Mitt Romney Wins Florida Republican Primary

The Florida Republican primary has been called by the news outlets for Mitt Romney.

Mitt's speaking now. He says they will win in November. He says it's time for President Obama to get out of the way. He's ready to lead the party and the nation. He will begin a new era of prosperity. He will save the soul of America. He will balance the budget without raising taxes. He will repeal Obamacare. He will strengthen religious rights.

"I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it."

< Florida Primary Predictions | EFF Teams With Carpathia Over MegaUpload Data >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Uck... You made me watch Romney speak. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:45:16 PM EST
    That was really yuk.  There's just something abhorrent about that guy.

    I hate this rhetoric: (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    "I will insist on a military so powerful no one would ever think of challenging it."

    So sayeth the frontrunning Mr. Romney. The moderate.

    We have seventeen zillion nuclear missiles and warheads. They are in space. They are on land. They are in the skies. They are on the oceans. They are under the oceans.

    The problem is that the "challenge" comes from stateless individuals with a suitcase. It might contain a dirty bomb or a test tube.

    They are not concerned in the least with the size of our arsenal.

    I wish I could vote for a politician who would make a serious effort to understand their grievances.

    A politician who spews the meaningless bellicose garbage that Romney just regurgitated is nutty and dangerous imho.

    And now we wait for Obama to (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:15:37 PM EST
    one-up Romney, because if there's anything we've learned these last three years, it's that no one out-Republicans Obama...and the terrible thing is that Obama's in a better position to win this little p!ssing contest.

    Who'd a thunk that three years ago?


    Might be easy (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:47:18 PM EST
    Did Romney ever support the Bush Administration's stance on forgetting about the Taliban and forgetting about Osama bin Laden?  Is he on the record supporting all that craptacularness?

    Mitt will say anything to win (none / 0) (#21)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:58:46 PM EST
    Even the repubs. are tired of wars and the cost. The leadership is also out of touch with the party.
     Even Brit Hume's is starting to realize the party is on the verge of losing. The tea party hates Mitt. He lost the conservative vote. 39% of the voters did not like there choice.
     Newt should be pushing, that Romney is buying the election.
      I'm not a Newt fan, but he's all they have left to stop Romney.

    I wish (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:06:08 AM EST
    the Repubs were tired of war and the cost. I think if they were, Ron Paul would be doing better and they wouldn't be calling him "crazy" for his foreign policy ideas. I think the majority of Americans are sick of these wars and the costs of these wars but it seems most Republicans aren't.

    Well......I am tired of the whole (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    world phucking with us because we are such wussies :)

    Boy Mitt is a horrible speechifier.  Newt is such an egomaniac right now.  I hadn't seen him speak in the flesh for a few days.  Someone posted earlier that he had gone Charlie Sheen "Winning" and by God he has.

    The icing on the cake is Ron Paul.  It's a Republican primary and he has them standing and cheering about never fighting any undeclared unwinnable war ever again.  And we must get rid of a President's ability to defy the Constitution and murder Americans without a trial.  His crowds go nuts, it's real Obama Hope and Change style cheering with those Ron Paul kool aid drinkers.  And he's headed to the caucus states :)  It makes me happy to think about :)  Give Mitt Romney horrible hell Ron, and make some rich people spend some money in some other states.  Go Ron Go!

    Ah MT, you surely are a person (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:21:20 PM EST
    after my own political heartstrings. We can't let the clown car close up just yet....

    Having Paul even speak (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:28:12 PM EST
    is a little funny. From what I could ascertain, he spent a total of a few hours in the state, for a couple debates, and was gone before the stroke of midnight.

    His crowds love him (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:33:16 PM EST
    I never in my lifetime thought I would see a "Republican" crowd cheering over such words being spoken right to their faces.  And cheering madly and wildly!  Those who cheered for Obama once upon a time got nuthin on those who cheer for Paul right now.  And he really does have something to say.  You might not agree with him, but he's thought some things thru, I can at least stand to listen to him. He isn't completely full of $hit, he knows what he believes and why.

    Maybe tomorrow the candidates will (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:07:02 AM EST
    address this:  BBC re leaked NATO report

    An ex U.S. military guy, now a "consultant," named Keen (sp) says U.S. taking out Afghan Taliban in Pakistan is necessary and not a war on Pakistan.  So there.  


    One week to the next is very different (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 09:13:26 AM EST
    One week it looks like the factions of the ISI/Pak military have completely taken over and we ARE in an insurgency style war with Pakistan, and then the next week the Taliban is sitting down to talks with us.

    It's a pretty schizophrenic situation right now.  But I don't think for one minute it is an accident that Obama and Panetta are talking drone strike particulars.  We almost always HAVE permission to make those strikes, but the Pak military has sectors that support the Haqqani network and feed it and train it.  They have a very different military structure than what we are used to :)

    We also have permission when the C-130s go into Pakistan...except that recent time when we "accidentally" killed some of their soldiers and a C-130 was two miles in.  I want to know what really happened there someday.  Someday someone will write the book.  So we didn't have permission there and we didn't have permission to get bin Laden and there were Pak military helicopters witnessed flying around his compound.

    But I think that while we fight this secret war on the border our President and our Sec Def are making sure that everyone in Pakistan understands that their leaders aren't really "outraged" and they are giving us permission to kill bad guys in Northern Pakistan.  And Oh, by the way, we are really good at it and now some of the Taliban is negotiating with us so who knows what we will find out and who we will be able to locate.  Give up now :)


    I suppose there's an audience (none / 0) (#28)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:25:33 PM EST
    for Mitt's jingoistic grandstanding, but it's hard for me to envision him winning that argument in the General Election.  I know us Democrats are "wimpy" and all but if I were to give Obama a D+ on the economy I would give him a B+/A- on foreign affairs.  Perhaps America in general takes a less rosy view but I think Obama's accomplishments speak for themselves and he rarely seems as confident as when he is being the Commander in Chief.  I don't think FP will determine the election but if the conversation goes there, Mitt is screwed when it comes to Dems and Independents.  Perhaps it's simply beyond some GOP operatives to acknowledge Democratic competency in this area and they're using an old playbook.  I dunno.

    Can't wait for the Obama/Romney health care debate.  That's going to be ridiculous.  Ridiculous.


    That had to be a Primary speech (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:04:57 AM EST
    directed to the Republican Base.   To show he can take it to Obama just like Newt.

    I can't imagine that Mitt will take that tone in the General.  He is highly maleable and will morph once more.


    I dug around and found (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:57:39 AM EST
    some writing on Mitt vs. Mitt and he did back Bush's Afghanistan mission, which was to forget about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and instead try to destroy our military in a country that had nothing to do with nothing.  It wasn't much though, apparently he's no John Murtha when it comes to saying what's on his mind militarily :)

    Sitemeter (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    often slows response from this site.

    A Florida Primer (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 07:43:39 PM EST
    Gingrich is winning the vast majority of the counties through the entire northern panhandle. This would best be viewed as the south in Florida.

    The Southwest portion of the state made up of I-75 transplants from Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana area all went Romney.

    The Southeast population center filled with transplants from the northeastern US, and Latin immigrants, and the most liberal part of the state, all went Romney and gave him his biggest margin.

    Very helpful summary; thanks (none / 0) (#4)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:02:44 PM EST
    as I spotted your earlier comments about waiting for the Panhandle results, which already had reminded me that Florida has many regions and publics.  That the non-Panhandlers include so many snowbirds from sizeable swing states ahead in the general election may suggest how those states will go -- dependent upon turnout.  

    Any info on GOP turnout in Florida?


    It's looking like (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:42:05 PM EST
    it will be about 47% of registered Republicans voting and a slight dip in total numbers from 4 years ago. Registered Republicans make up 36% of registered voters in the state.

    Due to closed primaries only about 17% of Florida's registered voters cast a ballot in the primary and about 8% of the registered voters in Florida voted for Romney today.


    Thanks -- and for a comparison (none / 0) (#20)
    by Towanda on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:45:16 PM EST
    when we get the numbers, I found a report of a turnout of two million for the GOP primary in 2008.

    Looks like (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:58:52 AM EST
    I overestimated the number of Republicans that would vote. It now looks like there was about a 14% drop off in number of votes from four years ago. That will have party leaders scratching their heads. The Republicans definitely have a lack of enthusiasm in Florida which may have a lot to do with the current sitting Governor.

    Negative campaigns depress (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    turnout, or so they say.

    That's actually good news for the GOP (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:23:04 PM EST
    assuming that the "natives" suck it up and vote ABO.

    I'm not sure that they will based on Romney's performance so far, but it's a long way till Nov.


    The "Southern Strategy" (none / 0) (#11)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:23:49 PM EST
    Are we seeing the early indications of the eventual fall of the Nixonian Southern Strategy at some level? I wonder. Here is Newt (or maybe it is just because it is Newt) who knows the Southern Repub angles better than most and plays them. I checked the county map a bit ago too...and noticed that all the urban-related areas of Florida (Miami, Tampa, Orlando, etc.) went very heavily for Romney; and, that Gingrich easily took the old Panhandle south.

    So...we hear about the south-south of Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, and-yes-Thompson's Tennessee coming in the early part of March. What does it mean? Does ample advertising with its assorted $$$ control or does the Southern roots control? Or is it all about momentum now?

    While this is divertimento until the summer, this seems to be one of those several-forks-in-the-road times for those Repubs. I'm curious also about how Santorum plays this out? (Note: Our local news showed him speaking somewhere in what-looked-to-be downtown Denver earlier today.)

    For now, my simplistic take: Romney is going to have some trouble energizing the stalwart conservatives...to do anything but vote (if that.)


    He didn't take the denser populated (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:50:40 PM EST
    areas of the Redneck Riviera.  He didn't take Panama City, Fort Walton, or Destin.  I've never seen the denser populated portions peel away from the rural panhandle like they did tonight.

    Most (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:00:05 AM EST
    surprising out of that is the Midwestern transplants. I certainly knew the panhandles would go to Newt and the SE would go to Romney.

    With luck (none / 0) (#43)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    maybe a number of GOP Panhandlers will stay home in November.

    I know everyone hates fox news (none / 0) (#3)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:02:15 PM EST
    But I like hearing it from the horses mouth. It's very interesting there take on this Florida primary. It is not rosy.

    Or from the Piggy's mouth (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    which is even better.

    How so? (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:09:40 PM EST
    I'd rather not watch Fox.......

    Real Choice (none / 0) (#12)
    by koshembos on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 08:25:17 PM EST
    In November we will have a choice between brain cancer and lung cancer. Great!

    The Forbes Article had (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:04:24 PM EST
    this to say:

    Romney's racial problem. If he wins the nomination, Romney will be running against the first black President of the United States while he comes from a church that did not see black people as eligible members until 1978. Since then, the Church of Latter-Day Saints has done remarkable outreach and can claim vast numbers of members in all races and all parts of the globe. And, of course, Romney is not a racist.

    Nevertheless, this issue will be brought up by Obama's surrogates in 2012 campaign. It is not fair and not right, but it is reality. The views of Mormons toward blacks, Jewish ancestors and Jesus Christ will be presented as strange and revolting by too many voices in the major media. Religious bigotry exists, even among the very educated and influential. How that issue is handled will sway moderates, independents and suburban women--all of whom the GOP needs to prevail in November.

    I have not heard this as basis of criticism, but many are not familiar with Mormon culture and religion.

    This represents the fear of Republicans but will not likely occur.

    There are so many ways to attack Mitt (none / 0) (#23)
    by loveed on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:27:40 PM EST
     I really did not pay a lot attention to this part of the article. But after the birther issue,and the muslin issue, who knows.
     This issue will probably turn more repubs. against Romney.

    Could well happen (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 10:58:02 PM EST
    The Republicans tend to latch onto cultural issues.....and the Southern Baptists are very anti-Mormon.

    They (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:09:20 AM EST
    are but apparently they are less anti-Mormon than they are anti-Obama.

    yea (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    what's a mormon compared to a black muslim socialist.

    Appears to be the case (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    but it could dampen enthusiasm in Ohio and Virginia among Evangelicals.

    I'm frankly (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    beginning to doubt that.

    Most recent Ohio Poll (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    Obama 49
    Romney 42

    Obama's current upswing in the polls, (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:37:56 PM EST
    not that it is all that large, seems rather mysterious.  

    I thought it could be a slight bounce from the State of the Union.  Or, maybe the r4esult of the slugfest between Newt and Mitt.  Or, if it is more than a temporary blip, it could be because the unemploymnet number has come down some.

    New numbers come out soon.


    The Mitt and Newt (none / 0) (#27)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 31, 2012 at 11:12:55 PM EST
    show is getting as tiring as Bill's dick and the blue dress.  Reflecting on the debates I keep coming back to Ron Paul telling Newt he could send some politicians to the moon.  The one about asking Castro what he wanted to talk about if he called was pretty good too.  Five more months of GOP primary news...

    God help us (none / 0) (#36)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:07:27 AM EST

    Mitt thinks (none / 0) (#44)
    by cal1942 on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:25:54 PM EST
    very poor people lead a comfy life.

    With all those food stamps, rent vouchers, medicaid, etc.  

    Got it made, eh.  Just like Mitt.  And he'll be happy to know that implementing his policies will increase their numbers. There, that's all fixed.

    Earlier this morning on Comcast's home page the link to this story was labeled "Romney: Not concerned about the very poor"  By late morning the link was labeled "Mitt: Focus on middle-income" or words to that effect.

    The story's headline in early AM - Romney: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'

    Now the story's headline - Romney: Not focused on poor, they have safety net

    The article, about an interview on CNN, quotes Romney saying "We have a very ample safety net ..."

    I wonder if Romney ever considered trying to feed his family on food stamps, struggle to get care on Medicaid, etc.

    This guy shouldn't be elected dogcatcher.

    It's just "Welfare queens" 2.0 (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by observed on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 06:43:37 PM EST
    Mitt-Bot, a Cyborg if ever there was one, promises (none / 0) (#45)
    by tworivers on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    to usher in a new era of cyborg domination over humankind.  And just as in the Matrix, he will use the 99% as batteries to power the new Cyborg World Order for the benefit of the 1%.  

    The reason that Romney is "not concerned about the very poor" is because he has plans for them.

    Voting Dilema (none / 0) (#49)
    by Disappointed Republican on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:30:46 PM EST
    I was looking for a place to vent.  I found and pick here!

    When I was young, I thought I was a Democrat.  For a long, long time I've been a Republican, and while I usually vote the party line, there have been times that I haven't.  We are all capable of independent thought, right?

    Americans say they're tired of negative ads, and ads in general.  Yet, the voters in Florida were sold by a barrage of advertising.  Well, if we're to believe the news reports.  It apparently works, which means it will keep coming and with a vengence.  So much for independent thinking.

    In the general election I would vote for any of the other 3.  I'd even vote for Herman Cain.  I just don't think I can vote for Mitt.  He's boring and I get the heebie-geebies from him.  I am so far disappointed that he's "in the lead".  I'd rather not vote at all than accept him as "my choice" in November.  Honest.

    Newt may have baggage, but he seems to have his act pretty together now.  I, personally, don't care if he's had some marital problems.  I can't imagine what my ex would say about me, if I were to run.  And past and present members of congress don't like him?  W-w-w-w-wait a minute.  Isn't congress' approval rating embarrasingly low?

    I'm also very disappointed with John McCain.  I voted for him last time, you know.  And I really liked him.  Now?  Not so much.  How can he endorse this guy?  

    Rick S. makes much sense.  I really like Ron Paul, too, but he does come off a little looney sometimes.  I'd vote for him or Rick.  I'd certainly vote for Newt and give him a 4 year try.  I just can't see myself voting for "the inevitable".  Man, I hope he isn't.  I'd either not vote at all, or go with a third-party candidate, even knowing that this would aid Obama's re-election effort.

    The "GOP" movers and shakers better figure this out.  Or lose my vote.  Would I be alone?  I'm not interested in their choice and am thinking pret-ty independently.

    Thanks for listening,

    A Disappointed Republican from Ohio

    Well, there's always Obama (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:44:41 PM EST
    For three years he's been trying everything he can think of to drive away the people who elected him while falling all over himself to "earn" the votes of disappointed republicans, after all. It's even his central campaign strategy this year.

    Hasn't it worked for you?


    You'll notice ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Disappointed Republican on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:49:09 PM EST
    that I said I'd vote for any of the 3 non-Romney candidates remaining, 1 candidate that isn't anymore, and an independent to be named later.

    Nowhere did I mention voting for Obama.  I saw him as a car salesmen last election, and now he's a poor-performing car salesmen who has lost his edge.  You're proposed option ... isn't.


    Yeah... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 08:50:54 PM EST
    I thought that would be your answer...

    Yes (none / 0) (#50)
    by Disappointed Republican on Wed Feb 01, 2012 at 07:34:15 PM EST
    Funeral Director!  I can see that.  Excellent.