Why would he worry about a backlash for not signing some piece of conservative legislation when he apparently isn't getting much of a backlash now from enough primary voters for his lengthy record of flip flops and bad legislation? I could very well see him conjure up some reason why he just can't sign a piece of pro-life legislation, and when he runs for re-election (assuming the nightmare of him becoming President ), the same establishment that has convinced so many primary voters that "only Mitt" can win in the general election will whip those same sheep back into the fold yet again.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Where they all made their mistake was in not going after Romney early in the campaign. It really wasn't until Perry got in that any of the candidates got into his space. The problem now is that they're attacking Mittens from behind in the polls, which makes them look desperate.

I just hope the voters of SC are a lot smarter than the one's in NH.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Ughhh....my worst election nightmare may be coming to pass. Wake me up when this is over...

For one, because he's running as pro life. Everyone who's voting for him is voting for someone running as a pro life candidate. So there would be a backlash if he went back on that.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.

My son who is almost 18 has now placed a Ron Paul bumper sticker on his truck, right next to the "Don't tread on me" and "Cut Spending Now" stickers.

Huntsman is a good, smart man who has absolutely no charisma whatsoever. Zip. Zero.

It drives home a reality about politics in America. It's not just a matter of someone being smart, capable and experienced. You have to be able to sell yourself. Huntsman does not know how to sell himself politically. He keeps talking about the financial deficit and the trust deficit. He has a charisma deficit. At least he seems like a great dad and he has a bright future doing whatever he chooses to do after he bows out.

Ron Paul is in my opinion at the extreme opposite end of big government. In my opinion, although I don't like "big government," this is not a good thing. In Paul's world, the country seems as if it would be a lot closer to anarchy than a cohesive union. No, on the one hand, people would not be asked to fill out silly forms about livestock. But on the other hand, if a natural disaster wipes out a region of the country, don't expect Federal assistance of any type. If another country is harboring terrorists who want to take out the US, don't expect a Paul Administration to do much to stop them. If businesses decide they want to bring back explicit segregation, don't expect the government to stop it. It would be the extreme opposite of the nanny state - it's the "you're completely on your own" state. I think both extremes are bad - too much government and too little government. I believe that there is such a thing as pragmatic government - big enough to protect the people's Constitutional rights and to provide security but not bigger. Obviously, I'm not a Paul supporter either.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

I doubt Congress would agree to banish FEMA nor civil rights laws. Those are extreme examples you have mentioned that will never happen.

Well, I'm not so sure.

Although we have three branches of Government, the President has a lot of power. As I see it, President Paul could do the following all by himself:

1) When Congress decides to apporpriate funds to deal with a disaster that affects people throughout the mid-Atlantic region, President Paul can veto that legislation. Congress could override it with a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, of course. But, with a significant portion of House members from regions that are unafffected by the crisis and Congress not able to agree on very much these days, it's possible the help will not come. Of course, the same principal could affect Civil Rights legislation - not because Paul is a bad guy but because he believes that the Federal Government should have almost no responsibility or power at all.

2) President Paul, as Commander-In-Chief, can essentially do as he pleases with the U.S. Armed Forces. So, as North Korea is flexing its muscles and threatening to launch a ballistic missile against Seattle, President Paul can decide to withdraw all U.S. troops from South Korea - he thinks we shouldn't have been there in the first place - as well as from our bomber bases in the Indian Ocean. Without much need to consult Congress, he can reconfigure the U.S. military so that we have little presence in the Eastern hemisphere - the place where most of the people who want to kill us live and are perfecting their plans and capabilities. In President Paul's sincere but misguided calculation, if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. Which, of course, is the same thought process that Brittish Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain entertained not long before Hitler started bombing London.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

PPP just did a poll in NC and here is their take on their polling who would be strongest against Romney:



Full article here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/three-way-tie-with-nc-republicans.html

_________________
"We fought, we dreamed, that dream is still with us."
Ronald Reagan, 1976

TEAM HUCK IOWA
http://www.facebook.com/TeamHuckIowa

Remember "Read my lips, no new taxes!"? Elites like Mittens and GHWB just use whatever rhetoric they need to in order to cobble together enough votes to win. As the cover of the American Conservative magazine depicted a few years ago of a family with their pro-life signs standing outside the Whitehouse and a sign on the gate saying "see you in four years", that's pretty much how the establishment views social conservative voters.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....

Santorum is polling in second place in S. C. behind Romney. I think he can win S. C. The backlash of Perry/Gingrich attack on Romney as a capitalist is having its negative effect on those two, especially Gingrich.

It is so obvious that FOX is in bed with Romney. It ticks me off when they flippantly accuse Perry, Gingrich and Santorum of attacking Mitt on Bain capitalism when Santorum denied that he would get involved in that kind of attack and so far hasn't. It has only been Newt and Perry. Very misleading of FOX and they are largely responsible for the crowning of Romney as the presumed nominee. And the sheeple believe it.

Again, anyone who trusts the Romney News Network (also known as the RINO News Network) is just asking to be confused.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com

you are right. I forgot how they did Huckabee last time around.