Poll: Do you find this Romney ad or this Santorum ad more effective? (with videos)
It’s not Friday yet, but I wanted to do a poll about these two political ads. Which one do you find more effective or persuasive?
Option 1:
Or option 2:
Now, the poll:
After watching both ads, I have a better impression of:
- Neither (41 Votes)
- Rick Santorum (21 Votes)
- Mitt Romney (18 Votes)
- Both (0 Votes)
Total Voters: 80
Loading ...Elaborate in the comments thread. And, please — try to refrain from, I hate both of those guys and always will! Please be as objective as you can; I’m truly curious about this.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
96 comments Add your comment
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:32 am
Santorum’s was funnier (especially with the Romney lookalike), but from an ad perspective, the visual takes away from the message Santorum is trying to convey. The music is distracting to the point where it drowns out the voice-over, and you’re watching rather than listening anyway due to the visuals.
Romney’s ad was clear, concise and on message. You can’t go wrong in the Republican primary by tying your opponent to Hillary Clinton.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
11:33 am
Whoever beats Obama. That’s who I’m for.
Odis
February 15th, 2012
11:44 am
*EPIC FAIL* on both their parts.
Jefferson
February 15th, 2012
11:46 am
Selling soap.
Ayn Rant
February 15th, 2012
11:47 am
It’s a heck of a way to choose a candidate for President. Neither of the ads is reliably informative, but the attack on Santorum is more convincing than the attack on Romney. My guess is that Romney’s backers can afford a better ad agency.
The ads are purely negative. Neither touches on issues that are important to the American people. The backers of President Obama need not spend a cent to wreak devastation on these guys; they’re doing it to themselves.
Baker
February 15th, 2012
11:48 am
The Anti-Santorum should mention that he voted against Right to Work. Did he not? Santorum is a socially conservative, pro-Union guy. If the Dems hadn’t gone off the rails about social issues, he’d be a Dem.
The anti-Mitt ad does nothing except show how good this Tom Ridge look-alike is with that mud gun. Saying the other guy is slinging mud is totally useless. They all sling mud and everyone knows it, poor use of 30 seconds.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:49 am
Do what????, Odis and Jefferson, really? That’s all you take away from them? Did you not even bother to READ what Kyle requested?
A little objectivity would go a long way with some of you people.
Don't Tread
February 15th, 2012
11:50 am
I’ll have to agree with Tiberius – Santorum’s was funnier (gotta love the paintball gun loaded with “mud balls”), but neither ad is persuasive enough to make me vote one way or the other.
St Simons - we're on Island time
February 15th, 2012
11:50 am
more effective at making me throw up in my mouth a little,
well, the Rmoney one.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
11:53 am
Ayn, they are ads for a PRIMARY, not a general election. Since the majority of voters in the GOP primary rightly believe that any one of the candidates could do a better job of governing regarding the economy and job creation than the current Disaster-in-Chief, why focus on that in the primary?
You compare and contrast your DIFFERENCES, not your similarities in an ad, Ayn.
ImAlwaysRight
February 15th, 2012
11:55 am
I agree with Don’t Tread. While the Santorum ad was funnier (and thus more watchable), it didn’t really say anything useful. While the Romney add was substantive, it obviously slanted the facts in Romney’s favor, so it’s not really an honest portrayal of Santorum. If one of these guys would start focusing their ads on Obama instead of “the other guy”, they might actually stand a chance!
Mash
February 15th, 2012
11:57 am
I am a Santorum supporter, but between those two ads above I’d say that the Romney ad is better and more effective.
I hope Rick has better ads than that.
DannyX
February 15th, 2012
11:59 am
“And, please — try to refrain from, I hate both of those guys and always will!”
and this too…”Whoever beats Obama. That’s who I’m for.”
I think Romney’s ad was more effective, it points out the uncontrolled spending that occurred during the Bush years. Republicans talk about Obama’s uncontrolled spending but have given a pass to their incumbents and politicians who are just as responsible for our huge deficit. Santorum voted for the unfunded wars, Bush tax cuts and unfunded Medicare Part D, why should he get a pass?
This doesn’t however give me a better impression of Romney, just makes me think his ad is more effective.
Jefferson
February 15th, 2012
12:00 pm
The ads are much like the ads used to sell washing powder to women.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
12:03 pm
If you look up the definition of hopeless in the dictionary, Jefferson’s picture is right next to it.
Jefferson
February 15th, 2012
12:12 pm
Emotional response, much like the target of the ad.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
12:14 pm
“Emotional response, much like the target of the ad.”
Unthinking partisan response, much like the poster.
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
12:16 pm
All: Santorum does have other, more issues-based ads. See here and here. Fwiw.
The reason I wanted to pair these two ads — and I didn’t want to influence votes by mentioning this, but I think we’re far enough down in the comments thread now not to worry about that — is that the Santorum ad represents a different tactic for answering the Romney attack ads. Newt got angry after Iowa and Florida, where Romney belted him with negative ad after negative ad. That didn’t work. According to a story to which I linked yesterday, the Romney campaign thinks Santorum will react to the negativity by “whining.” Mocking Romney definitely isn’t whining.
As I wrote in the OP, I’m genuinely interested to see whether this tactic of Santorum’s works — and whether we’ll see it play out here, too, as Super Tuesday approaches.
Gordon
February 15th, 2012
12:19 pm
I don’t have to look at the ads…the Romney one is more effective. He is the only person that can beat Obama, and that is critical.
Jefferson
February 15th, 2012
12:36 pm
Look Dick Tracy, if the President ran the same ad he too would be selling soap.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
12:38 pm
Agreed that mocking isn’t whining, Kyle, but mocking isn’t a great strategy, either (at least in my mind).
I still think that Santorum is the current “flavor of the month”, and hasn’t had the media scrutiny or the focus of Romney just yet.
But he will.
Pizza
February 15th, 2012
12:50 pm
Great test market for future Obama ads, and the material is already written.
Road Scholar
February 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
Santorums was more entertaining and I will remember it more and talk with others if they have seen it. Romney’s is just negative soundbites;it turned nme off.
How about discussing YOUR OWN POLICIES and tell the people why it is superior….ya’ know…the facts. How novel that would be!
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2012
12:59 pm
Mocking Romney definitely isn’t whining.
Sorry to disagree, Kyle. The Santorum ad kinda screamed “he’s a meanypannnnnts!” to me. Also I’m with Tiberius, the music is distracting. I think it’s Sousa, it’s jarring and doesn’t fit well with the ad. Maybe they were trying to use circus-type music but it seems a poor choice. That’s stuff you hear at a 4th of July celebration. And portraying yourself as a 2-D target? Why does Santorum want to be seen as a cardboard cutout?
I didn’t even notice the Obamacare reference until I re-watched the ad, they really need to pick one message per ad and stay with it.
The Romney ad seemed more effective, critiquing somebody’s voting record in a slanted way usually = win. Not terribly original but it’s used often because it works.
Road Scholar
February 15th, 2012
1:02 pm
I guess we know how Santorem stands on gun control. Is this why Santorum is asking for Secret Service protection? I wonder about his views on targeted assassination?
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
1:14 pm
Rest assured, Pizza, there is plenty of anti-Obama ad copy in the can at this point.
@@
February 15th, 2012
1:15 pm
None of the ads are effective. Voters are worried about the future, not the past.
Ads offering the candidate’s solutions would be more effective…the BOLDER the solutions, the more notable the change. Anything short of BOLD would just be managing the chaos.
Now where have I heard THAT before?
schnirt
JF McNamara
February 15th, 2012
1:15 pm
Option 1 had at least had a coherent message. Option 2 was also negative but it was just trying (emphasize trying) to be funny in doing so…
Also, there is no way to actually answer your question in the poll. I like Option 1, but how I feel about either candidate was unchanged.
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
1:24 pm
Aquagirl: As one who is intimately familiar with the sounds of crybabies — er, crying babies — these days, I disagree.
JF: Then I think the option you’re looking for is “neither.” If it didn’t change your impression, it didn’t change your impression.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
1:24 pm
“Did you not even bother to READ what Kyle requested?
A little objectivity would go a long way with some of you people.”
If you don’t like what I typed, ignore. It’s as simple as that.
Make sense?
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
1:25 pm
If all of you goobers need ads to tell you what to think, something is seriously wrong with you.
Whoever gets the nomination is who I’m voting for.
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
1:26 pm
I think it’s funny that people, who won’t vote for any GOP candidate, have an opinion about those ads.
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
1:28 pm
Btw, the early results — very early, but still — show a virtual tie between the two. Imo, that’s a win for Santorum: Romney, being more of a known quantity at this point, has to bring him down.
Dusty
February 15th, 2012
1:31 pm
They spent money on this stuff?
Romney’s was for well dressed “thinking man” who would support only the noble Romney.
Santorum’s was for “everyman” who loves his family, his faith, honesty and a gun to back it up.
Politics has turned into a semi-circus. I’m not buying a ticket YET for either performance.
@@
February 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
I prefer ads like this one.
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2012
1:35 pm
As one who is intimately familiar with the sounds of crybabies — er, crying babies — these days, I disagree.
Can’t argue with your expertise there. And lord knows, I would never insult your children by comparing them with politicians or political operatives. Talk about a banishment offense!
Old timer
February 15th, 2012
1:51 pm
I just voted and will not watch any ads!
Bryan G.
February 15th, 2012
1:52 pm
The Santorum ad made me laugh. The Romney ad seemed like spin, so I probably preferred the Santorum ad.
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
1:53 pm
Thanks for publishing the ads, Kyle. I watch only O’Reilly, so I was unlikely to see any of the negative ads everyone is talking about.
I suppose both of these fit the definition of “negative” ads. I was predisposed to vote for Rick Santorum, and nothing here affects that bias. I appreciate humor, so Santorum’s “mudball” commercial was worthy.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
1:58 pm
“Btw, the early results — very early, but still — show a virtual tie between the two. Imo, that’s a win for Santorum:”
I think you’re reading a bit too much into those results for an early conclusion, Kyle. Limited (and extremely biased) audience on this blog.
@@
February 15th, 2012
2:02 pm
A blast from the past…Fred Thompson’s response to Michael Moore.
“A mental institution…something you might wanna think about, Michael.”
Priceless!
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
2:02 pm
” Limited (and extremely biased) audience on this blog.”
So what’s wrong with that?
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
2:03 pm
@@
Reminds me of when Zell Miller went off on Chris “Obozo gives me a tingle up my leg” Matthews after his 2004 GOP convention speech.
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:05 pm
Just read the comments, appreciate the statement of purpose @ 12:18, good argument. Friend Aquagirl questioned the use of a cut-out in the Santorum ad – that strikes me as a clever effect, a subtle allegation that Romney is firing at a false image of Santorum and not at the real person.
Ultimately the Santorum ad is challenging Romney’s character through use of hyperbole – I doubt anyone will actually perceive Romney uses criminal tactics to take out his opposition. But the focus on “hit” tactics is memorable. At this writing, merely five minutes after viewing, the Santorum ad – the more recent one viewed – is far more memorable. From the Romney ad I remember only some mention of the Bridge to Nowhere, as if Santorum is the person who stuck that earmark in there, a patently false suggestion. Reinforces the clever Santorum ad, at least for me.
Herman Cain..
February 15th, 2012
2:06 pm
Republicans (Thugpulicans, TeaPublicans): Klanland – “We have a problem – with our selection of 2012 idiots, and there are no back-ups”.
lmao
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:08 pm
You can always spot leftist comments – they have no substance, only epithets.
TRUTH
February 15th, 2012
2:10 pm
Guess the ads only appeal to their base. bitingatthebitforoneoftheseclownstobenamedthenomineesotheycangetblastedinthegeneralelection. Whew….
OBAMA 2012
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
2:13 pm
Tiberius: No doubt, it’s too early to draw a conclusion. I only meant to suggest that such a result, after a larger number of votes, would be a win for Santorum.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
2:14 pm
“So what’s wrong with that?”
Deriving ANY conclusion, given the small sample size and the rather extreme biases on both sides of the political spectrum who frequent this blog, is a fool’s errand. Personally, I think Kyle (in this instance) is reading into this what he hoped to read into it; that is, a Santorum nomination (given his own rather conservative bias).
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
2:16 pm
Never believe anyone who uses the word “Truth” in their blog name. It is indicative of them trying too hard to convince you of that which isn’t really true, but is merely their own fervent belief.
carlosgvv
February 15th, 2012
2:17 pm
Neither Ronald McRomney or Rick Sanitorium will tell any truths on any of their Ads. so, why not run a poll asking which is the most effective at lying?
Odis
February 15th, 2012
2:20 pm
@ Tiberius – neither ad shed any light on who these two are and their vision for the country. Once you get past their talking points, all you have is nothing… *EPIC FAIL*
Talking loud and sayin nothin…
@@
February 15th, 2012
2:21 pm
Do what??????:
It’s rare that I watch a political convention…people with funny hats and glasses…frequent applause interrupting the speaker at hand. I do recall watching Zell Miller out of curiosity. What could a lifetime Democrat have to say at a GOP convention. What indeed:
“MY FAMILY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY PARTY!!!!”
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:23 pm
Dear Tiberius @ 2:15, I suppose I qualify as a Santorum partisan, but I read our host differently than you. I perceive Kyle leans toward Romney – and I am not trying to push Kyle into making a declaration, I appreciate his conscientious neutrality.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
2:34 pm
Odis, these are two ads for a GOP PRIMARY, get it?
With so many similarities, you go after the DIFFERENCES, however small.
Now, as to shedding any light on a particular candidate, the Romney ad certainly exposes Santorum’s ‘born-again” fiscal conservatism as not being any different from your typical D.C. politician of the last 20 years or so, so in that regard, your statement about not shedding light is incorrect.
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
2:36 pm
Well, either ragnar or Tiberius (or maybe both … ?) will be surprised when I finally drop the neutrality.
TRUTH
February 15th, 2012
2:44 pm
@ Tiberius 2:16 pm… You can attack my name all you like, my fellow blogger of very limited ability, yet you can’t refute the statement. The GOP field is a bunch of ill-prepared, don’t have a clue, Tea Party, Establishment, fear mongering, same old tired ideas Republicans.
Now that to you, O’ Lighting Rod of Hate, may be a tad hard to swallow, but its the TRUTH.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
2:47 pm
Kyle, I think both ragnar and I can agree that no matter who the GOP eventually nominates in 2012, you’ll be going with that guy over the current Disaster-in-Chief!
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
Truth @ 2:44 is so over the top as a parody of leftist non-thinking that he must be a poser.
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:50 pm
Dear Tiberius @ 2:47, agree, and I will be on board even if the Republicans nominate Hugo Chavez.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
2:52 pm
“you can’t refute the statement.”
And yet I can.
But there is simply no need to. Your crass talking points description (which is simply name calling) needs no refuting, as it is too embarrassing a statement on which to waste my time.
@@
February 15th, 2012
2:55 pm
I will be on board even if the Republicans nominate Hugo Chavez.
(IBEEH)
For me, it would depend on Hugo’s VP choice since he’s not long for this world.
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
2:55 pm
Rush may be tilting toward Santorum – he did an approving segment on the Santorum ad Kyle posted, and he mentioned that the lead singer of Megadeath endorsed Santorum. (My knowledge of heavy metal does not extend beyond a dim acquaintance with Metallica, but the Megadeath note surprises me.)
Jefferson
February 15th, 2012
2:56 pm
Many “D’ s will be voting in the R primary, lets keep the side show going.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
3:02 pm
Only in states where it is allowed, Jefferson, and there aren’t that many who do.
yuzeyurbrane
February 15th, 2012
3:52 pm
Santorum ad was better although I did not think either is memorable enough to effect outcome. Will be interesting to see outcome in Super Tuesday primaries if both camps stick to same themes.
williebkind
February 15th, 2012
3:58 pm
If Obama wins I am going to lose my bowel incrediants. That is far more important than whether the church or me buys my condums. or my gal’s pills.
williebkind
February 15th, 2012
3:59 pm
LOL, liberals make me funny
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2012
4:01 pm
Santorum’s ad was hard to watch! But then again, aren’t all political ads hard to watch. Romney wins by a stylish hair.
Tiberius, you are right, using the name Truth, is about as big of a clue, as having someone one tell you, “let me be very honest here….”.
JF McNamara
February 15th, 2012
4:06 pm
Here’s what I mean Kyle. You asked in the text:
Which one do you find more effective or persuasive?
(Answers)
A. Mitt Romney
B. Rick Santorum
C. Neither
D. Both.
It should be:
Which one do you find more effective or persuasive?
A. Option 1
B. Option 2
The poll and prose and headline don’t match up.
Kyle Wingfield
February 15th, 2012
4:08 pm
JF: The poll’s text reads: “After watching both ads, I have a better impression of:”
Sorry for the inconsistency between that and the text of the post.
Dusty
February 15th, 2012
4:18 pm
Hey, I’m not so worried about ads right now. I have other thoughts at the moment.
Obama is putting on a big show in Washington and guess for whom the brevado tolls? Why the second Biggest Wheel from China!. Even the Pentagon rolled out a military honors group. Sounds like everybody in Washington was standing at attention while throwing kisses..
There’s still hope. Biden was having the Chinese chap over for dinner. Now that’s the way to impress people. I bet Mr. Chief Chinese laughed all the way home.
Dusty
February 15th, 2012
4:28 pm
Kyle,@ 4:08
As long as you don’t mess up the lines to “Rock A Bye Baby”, all is forgiven.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 15th, 2012
4:42 pm
“Obama is putting on a big show in Washington and guess for whom the brevado tolls? Why the second Biggest Wheel from China!.”
Got to stoke the guy who owns your mortgage, Dusty . . .
Michael H. Smith
February 15th, 2012
4:45 pm
This Santorum is for you, ragnar
I’m sure you’ll enjoy his disdain for libertarians, if not his total lack of knowledge on the subject of libertarians will certainly have you laughing till it hurts.
Rick Know’s Best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gwwmm-cQxU
Michael H. Smith
February 15th, 2012
4:50 pm
One more ragnar, I mean just for laughs and giggles
Oh and TEA Party members, listen up cause Santorum also said he opposes the Tea Party movement. Thought you might want to keep his words in mind TEA Party members when he ask you for your vote.
More of Rick Know’s Best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
Do what??????
February 15th, 2012
5:05 pm
“Neither Ronald McRomney or Rick Sanitorium will tell any truths on any of their Ads.”
Poor carlos.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 15th, 2012
5:12 pm
Romney’s lying smear ad is more polished and professional, almost as though it was made by the obozo kampaign.
Santorum’s ad looks like something that an average, everyday, normal American would make.
So, by my estimation, Romney should capture a majority of the dullard vote.
Michael H. Smith
February 15th, 2012
5:23 pm
Oh pewt!
Just saying…
Bernie
February 15th, 2012
5:28 pm
The Ad with the Gun slinger Rommney is not smart and in very poor taste. Especially in light of the amount of daily Gun violence on America’s streets and schools. This is ad is from a MAN who wants to be President. there is something wrong with his decision making thinking to approve such an AD. And I am in no way a MITT supporter at ALL. All gun violence is Evil and wrong!
Ahmad
February 15th, 2012
6:07 pm
Santorum seems like a good guy but he should be running for Pope, not President. He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter. The country needs a president who can be an effective administrator, not our spiritual leader.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 15th, 2012
6:12 pm
SYRIA – Attacks resume despite U.N. rebuke – Urinal
You reckon?
morons
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2012
7:46 pm
All gun violence is Evil and wrong!
________________
All violence is evil and wrong, what makes gun violence any different.
Hillbilly D
February 15th, 2012
7:52 pm
My 2¢, the 2nd one was more entertaining. Both were pretty predictable and the first one raised more questions than it gave answers, for me. As for my impression of the two, neither ad had much of an impact on me.
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2012
7:52 pm
The country needs a president who can be an effective administrator, not our spiritual leader.
Wrong, the country needs a leader, not an administrator, not a marxist, not a divider, not an economic failure, not a wanna be dictator.
ragnar danneskjold
February 15th, 2012
8:32 pm
Dear Michael @ 4:45 and 4:50, thanks for links, the Cato guy ended with my general perspective, that Santorum is G W Bush redux, for all the good and evil that meant. I though the Bush foreign policy was fabulous (and I guess Obama thinks so too, given the lack of change in his prosecution of the Bush initiatives.)
I thought Bush was poor on domestic spending, especially when democrats controlled portions of Congress. We all remember the dreadful TARP and bailout finish to the administration, and Bush’s autobiography had a dreadful chapter attempting to justify what he clearly did not understand. We tend to forget the first couple of years, with the Kennedy education bill and the Daschle agriculture bill and Sarbanes-Oxley and McCain-Feingold and the steel tariffs, all of which reflect incompetent economics. He was better during the republican control of Congress, nothing stupid in those years.
Sad state of affairs for me that I see Santorum as the best of the current lot. RomneyCare and Newt’s Global Warming initiatives distress me more than Santorum’s mediocre record on spending. Ron Paul is great on domestic, better than the others, but worse than Obama on foreign. The fact is the president has little effect on domestic (either approve of Congress works, or veto them) and great influence on foreign policy.
My hope is for a republican sweep, perhaps to eliminate the domestic disasters of the democrat congresses, and a general continuation of Bush-like foreign policy. I think there is little difference in the issues that Romney and Gingrich and Santorum would push. I gauge Santorum as the most likable of the three, and believe that gives him a better electability quotient.
barking frog
February 15th, 2012
8:37 pm
romney’s ad is clearly more effective. as to kyle’s neutrality and
his possible surprise, had I been involved in the primary I would
have supported Bachmann. she was clearly more honest and
forthcoming and will probably be a party power player into
the future.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
February 15th, 2012
9:07 pm
The Republicans best campaign ad is Obozo’s “highlight” reel…unprecedented trillion-dollar annual deficits, record numbers on welfare, two million fewer jobs than when he took office, 8%+ unemployment going on four years now, a $5 trillion increase in the national debt (and counting).
Obozo: A Record of Failure, Destruction, and Hatred of America.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 15th, 2012
10:36 pm
Monkeys fling poo at the zoo, and in GOP primaries.
GOP voters love monkey poo – and bovine poo, too.
Johnny Five
February 15th, 2012
11:39 pm
I don’t think that is mud that these GOP’ers are slinging….
Lil' Barry Blowhard (Revised Upward)
February 15th, 2012
11:57 pm
LBB: A Record of Drama, Lies, and Hatred for his Country to spite Obama
Pizzaman
February 16th, 2012
12:22 am
Don’t know. Don’t care. Won’t watch. Won’t vote Republican as long as there’s another choice!
ld
February 16th, 2012
12:35 am
Just when I did not think it possible for me to dislike Santorum more, I’m given yet more reasons! My dislike for this pr*ck is so strong that I’d vote for our current inept inglorious leader first, so it did not actually alter my opinion. It is an effective ad. If I were even considering him, I’d want to know if his desire to have convicted felons vote included before they had fully paid their debt to society–the ad is effective.
I considered the anti Romney ad sorta funny; it did not have the desired result–Romney was chasing after Santorum who was running away?.
ld
February 16th, 2012
12:45 am
I would have liked to hear Ron Paul indicate in the debates how his policies w/regard to bring our troops home would affect our international treaties regarding defense…
would he withdraw from NATO or mutual defense treaties generally?
if not, did he intend to have ongoing joint practice maneuvers?
would he refuse to support the Isreal if it is attacked?
if not, how would we get support to the Jewish state if needed?
would we abandon our supposed “allies” in the mid-east and elsewhere, especially those that have permitted us to have bases on their soil, and now leave them to defend themselves against Iran and/or Syria and/or Pakistan or even the “new” Russia under Putin–whichever is emboldened by our complete exit (notwithstanding assurances by prior president(s) to the contrary?
Just who would he consider our allies for purposes of defense or does he believe we should stand alone?
ld
February 16th, 2012
1:00 am
Rafe
are you deaf? Have you not been listening to the GOP debates on “social issues”?
The GOP right-wingers DO want to be dictators–dictating Americans’ most private choices and decisions.
Certainly some activities they oppose also provoke a decided ICK response from me but it is NOT my place nor yours –the right of anyone else– to make moral or medical decisions for any other personl
Rafe Hollister
February 16th, 2012
8:50 am
ld
I guess in your mind being told when, where, and what you can receive medical treatment for is not dictating most private choices and decisions. His meddling was unfortunately made into law and not just blabbering, like the GOP three do.