President Mitt Romney


Peter

Recommended Posts

Picture the Left Wing, Right Wing Chart. Consider Mitt’s personae’s evolution, whether real or not. Consider where Obama has taken us. Where would you place each on the chart?

Assuming Mao is in the -90--95 range, I would place O'biwan at about -50. I would put Goody Two Shoes at +10.

-100leftright.gif+100

^
^

0 <imagine the 0 as being about here ^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blackhorse wrote:

Jeff Flake would make a great VP for Romney.

end quote

Who? Is he as good as Ozzie Osbourne?

Are you ready for some football? I am going on a beer run.

Peter

What's the matter Peter, folks on that Peninsula are too "uppity" to make football picks with us "feriners" on the football thread?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam wrote:

What's the matter Peter, folks on that Peninsula are too "uppity" to make football picks with us "feriners" on the football thread?

End quote

Ah, what a difference a couple of beers make. I live in Merlin. It’s furners, not feriners, I once saw a turkle, not a terrpin, who was not squished, cross the road. I came inside and warshed my hands in the zinc. My daughter’s, husband’s grandparents are from Hoopers Island. If you hear them say it and ask them about it, they will say “It’s pronounced Hoopers, not Huppers. I did not say Huppers,” but of course they did. Up the road a bit they speak Elizabethan English, along with them folks in the Ozarks, so they get anthropologists studyin’ 'em. My wife’s folks are from Slower Lower Delaware and on her Dad’s side watermen from the Assawoman Bay. My folks are from slower lower Delaware and The San Francisco Bay region and don’t you ever say “Frisco” if you want any supper.

I see The Saints are almost caught up.

Do you think God favors Denver?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam wrote:

Assuming Mao is in the -90--95 range, I would place O'biwan at about -50. I would put Goody Two Shoes at +10.

End quote

I prefer a 0 to the left, mixed breeds at 50, and 100 to the right; Commies at zero and anarchists at 100.

“Big Love” Fundamentalist Mormons are at about 98. They ARE Sovereign Citizens and they do it their way. Latter Day Saints are at about 82. You haven’t known any have you Adam? When you talk to them for the first time and express your opinion or “conventional wisdom” you will see a certain “Attentiveness” briefly flash across their features, and wonder what did I say? They will let you know you perplexed them by quickly, quizzically tilting their heads and lifting an eyebrow. They have different values and truisms and their flash points are quite high but I don’t recommend you reach that point with them. They are good friends to have.

Mitt is a 82 minus a couple of points for pragmatism. They believe in charity even when they get to be Governor, so I doubt that will change if he reaches the Presidency. You won’t see anything phoney like, “I feel your pain,” from Purrresssident Mitttt Romney.

Now here is an odd coincidence. My license plates start with the letters, “GWB” the initials of our last Republican President. My wife’s license begins with “MTT” the initials of our next Republican President. And my wife “turned me on” to Mitt. Well, she also is a big fan of Ron Paul but she contributes to Mitt. What is it babe, 35 years now?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is a different use for a ropeline...remember Bill and Monica!

Jan 14, 2012 6:33pm

Romney Gives Unemployed Woman Cash on Ropeline

SUMTER, S.C. — Amid shaking hands and signing campaign posters, Mitt Romney did something he has never done before on the ropeline: He took out his wallet and handed a wad of cash to a woman waiting to shake his hand.

The woman, 55-year-old Ruth Williams, says she has been following the Romney campaign since he arrived in the state on Jan. 11, when she said she received a message from God to track him down.

“I was on the highway praying and said, ‘God just show me how to get [my] lights on,’ and I pulled up to a stop sign and his bus was there,” said Williams, who has been unemployed since last October. “And then God said, ‘Follow the bus,’ and I followed the bus to the airport.”

According to Williams, she followed the campaign bus to the Columbia airport on Wednesday, the same day Romney was arriving from New Hampshire. When Romney wasn’t on the bus, aides told her to go to the rally scheduled in Columbia later that day. When she showed up, Romney found her to say hello and pulled over South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley to say “hello” too.

“He was kind to me and he made Gov. Haley come see about me,” Williams said. “He stopped doing everything.”

Williams, who would not specify how much money Romney gave her, said also that South Carolina Treasurer Curtis Loftis paid her light bill on Thursday. A spokesman for Loftis, one of Romney’s major endorses in the state, confirmed to ABC News that he paid Williams’ bill. While Loftis didn’t know the amount of the bill, he confirmed that he gave her $150.

“God didn’t tell me to go to nobody else, he told me to pray for Romney,” said Williams, when asked why she has decided to support Romney. “I listened to the Lord.”

Williams said she has been volunteering at Romney’s Columbia headquarters since meeting his bus last week.

“I’ve been working at his campaign office cleaning and just doing little things,” she said.

“They really did, they really came through for real,” she said.

While Williams would not specify how much money Romney gave her, a campaign spokesman said that he believes Romney gave the woman between $50 and $60.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Rasmussen was quipping about the South Carolina race. It is between Mitt and Nott. Whoever the presumptive Republican President is, he will need a “conservative Senate,” made up Republicans if possible but with temporary coalitions of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats on some issues if trends come to pass.

From RealClearPolitics.

Battle for the Senate.

Dem 48, 44 safe or not up for reelection - Toss up 7 - Republican 45, 35 safe or not up for reelection.

Likely Dem DE NY OR.

Leans Dem CT.

Toss up CA CO IL NV PA WA WV.

Leans GOP AK KY MO WI.

Likely GOP FL IN LA NH NC OH.

Surprisingly, in California we have a close race with Carly Fiorina ® and Barbara Boxer (D) who is slightly ahead by 5 percent.

The Democrats, as of now, are in much better shape in the 2012 Senate Race. They have 44 safe seats and will win 3 more for 47, so they only need win 3 of the 7 tossup states to get 50 seats and 4 to win a majority.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dedicated to Jon What's His Name...with deep regrets to Hughs Mearns, Abraham Lincoln, Joseph Smith and the American electorate.

Yesterday, upon the square,

I met a candidate who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

O Mitt, I wish he’d go away...

When I came home last night at three

The candidate was waiting for me

But when I looked around the hall

I couldn’t see him there at all!

Go away, go away, don’t you come back any more!

Go away, go away, and please don’t slam the door... (slam!)

Last night I saw upon the square

A candidate who wasn’t there

He wasn’t there again today

Oh, how I wish he’d go away

=====================================

This just in...

Former Utah governorJon What's His Name has decided to end his presidential candidacy and will formally exit the race on Monday, according to two sources briefed on his thinking. He is expected to endorse former Massachusetts governor Goody Two-Shoes, because, as Jon What's His Name explained to an empty press conference this evening, "He's the only other Mormon in the race!"

“This was his decision alone,” said one former adviser.

“Alone,” which is essentially what his campaign has used as it's slogan, "I am alone and you should leave me alone and I should vote for me, but you should speak Chinese!"

Now, although Jon What's His Name claimed that this unique and catchy slogan would sweep the entire election in his bosses 51st to 57th states, no one was at the press conference to record his resignation from the race, so he is still considered to be human.

There will be no film at eleven (11) and no one who wants to watch it, even if there was any film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Heaps-Nelson wrote:

Huntsman showed by this action that he was not running a real race, just angling for another gig with his supporters' money.

end quote

One pundit called it a Boutique Candidacy. Will huntsman’s support go to fellow Mormon Mitt Romney?

The following is mostly from Rasmussen but I stuck some of my thoughts in there and did not feel like going back and editing. Nonetheless it is the truth as I know it.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Nationwide, 79 percent of likely Republican voters say Mitt Romney will be the nominee. Two “forecasters” on Newsmax, out of a hundred say it is not over. They point to one poll that shows Gingrich in a statistical tie in South Carolina with Mitt.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters in South Carolina finds Romney ahead with 28% support, but now former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is in second place with 21% of the vote. Support for former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum who was in second a week ago has fallen back to 16%, putting him dead even with Texas Congressman Ron Paul who also earns 16%.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, whose continued candidacy likely depends on the Jan. 21 South Carolina vote, now captures six percent (6%) support, while former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman runs last with five percent (5%). One percent (1%) like some other candidate in the race, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided.

Here is what a survey looks like. This is the actual survey taken.

South Carolina Survey of 750 Likely GOP Primary Voters

Conducted January 12, 2012

By Rasmussen Reports

For ballot questions, the order of candidate names is rotated so that different survey respondents hear the candidate names in a different order.

1* If the 2012 Republican Primary for president were held today, would you vote for?

Romney

Gingrich

Santorum

Paul

Huntsman

Perry

Some other candidate

2* Now I’m going to read you a short list of people in the news. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression.

Mitt Romney

Newt Gingrich

Rick Perry

Ron Paul

Jon Huntsman

Rick Santorum

3* Which Republican presidential candidate would be the strongest opponent against Barack Obama in the general election… Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry?

4* Which Republican presidential candidate would be the weakest opponent against Barack Obama in the general election…. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman or Rick Perry?

5* Regardless of who you want to win, who do you think will win the Republican presidential nomination?

Romney

Gingrich

Santorum

Paul

Huntsman

Perry Some other candidate

6* Suppose your favorite candidate does not win the nomination. When the general election is held, would you be most likely to vote for the Republican candidate, President Barack Obama, or a third party candidate?

7* How likely is it that the Republican nominee for president will win the general election in 2012?

8* Are you certain you will vote for that candidate or is it possible that something come up that causes you to change your mind?

9* Many times, things come up that make it impossible for someone to vote in the primaries. Are you certain that you will vote in the South Carolina primary or is it possible that something might come up to prevent you from voting?

10* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as president…do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TIA Daily • January 16, 2012

FEATURE ARTICLE

The Bane of Capital

What Our Political Leaders Don't Understand About Capitalism

by Robert Tracinski

Mitt Romney has been the presumptive front-runner since the candidates first declared themselves for the Republican presidential nomination. But he has been the front-runner in name only. In actual fact, someone else has usually been at the top of the polls, and this person came under immediate and intense scrutiny that caused his campaign to fold, which is why we had a different someone else at the top of the polls every month.

But now Romney is the certified front-runner, and oddly, it seems that it is only now—helped along by bitter and desperate

attacks mounted by former front-runners like Newt Gingrich—that Romney is coming under the kind of intense scrutiny the other candidates suffered.

Most of that scrutiny is focused, not on his squeaky clean personal life, but on his time at the head of Bain Capital, a "private equity" firm that bought out failing companies in the hope of making them profitable. In fourteen years at Bain, before leaving to turn around the failing 2002 Olympics, Romney produced astonishing returns for his investors and made a fortune for himself.

But a political group associated with Gingrich has put together a documentary riddled with errors and distortions that portrays Romney as an unscrupulous "corporate raider" who ran companies into the ground. Rick Perry, picking up the same theme for the same reason, described Romney as a "vulture capitalist."

After coming under fire for attacking Romney in terms seemingly borrowed from the Occupy Wall Street movement, Gingrich has tried to make the distinction that he is not attacking capitalism itself, just this particular bad version of capitalism.

Which indicates that Gingrich has no understanding of capitalism, because the whole idea that politicians are going to go around deciding what are the "good" versions of capitalism they like versus the "bad" capitalism they dislike—isn't this the essence of statism and of the very cronyism the right has been denouncing?

A lot of these criticisms take the form of second-guessing Bain's record, which includes a small number of phenomenal successes and a large number of failures. But that is typical of firms that specialize in venture capital or turnarounds. They are making high-risk investments, and they hope that huge returns from a few successes will cover the risks from all of the failures. And before the cultural elites start feeling superior, I should mention that this is also typical of fields like publishing and filmmaking. A few bestsellers pay the freight for all of the obscure mid-list authors, and a few blockbusters make the profits to pay for the flops.

Criticism of this kind of entrepreneurial risk-taking is annoying when it comes from commentators in the press, who on average have never run any enterprise beyond the scale of a pushcart. It is galling when it comes from politicians like Gingrich, whose motive in criticizing Bain is obvious. He's trying to divert attention from the question of what he did to earn millions in consulting fees in exchange for rather vague services to Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage lender that helped drive the entire economy into the ground. Talk about "vultures" who "take all the profit and leaving people unemployed behind."

This is a long-notorious form of inside-the-beltway corruption. Fannie Mae was infamous as a place for politically connected Democrats to cash in with astonishingly lucrative jobs in between stints in government. The idea is that they would go back and talk to their friends in positions of power about what great organizations Fannie and Freddie were and what good work they were doing. Gingrich's work for Freddie Mac seems to have been an attempt to extend that influence-peddling racket to the Republican Party. After all, when you're in the business of deciding who the "good" capitalists are, you tend to pick your friends and supporters, don't you?

Economic populism is the last refuge of scoundrels, but in this case, it is a little too obvious. Gingrich gave the game away when he told a reporter, "I don't think I'm using the language of the left. I'm using the language of classic American populism. Main Street has always been suspicious of Wall Street. Small businesses have always worried about big businesses." A classic American populist does not talk about "using the language of classic American populism." Only a history professor masquerading as a populist would say that. And since when do leaders on the right appeal to muddle-headed false alternatives like "Main Street versus Wall Street"?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are perfect examples of this "good capitalism versus bad capitalism" attitude. The government-sponsored mortgage lenders enjoyed decades of implicit government support and lenient regulation because they were portrayed as a benevolent version of capitalism which helped struggling folks climb up the first rung of the ladder into the prosperous middle class. In the long run, after so many people have been knocked right back off the lower rungs of that ladder, it turns out that a bit more of a stingy, greedy, vulture-ish attitude—the kind that says, "No, you can't afford this mortgage"—might have been in order.

The same goes for all of the Solyndras of the world, and there are more of them coming. They are the "good capitalists" who get lots of government subsidies because they're going to turn a profit while saving the planet, or some other supposedly worthwhile goal, until they go broke because nobody considered it polite to check whether their product makes any economic sense.

A free economy is a lot like freedom of speech and of religion. All of these institutions are based on the idea that only individuals, not government, can properly judge what is true and good. And in all of these realms, what we should expect from our political leaders is a fair bit of tolerance toward diverging views. In fact, even greater tolerance is called for in economics. Consider the choice between a Mac and a PC, which (despite how some people regard it) is not a moral issue, It's just a trade-off, with legitimate disagreements over which is the better side of the trade. A vibrant economy is full of disagreements like that.

I am not saying that you must automatically admire someone's business success. All kinds of people have found a way to get rich. Some of them have made money more by being glad-handing, self-promoting deal-makers than by being visionary geniuses. Think Donald Trump. More than a few think that because they've been hugely successful at business, they must be super-geniuses who can immediately solve all of our political problems. Think Michael Bloomberg. And some make money by seeking out government subsidies and gaming the regulatory system. Think of GE's Jeff Immelt, who has turned his company into a "green energy" gravy train.

Thus, the one criticism I've seen of Bain that actually sticks is from a former auctioneer of failing companies who complains that Bain was deceptive in the bidding process, telling people whatever they wanted to hear in order to get ahead. That sounds a lot like the political criticisms that have been leveled against Romney. On the other hand, he undermines his case when he concludes that "This win-at-any-cost approach makes me wonder how a President Romney would negotiate with Congress, or with China, or with anyone else." If Romney's guys were such sharks as negotiators, that's precisely the sort of person we want going up against the Iranians and the Chinese. After all, what exactly does President Obama have to show as the result of his negotiating skills? I don't think anyone would describe it by using the terms "win at any cost."

My point is that it's amazingly hard to know what businesses will be the most productive over the long run. Guys who do this professionally in the financial markets only get it right part of the time. So it is presumptuous for politicians to tell us that they are going to stand in judgment over who is a "good capitalist" and who is a "bad capitalist." And after all, the free market always offers us one real answer. If you think there is a better way to turn around failing companies, if you think more profitable long-term results could be gained by taking a different approach than Romney or Bain or all of those supposedly short-sighted "vulture capitalists"—well, go ahead and prove it.

When your financial and managerial genius has earned you more money than Mitt Romney, then maybe you can run for president and do a better job of that, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just heard on Fox, what I call a Cyrano allusion from a viewer who emailed news anchor Bret Baer: “We need Newt to debate President Obama and Mitt to gain the Presidency.”

Rasmussen South Carolina 1/16

Romney 35, Gingrich 21, Paul 16, Santorum 16, Perry 5

After last nights debates it will interesting to see how much Newt gains by tomorrow’s polls, and then there is another debate on Thursday where Newt may also shine. But a 14 percent deficit is a lot of ground to gain. Newt was talking about dropping out if he did not win in SC but now he is backing off that gloomy forecast. Rush is playing ads for Newt, I am sure at a discount or gratis, and our local conservative talk radio station is running so many Newt ads that they be labeling them as free public service spots. And our Del, MD, and VA’s primaries are not for a while and Newt is not on the Virginia ballet.

3 little, 4 little, 5 little Indians. Perry should drop out. If Newt or Santorum do not win SC one of them should drop out, leaving one viable Nott Mitt candidate and Ron Paul.

Mitt looked tired or ill last night, holding on to his playoff Bowl lead by reciting answers from the playbook – all of it scripted, and safe. When he debates Barrack Hussein Obama for the SuperBowl and it is all on the line, he should speak from the heart, extemporaneously. He is smart enough and eloquent enough for that. These debates have been good practice. I hope Obama is over prepared, nervous, and does as good as that deer in the headlights, Dan Quayle, did.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, Constitutional conservatists - 42%

Libertarian Constitutionalists - 21%

Goody Two Shoes and the Republican Establishment that has given us five consecutive moderate losers or "compassionate conservative" big spending candidates - 35%

So, we should get behind the guy that represents 35% of the 50% of the allegedly divided electorate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam wrote:

So, we should get behind the guy that represents 35% of the 50% of the allegedly divided electorate?

end quote

What is in your rational self interest? Obama? I honestly think many Constitutionalists are being steered by the prevailing conservative pundit’s wind: emotions, not wisdom, are leading you to the edge of a flat earth. Be careful. At the edge of the world there be dragons named The Red Menace. You wrongly think, “Anybody but Mitt.” Well, Romney is not John McCain. He is not Dubya. He is closer to Ronaldo Maximus Reagan. Reagan was not perfect but he had a clear vision for America, and he raised our spirits. Look at Mitt like an applicant for a job in YOUR company. It is up to the (top) two percenters like you to influence his Presidency. You will have Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Demint, Marco Rubio, Allen West, and a bunch of others after 2012 in your posse. Support Mitt Romney for President and Sheriff Andy Taylor and Opie will offer you some of Aunt Bea’s apple pie and a big glass of whole milk, and along with Otis, a get out of jail free pass.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. He is closer to Ronaldo Maximus Reagan. Reagan was not perfect but he had a clear vision for America, and he raised our spirits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarah Palin told folks in South Carolina to vote for Mr. Newt on Saturday because it is much to early to "award" this race to a moderate.

She wants this "vetting" to continue. She made the analogy to honing steel with steel and iron with iron.

I knew my girl would come through.

I believe you need about 1144 delegates to secure the nomination out of 2249.

Here is the current count...seems a tad early to anoint anyone...

20

mitt-romney-152.jpg?1326483694

Goody Two Shoes

12

rick-santorum-152.jpg?1326483694

Rick

Santorum

0newt-gingrich-152.jpg?1326483694

Newt

Gingrich

2jon-huntsman-152.jpg?1326483694

Jon What's His Name

3

ron-paul-152.jpg?1326483694

Dr. Paul

rick-perry-152.jpg?1326483694

Rick Perry

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin told Sean Hannity on Fox News Tuesday night that, if she were voting in the S. Carolina primary this coming Saturday, she would vote for Newt Gingrich for president.

"If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates," Palin told Hannity.

She also praised Gingrich's much-lauded debate performance Monday night:

"I do think that Newt is the one that won the debate if you will, because Newt came out like South Carolina's own Smokin' Joe Frazier," Palin continued. "He came out there swinging, talking about work, talking about jobs and work ethic and how government needs to get out of the way in order for all Americans to have a sense of opportunity to work, and I think that's what a lot of voters have been craving to hear."

Palin's husband Todd has already endorsed Gingrich for president. She stressed that she is not fully endorsing Gingrich, but believes the primary race should continue and dismissed the idea that Gov. Mitt Romney is the "inevitable" candidate.

"I can tell you what I would do if I were a South Carolinian…If I were a South Carolinian though, and each one of these primaries and caucuses are different, Sean, I want to see this thing continue because iron sharpens iron," Palin said at the beginning of the interview.

"Steel sharpens steel. These guys are getting better in their debates. They are getting more concise. They are getting more grounded in what their beliefs are and articulating what their ideas are for getting America back on the right track and getting Americans working again," Palin said. "If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plastic Mitt has one supreme advantage -- He is not Barak Obama and he would fight a war if he had to, unlike Rep. Paul.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goody Two Shoes' underwear is out in the public view!

Just one example from the 200+ pages:

Gun Control

 In 1994 Senate race, Romney backed Brady bill and assault weapons ban, saying “I don’t line up with the

NRA” and “that’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”

 Romney called Clinton crime bill “a big step forward.”

 As governor, Romney quadrupled gun licensing fees and vowed not to “chip away” at tough gun laws

 In 2004, Romney signed permanent state-level ban on assault weapons that was mirrored after federal

assault weapons ban.

 In January 2006, Romney said he owned a gun – then two days later admitted he did not and the gun

belonged to his son.

 Romney bragged about being member of the NRA but later revealed he didn’t join until August 2006, just

before launching his presidential campaign.

 Romney recently said he’s “been a hunter pretty much all my life” but later admitted he hunted only twice in

his life, later clarifying remarks by claiming he has hunted “small varmints … more than two times.”

 In 2006 press conference, Romney claimed he had been hunting “many times” after returning from quail hunt

in Georgia.

http://cdn2.dailycaller.com/2012/01/McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evita Palin said, "If I had to vote in South Carolina order to keep this thing going, I would vote for Newt and I would want it to continue. More debates, more vetting of candidates."

Gringrich was exciting during that debate. I would have given him a standing ovation. Rush is a big fan and sorta, kinda hinted that the pragmatic reason Newt took that Fannie May money was because he is not rich. End of story.

It is not a question of any candidate being unqualified, though Ron Paul and Rick Perry come the closest because of their unfavorable numbers. When that blond country singer who was on American Idiot said on Facebook that she was voting for Ron Paul, half her facebook friends un-friended her. They were conservatives who disagreed with Ron Paul, not liberals.

Santorum’s social conservatism would not be on a realistic political agenda. We just would NOT see Elton John or K.D. Lang singing in the White House. Any gay activists who throw glitter on a President Santorum will get a rubber hose up the nose, then a night in a packed DC jail with guys named Shackeem, Jordan, and DJZD.

So my two top choices are Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich is 69 and heavy set so I wonder about his longevity. Fox has some of the people on Newt’s Bain commercial saying they were grossly misrepresented in that slimy film.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my two top choices are Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich is 69 and heavy set so I wonder about his longevity.

Goody Two Shoes is going to be 65. Additionally, people who do not drink alcohol have a shorter life expectancy than either moderate or heavy drinkers. Study:

Results:  Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

Conclusions:  Findings are consistent with an interpretation that the survival effect for moderate drinking compared to abstention among older adults reflects 2 processes. First, the effect of confounding factors associated with alcohol abstention is considerable. However, even after taking account of traditional and nontraditional covariates, moderate alcohol consumption continued to show a beneficial effect in predicting mortality risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my two top choices are Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich is 69 and heavy set so I wonder about his longevity.

Goody Two Shoes is going to be 65. Additionally, people who do not drink alcohol have a shorter life expectancy than either moderate or heavy drinkers. Study:

Results:  Controlling only for age and gender, compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. A model controlling for former problem drinking status, existing health problems, and key sociodemographic and social-behavioral factors, as well as for age and gender, substantially reduced the mortality effect for abstainers compared to moderate drinkers. However, even after adjusting for all covariates, abstainers and heavy drinkers continued to show increased mortality risks of 51 and 45%, respectively, compared to moderate drinkers.

Conclusions:  Findings are consistent with an interpretation that the survival effect for moderate drinking compared to abstention among older adults reflects 2 processes. First, the effect of confounding factors associated with alcohol abstention is considerable. However, even after taking account of traditional and nontraditional covariates, moderate alcohol consumption continued to show a beneficial effect in predicting mortality risk.

Have you factored in weight? Newt is the Republican Dough Boy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you factored in weight? Newt is the Republican Dough Boy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

No way to effectively calculate that Bob. Ask Peter, he is the Goody Two Shoes supporter who will tie himself into a moral and ethical pretzel to somehow justify Romney the Massachusetts big government moderate squish Republican establishment candidate as the mandated choice.

Similar to his Massachusetts health care mandate, I guess this is the voting mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now