you get the court cases. But findlaw, cornell law, and USC sites are the best choices, IMO.

When I try to google them I just get the same schpiel posted on about 2000 other websites as my top hits.

Cases #3 and #4 that are cited are cases about the Secretary of State denying passports to citizens of the United States when Congress required anybody leaving the country to have a passport, and the ruling simply states that the government cannot restrict the right to travel to foreign countries with impunity. It has nothing to do with whether driving on a road explicitly is a right or a privilege

On the other hand we have court cases like
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8317960360812670712&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&as_vis=1

a supreme court ruling about someone whose drivers license was suspended, so very directly related to the question of whether drivers licensing can legally restrict a right to drive on roads

The use of the public highways by motor vehicles, with its consequent dangers, renders the reasonableness and necessity of regulation apparent. The universal practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process.

This ruling came 10 years after Thompson v. Smith, which the quote from is missing a key component (coming immediately after the quoted section in your post) (parts bolded by me)

. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, 378*378 under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it. Taylor Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S.E. 259; Ex parte Dickey, 76 W.Va. 576, 85 S.E. 781, L.R.A. 1915-F, 840; Hadfield Lundin, 98 Wash. 657, 168 Pac. 516, L.R.A. 1918-B, 909, Ann. Cas. 1918-C, 942.

[7, 8]The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

In short, that drivers licenses are OK.

I was unable to find the Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago case, but was able to find this debunking of the citation
http://www.andrewtobias.com/bkoldcolumns/980723.html

 

[lisab]

As Romney continues to battle for the GOP nomination - the reluctance of the Right to embrace him should be a good sign and helping him with Moderates and Independents - shouldn't it?

It seems you're thinking as a Republican by assuming Independents only have two choices - Romney or Santorum. But Independents are, well, independent.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/independent-voters-on-the-run-from-romney-chart.php

 

[WhoWee]

It seems you're thinking as a Republican by assuming Independents only have two choices - Romney or Santorum. But Independents are, well, independent.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/independent-voters-on-the-run-from-romney-chart.php

What makes you think I'm a Republican?

 

[lisab]

What makes you think I'm a Republican?

Because I caught you thinking like a Republican!

 

[Evo]

Because I caught you thinking like a Republican!

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

It doesn't matter what it calls itself, does it?

I'm not a Republican, I just believe in everything hardcore Republicans believe in.

 

[BobG]

As Romney continues to battle for the GOP nomination - the reluctance of the Right to embrace him should be a good sign and helping him with Moderates and Independents - shouldn't it?

Depends on why they're reluctant to embrace him.

Not only are people influenced by a candidate's stand on the issues; they're influenced by their impression of his character/personality.

It's entirely possible that the impression of many conservatives is identical to that of liberals when it comes to Romney's personality/character.

While I find him acceptable politically (or at least his record is acceptable), I just have a hard time imagining myself voting for him. It's not his views I don't like - it's just him. It doesn't mean that there's no way I would vote for him - just that I sure would think about that long and hard before doing so.

Actually, I felt the same way about Bush 43 in 2000. I eventually swallowed hard and voted for Bush in spite of how I felt about him as a person (spoiled rich kid that wasted half his life partying). In retrospect, I can hardly believe I actually did that.

 

[lisab]

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

It doesn't matter what it calls itself, does it?

I'm not a Republican, I just believe in everything hardcore Republicans believe in.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep,27371/

 

[Evo]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-breeding-program-aimed-at-keeping-moderate-rep,27371/

<spew>

 

[WhoWee]

Actually, I'm an unrepresented angry independent conservative - business owner - struggling to stay afloat in a time of great political and economic uncertainty.

IMO - in 2008 I thought Senator Obama was too inexperienced and too Lib - he has proven himself to be the inept executive/full time campaigner and disaster I feared. On the other hand, I think mitt Romney has the correct mix of experience to deal with the problems President Obama has either created or kicked down the road.

 

[Evo]

On the other hand, I think mitt Romney has the correct mix of experience to deal with the problems President Obama has either created or kicked down the road.

And I feel the opposite.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Feelings should play a minor role.

he has proven himself to be the inept executive/full time campaigner and disaster I feared.

Your experience does not prove those factors, it only proves your position in life. There is a difference between something being "proven" based on evidence of x contributing to y's failure and how such a policy didn't work, and proven, as in your case of the unfortunate mishaps we all have in life. Blaming Obama and hoping Mitt Romney will change your life around, one whom you believe to be the same as Obama (I think it was you who said it), is really too much of a contradiction of belief and your proof of Obama's ineptitude. Grass is greener on the other side but both sides have the same color and same green tint of grass?

P.S. If you didn't say it, my apologies.

In the event that you did not say it. Your belief in Romney being able to help your business is a bit much of a stretch isn't it? Aside from Romney's many pitfalls in potential policies and his unwavering stance that the small business owner doesn't matter much, he really doesn't say much to help dying businesses, correct?

Here is a clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvURgyJ26w

I don't think he'd be able to help your business, it'd be much of the same. You can only help your business.

 

[WhoWee]

And I feel the opposite.

Which part?

 

[Evo]

Which part?

That Romney is capable of doing any better than Obama. Obama did more positive things in his first few months than some Presidents did their entire term, IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

That Romney is capable of doing any better than Obama. Obama did more positive things in his first few months than some Presidents did their entire term, IMO.

I think Romney's experience as a deal maker in the business world, as Gov as well as with the Olympics will help him to work with a disfunctional Congress.

 

[Evo]

I think Romney's experience as a deal maker in the business world, as Gov as well as with the Olympics will help him to work with a disfunctional Congress.

The olympics, what's special about the olympics? I think the olympics are terrible, they pit nation against nation, it should be abolished. If you like sports and want competions among the best, fine, but don't make it about which country is superior. And I certainly don't think the population should be dealt with in the unfeeling, uncaring way that businesses deal with employees, as a number on a spreadsheet instead of as human beings.

 

[WhoWee]

The olympics, what's special about the olympics? I think the olympics are terrible, they pit nation against nation, it should be abolished. If you like sports and want competions among the best, fine, but don't make it about which country is superior. And I certainly don't think the population should be dealt with in the unfeeling, uncaring way that businesses deal with employees, as a number on a spreadsheet instead of as human beings.

The Olympics drew upon his professional experience and gave him a good working experience with Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?pagewanted=all
"In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign.

“The Olympics gave him a public persona he didn’t have before,” said Robert H. Garff, a businessman who served as the chairman of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. “He grew into the person he is today.”"

 

[Evo]

The Olympics drew upon his professional experience and gave him a good working experience with Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/us/politics/19romney.html?pagewanted=all
"In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign.

“The Olympics gave him a public persona he didn’t have before,” said Robert H. Garff, a businessman who served as the chairman of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. “He grew into the person he is today.”"

Riiight. He used politics and money to earn recognition, lovely.

But the hardheaded and hard-nosed pragmatism that allowed Mr. Romney to juggle an unruly coalition of politicians, sponsors and volunteers as chief executive of the Games now haunts him on the campaign trail among some conservative Republicans. They complain that he has no core beliefs and shifts positions on a range of issues to placate various constituencies.

As a Republican presidential hopeful, for example, Mr. Romney portrays himself as a budget hawk who would take a hard line on federal spending and Congressional earmarks, the pet projects that lawmakers insert in spending bills. Back then, though, he lobbied heavily for earmarks, helping extract millions of federal dollars for projects in some cases only loosely tied to the Olympics and drawing the ire of Senator John McCain of Arizona, a longtime critic of earmarks and now a rival for the Republican presidential nomination.

While even Mr. Romney’s critics concede that the Games — which had faced serious potential

financial difficulties before his arrival — were a huge success, some say he made those early problems seem worse than they were to embellish his accomplishments. Others grouse about his showman’s instinct for the spotlight: the countless photo-ops, the television spots. Even the little Olympic pins sold to collectors carried his image, cloaked in the American flag.

 

[WhoWee]

Riiight. He used politics and money to earn recognition, lovely.

Careful - lest we compare President Obama's failed efforts (after a very expensive trip) to bring Olympics to Chicago.

 

[Evo]

Careful - lest we compare President Obama's failed efforts (after a very expensive trip) to bring Olympics to Chicago.

Obama's actions in the first few months after he became President are what I look at. I wasn't for Obama, gokul talked me into him. But he did make the right decisions right after becoming president. So I have no regrets.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems you're thinking as a Republican by assuming Independents only have two choices - Romney or Santorum. But Independents are, well, independent.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/independent-voters-on-the-run-from-romney-chart.php

I think you misunderstand what that graph is telling you and why. During primary season, candidates must pander to the core/base of their party to get votes. This will inevitably hurt them WRT to their potential opponent in November. But after the primary ends, they'll campaign to everyone.

What matters today isn't how Romney fares against Obama, it is how Romney fares against Obama compared to how Santorum fares against Obama. Or better yet, how Romney fares against Santorum WRT independents.