Question of the Day: What’s the Question of the Day for Mitt Romney?

I don’t know about you, but I feel better knowing Mitt Romney’s a real gun owner. I think. Well, he says he is. abcnews.go.com quotes the Mittster as claiming he owns a couple of smoothbores. Of course, the (still) presumptive GOP nominee said he owned a gun in 2008, too. Only it wasn’t quite true then. Turns out the gun in question belonged to his son. And then there’s that hunting trip . . .

“[E]arlier this year, during a Fox News debate, Romney was asked whether he has hunted in the years since 2007, to which the candidate responded, “I’m not going to describe all of my great exploits. But I went moose hunting actually. Not moose hunting, I’m sorry, elk hunting with friends in Montana. I’ve been pheasant hunting.”

Moose? Elk? Wait, it was something big…and brown! Yeah, I’m pretty sure it had hair. Hell, it could have been a Buick for all I know, but I was hunting, guys. And did I say pheasant? What I meant to say is that it was very pleasant. I had such a good time out there. Really!

WTFever. It’s been an unusual election cycle so far, to say the least. This may be one of those years where the devil you don’t know beats the ever livin’ hell out of the one you do. Syphilytic camel or not.

According to the ABC article at the link, Mitt sez, “I believe in the second amendment, I’ll protect the second amendment.” Of course such a staunch 2A guy could also believe that, while keeping and bearing is all well and good, no one needs own a scary black rifle.

How about this: Mitt disavows Massachusetts’ assault weapon ban and “high capacity” magazine regulation (10 rounds) and pledges his support for S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” Then we go all in.

Fortunately, we happen to know exactly where the good Governor will be over the weekend. RF has pledged to chase Romney down and ask him THE gun rights question (as he did with Maximum Bob Lutz when GM was laughing at the idea of bankruptcy).

What ONE QUESTION should our Maximum Leader ask the Michigan native on gun rights?

98 Responses to Question of the Day: What’s the Question of the Day for Mitt Romney?

  1. avatarAharon says:

    I think MR is even more out of touch with the common man and Main Street than BO. MR believes he is entitled to be Emperor and BO believes he deserves to be Chairman. While I am opposed to BO’s political ideology at least he often seems to have one whereas MR simply seems like the rich spoiled playboy having fun at his private club while laughing at the wait staff made up of struggling private citizen taxpayers.

    The big question:
    “Will you TODAY call out and condemn the mayors and city governments of NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, and other such places for illegally denying and blocking Americans access from the right to arm themselves?”

    or:

    “Will you TODAY and RIGHT NOW make a statement that overall gun ownership, to include handguns, save and protect far more lives than they harm?.”

    “If you will not make such statements, why should we give you our vote?”

    • avatarbontai Joe says:

      +1
      either question works for me.

    • avatarMatt in FL says:

      While I am opposed to BO’s political ideology at least he often seems to have one whereas MR simply seems like the rich spoiled playboy having fun at his private club while laughing at the wait staff made up of struggling private citizen taxpayers.

      I had a similar conversation with my dad while I was home for Easter. My comment about MR was, “I don’t like him because I have no idea what he stands for. I have never seen a politician contradict himself and disavow his previous statements more than MR. I have never seen a politician about whom I was more certain that his ideology was up for grabs to the highest bidder or subject to the prevailing wind.”

      • avatarMatt Gregg says:

        The only ideology this scum bag has is get elected at any price. He will say and do whatever it takes, I doubt he really cares about any issue out there.

        • avatarGS650G says:

          The nice thing about this comment is it applies to all who run for office.

        • avatarTTACer says:

          +1

          I think it is bizarre in this day that someone would self-identify as a member of a party rather than a holder of a set of beliefs. Both parties are terrible and 99.99% of the politicians make the other 0.01% look bad.

        • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

          Romney will support the 2A UNTIL someone pays him…I mean donates money for him not to support it. I’m sure then he’ll come up with many reasons to explain why the 2A is bad, even though it was good before… This guy is a joke. I don’t want to get political here, but I don’t see anybody other than Ron Paul that would actually support the Constitution and not sell out.

    • avatarMichael says:

      “Will you TODAY and RIGHT NOW make a statement that overall gun ownership, to include handguns, save and protect far more lives than they harm?.”

      I like that one.

  2. avatarPaul says:

    As governor of mass-a-chew-shit, he strengthened anti-gun laws. His stance on that was/is he’s proud of the job he did. He also intitated the present health care laws, that the hnic used to base his health care on. We can’t afford this RHINO!

    • avatarRalph says:

      As governor of mass-a-chew-shit, he strengthened anti-gun laws

      Actually, he did not. He signed the AWB law, making it permanent. That was going to happen whether he signed it or not. But in a trade-off for the AWB, he made the legislature lower the cost and extended the term of the concealed carry license and improve hunting regulations. The gun community generally found him OK to deal with. The NRA gives him a “B” rating, which is stellar for a Massachusetts politician.

      Romney is not my first choice for the Republican candidate, but if he gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him.

      • avatarMatt Gregg says:

        Once again, bullshit. Romney gladly supported the permanent assault weapons ban, and he restated his support for a national, permanent ban during the last election.

        “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

        Romney is as bad as Obama on gun control, if you really think otherwise you must have your head buried deep in the sand. Vote Ron Paul or some other third party candidate, they won’t win but at least you won’t feel like shit when Romeny or Obama signs the next ban.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          Mitt is a good deal-maker. As to Massachusetts, he revitalized the Republican brand, not an easy task. Mitt is more a fiscal conservative than a social conservative politically. He keeps his social conservatism a family matter, which seems appropriate to me. While still in the Illinois Senate Obama said he’d like to see all guns banned. Mitt has said he has no intention of tightening federal gun laws. So you have a choice, and if you grumble enough about Mitt’s imperfections in your view, you’ll put off others in your circle and you’ll end up with BHO 2.0. I don’t see the sense in that course of action as a gun owner. I am certain Mitt sees gun rights as a state issue subordinated to the Federal Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment as recently brought under the umbrella of the 14th Amendment. I am content with that, when joined to my own state’s constitution and laws (PA). Key federal executive decisions include who runs DoJ and how they run it. If you don’t find that the overwhelming issue, together with budgets and deficits, compared with Obama’s performance on those three, I’m surprised.

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          Yeah sure he thinks guns are a state issue, I mean he has never said he would sign a federal assault weapons ban if he were president…

          Governor Romney: I support the assault weapons ban.

          MTP: And you’re still for it?

          Governor Romney: I would have supported the original assault weapons ban. I signed an assault weapons ban in Massachusetts as Governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and anti-gun lobby came together for the bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something that I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington.

          MTP: So the assault weapons ban that expired this year because Congress did not act on it, you would support?

          Governor Romney: Just as the President said that he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, so would have I. Yet I was also pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for Governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I would love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms.

          Oh crap I forgot, he did say that he would sign a federal assault weapons ban.
          http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Second_Amendment/

        • avatarRalph says:

          Your first comment focused on what Obama and Romney did or will do. Now you’ve switched to the rhetoric. Make up your mind. And while you’re at it, point to something other than the MA AWB, or you’re being a one trick pony.

          I guaranty you that every pro-gun group in Massachusetts will choose Romney over Obama. You do what you want.

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          And you keep whipping that ‘he helped MA CCW’ dead horse. Some small improvements in ccw law don’t justify his gleeful destruction of gun rights in MA.

          The scumbag has boasted of his support for a federal assault weapons ban, keep on pretending like he is a good choice for POTUS.

      • avatarTom says:

        He signed the AWB law, making it permanent. That was going to happen whether he signed it or not.
        Seriously, why was the AWB law going to go permanent?
        I am not from the North East so I really do know what was going on with this.

        • avatarRalph says:

          why was the AWB law going to go permanent

          Because it’s Massachusetts, and MA is dominated by Boston (like Illinois is dominated by Chicago), and Boston wanted a statewide ban to buttress it’s local AWB.

          FYI, Boston’s ban is much more restrictive than the Commonwealth’s ban.

      • avatarGreg in Allston says:

        Alas, ditto.

  3. avatarRalph says:

    What ONE QUESTION should our Maximum Leader ask the Michigan native on gun rights?

    Mr. Romney, do you use hair spray or gel?

  4. avatarFrank H says:

    I’m okay with asking the questions and I really do want to hear the answers. But I do not believe for a moment that Romney could be any worse than President Urkel. No way, no how. So the answers almost don’t matter.

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      “But I do not believe for a moment that Romney could be any worse than President Urkel.”
      —–
      Which is sorta like saying that steak tartar is more appetizing than haggis. Technically a true statement, but it doesn’t really mean anything.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        and what exactly is wrong with Haggis?

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          I’m not a Scot, and therefore I am genetically incapable of enjoying sheep’s stomach stuffed with herbs and barley. YMMV.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          It is quite commonly stuffed with oatmeal and flavorings. How much you enjoy it may depend on the quality and quantity of Scotch that you drink with it.

        • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

          “How much you enjoy it may depend on the quality and quantity of Scotch that you drink with it.”
          —–
          That’s what I told her…

      • avatarRalph says:

        And what exactly do you have against raw meat?

  5. avatarMatt in FL says:

    When I hear he owns “a couple of smoothbores,” even without knowing if that’s a quote or an editorialization, I immediately visualize a couple of Purdeys or H&Hs, or one of each, that rest beautifully in a well-lit display case in “the library.” They are objet d’art, not firearms.

    • avatarFrank H says:

      On the other hand, if he explicitly said that they’re smoothbores, that does indicare some measure of knowledge.

      (I know that sounds ridiculous, but I’m just looking for something to hang my hat one, some hope that maybe things will get better.)

    • avatarRalph says:

      Smooth bore is actually a good description of Romney.

  6. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity? Sorry, but the quest for greater liberty does not support asking the Feds to override State law. The “legislative” push should be for all States to recognize “Constitutional” carry as a natural, inherent right.

    So, ask him that… if he supports the natural, inherent right of all people to own and use their property for licit purposes without having to ask the “government” for permission.

    • avatarRalph says:

      The “legislative” push should be for all States to recognize “Constitutional” carry as a natural, inherent right.

      And then to pave the streets with gold. Hey, you have your fantasy, I have mine. Both are equally likely.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        I guess that’s kinda like voting for Romney. Since the “ideal” will never happen, we should just compromise.

        This ignores the fact that if we all pushed for the ideal then we would actually have a chance of achieving success.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          I advise taking a breather from the single-issue politics, devoting ourselves instead to electing the best of two candidates from our broader points of view. Gun rights aren’t going to do you much good if we end up in a bankrupt socialist hell as the lights dim more each year and the taxes on industry and real work become every more oppressive just to support the every-widening distribution of SNAP cards and government union featherbedding. The primaries are essentially over. Of course if you like the Holder/Obama/Napolitano decision practices, ignore my point.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          My single issue is Liberty and I don’t think I’ll take a breather from promoting it.

          You’ll notice my question to Romney has implications beyond guns. There’s only one canditate currently running who would honestly answer my question in the affirmative.

        • avatarRalph says:

          if we all pushed for the ideal then we would actually have a chance of achieving success

          Which is why I’m pushing for the streets to be paved with gold. Hey, you never know until you try.

  7. avatarDarren from MA says:

    Mr. Romney, simple yes or no question: does the 2A guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms for any and all lawful purpose?

    If he answers “YES!”, then that is a good sign. It may not mean anything, since he is a politician.
    If he answers with a five minute diatribe about guns and laws and people and crime and hunting and safety, etc, then we know we cannot count on him.

  8. avatargirlswithguns says:

    “The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and the US Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an individual right. What is your position on the right of the states to legislate prior restraint on this UNINFRINGIBLE right?”

  9. avatarSad says:

    All I know, is come Election Day, instead of voting for BaMitt Obomney, I’m going to write in Ron Paul, buy some ice cream, and sit on the couch and weep for my country. Then buy more ammo.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Fine. Throw the election. Do you think the anti-2A people are going to waste their votes and settle for consolation ice-cream binging? You don’t need more ammo, you need better executive department decisions. You need a better AG at DoJ.

  10. avatarMatt Gregg says:

    I’d ask him; “Are your eyes naturally brown or did they just turn brown because you are so full of shit?

    Or you could ask him if even he can keep all his lies straight, I imagine he has a few staff members dedicated to spinning it all.

    Mitt has done more for gun control as a governor than Obama has as a president. No matter who wins its gonna be bad for us. You could even argue that Romney is more likely to sign off on gun control legislation, so as to appear as a more middle of the road president. Whereas Obama might just veto a gun control measure for the same reasons.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Mitt has done more for gun control as a governor than Obama has as a president.

      No, Matt, that’s not true. Romney signed the law that made the AWB permanent. That law was going to be enacted whether Romney signed it or not. Along the way, Romney also benefitted CCW-holders by making the permits cheaper and extending their terms.

      While Massachusetts proceeded through its legislature, POTUS proceeds through his little stormtroopers at the ATF. You tell me which is worse — a bad law that was nevertheless supported by the people of Massachusetts, or bad acts perpetrated by an underground fascist army.

      • avatarMatt Gregg says:

        So if the law is likely going to pass, vetoed or not, the governor should just bend over and say ‘oh well’? Sorry but Romney has stated many times that he supported a ban on “dangerous assault weapons”. Pretending that the Massachusetts AWB was a fait accompli and that Romney had no choice but to sign is bullshit.

        “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts, Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen’s groups and gun safety advocates. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

        I’m not sure why you are defending this waffling jackass but he is as bad or worse than Obama. I’ll vote for Ron Paul because a vote for Romeny might as well be a vote for Obama.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          +1 for Ron Paul.

          Lots of folks thought George W. would be better than Gore or Kerry and look where that got us. The “lesser of two evils” is still evil.

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          I’m not sure George W. knew what the constitution was. Maybe he thought it was an old, old wooden ship from the revolutionary war era.

  11. avatarGS650G says:

    And just who is a better candidate that could actually unseat BHO? Ron Paul? Get serious.
    Is Mitt Romney the best thing to come along in recent memory? I’d say he is, especially when you stop and think about what the country needs in terms of rational behavior and financial actions. We are guaranteed not to get that in a second BHO term.
    So go ahead and throw eggs, make it easier for him to get re-elected, maybe we’ll avoid financial collapse and keep our firearms. I doubt it.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Ron Paul is a critical thinker and libertarian leader who couldn’t beat an egg. He’s also old. I think he survived the Permian Extinction. That’s really old. No, he was never a viable candidate, but he probably had a favorable impact on the nomination process.

    • avatarWes says:

      Ron Paul often does best against Obama in head-to-head polls. Paul would be doing immensely better if the media wouldn’t blatantly ignore him. Watch “Ron Paul vs. The Honest Mistake (final cut)” for evidence.

      Meanwhile, in the last few weeks, Ron Paul has had crowds of thousands time after time. 2000 in Missouri, 5000 in Wisconsin, 7000+ in California. And on the very same day of (one of) his big California rallies, Fox News writes an article “Where is Ron Paul.” Gimme a break.

      Check out this short video of the crowds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgsg7a-Ok8Q&

  12. avatarSilver says:

    Doesn’t matter, he doesn’t stand a chance. Too much of the same old, and there are still too many drooling idiots in this country who just want their free hand-outs.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Or, more to the point, too many who want to (see above) write in Ron Paul and go eat ice-cream. Fatalism is a disease. We will make our fate on 2A issues: “Either you take care of politics, or it will take care of you.”

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        What depresses me is neither of the two candidates with a chance of winning has any respect for the rest of the Constitution, and here we’re debating which candidate is least threatening to the Second Amendment. It’s really pathetic.

  13. avatarST says:

    QOD:

    “Mr Romney, what do you plan to do for employment once the White House owned Mainstream Media slanders your name so badly you’ll need to live with George Zimmerman?”

  14. avatarMatt in MT says:

    Really!?! In this economy you are going to turn up your nose at Romney because he cannot tell the difference between an Elk and a Moose?
    Gun comment board notwithstanding, on the issues that matter right now I choose Romney in a heartbeat over the current regime.

    • avatarMatt Gregg says:

      Yeah because Romney has never supported gun control, created a mandated healthcare system or waffled on so many political issues that it would make your head spin… Right?

      If you couldn’t see his face or hear his voice you would never be able to tell the difference between an Obama regime and a Romney regime. The GOP is running Obama senior against Obama junior.

      • avatarMatt in MT says:

        Tell a difference, yes.
        The executive of the Executive Branch enforces the laws. A difference between what Obama chooses to enforce and what Romney would enforce? Yes, there is a difference.
        Choose Supreme Court Justices for approval by the Senate. A difference between Obama choices and Romney choices? Uh Huh
        Differences as Commander and Chief? I hope so.
        Foreign Policy? EPA? Energy? Yes. Yes. Yes
        As for Health Care, it is not an enumerated power of the Federal Govn’t. If a state wants to try it on, let them go for it. It’s part of this great experiment called the the United States.

      • avatarjkp says:

        I know, another GOP’er who supported gun control while he was governor. Kind of reminds me of…you know…Ronald Reagan or something.

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          I’ve never really understood why Reagan is so deified nowadays. He made his share of mistakes and supporting gun control was one of them.

        • avatarRalph says:

          When was the last time that we had a POTUS who didn’t support gun control? It wasn’t in my lifetime, and I go back a little ways.

        • avatarMatt Gregg says:

          So we should just lie back, close our eyes and think of England?

        • avatarGreg in Allston says:

          DDE and JFK, I think, though I wouldn’t bet your life on it, nor mine. The US was in a sort of stasis from the NFA ’34 until the riots and the assassinations of ’67 /’68.

  15. avatarRydak says:

    He is a member of the NRA ya know…

    • avatarMoonshine7102 says:

      So is Michael Moore. What of it?

    • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

      So what? I let my membership lapse because they do NOTHING for gun owners in my state of NJ. I will be happy to renew my membership once I see some action from them in my state. Thus far I only received excuses. I asked them to at least tell me if they are PLANNING to do something for gun owners here, but all I got was “it’s difficult there.” Well I guess it’s going to be difficult for them to get my money, too.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Have you found a way to personally work for change in NJ? Is there any group in NJ large enough to make a difference? The NRA can’t do much if there is essentially no voter support. Have you joined or contributed to a legal fund to carry forward cases based on recent SCOTUS holdings? That’s a good path.

  16. avatarTHE TRUTH says:

    The ONLY way to tell when a RepubliCON is lying is if his mouth is moving. He’s a camera whore.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      правда: PRAVDA: TRUTH: If you actually care about 2A rights you’d realize that your anti-Republican slurs are unjustified, compared to the other party. The history of shall-issue and SYG bears me out.

  17. avatarTHE TRUTH says:

    He’s a truth w.h.o.r.e., much like all RepubliCONS.

  18. avatarLow Budget Dave says:

    I don’t ever vote for President based on their attitude toward 2A. City Commissioners, sure. But the President couldn’t take away the guns from his own bodyguards, much less the average voter.

    So here is what I would ask: “If it were up to you, would you rather raise taxes on rich people and give the money away to poor people, or raise taxes on the poor and give it to rich people.”

    I know what each candidate would do, I just want to see if they would lie about it.

    • avatarMatt Gregg says:

      So signing or vetoing major legislation won’t affect 2A rights? Appointing justices to the supreme court won’t affect our rights?

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        Actually, No. Your rights exist regardless of what a “judge” or the “law” says.

        Sorry, I agree with what you’re saying, I just felt like being trivial.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I would support a law making poor illegal. Problem solved.

  19. avatarTom says:

    Hell, it could have been a Buick for all I know, but I was hunting, guys.

    So how was the Buick?

  20. My question, “How long until you flip flop again on this subject? Will it be before or after you’re through impersonating Reagan?”

    • avatarRalph says:

      I understand that Mitt is dying his hair orange even as we speak.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      I hope he’s working on impersonating Reagan’s speech delivery right now, with focus. It matters. The US voter pool really likes a nice teleprompter delivery no matter what the party, platform, or race of the candidate. I would point out Reagan’s strength against Gorbachov in person, versus Obama’s (“oops, the mic is hot..”) soft promises to Medvedev last month. “I can be more flexible after the election.” I’ll take the Reagan approach.

  21. avatarGet Some says:

    Maybe I’m just nuts, but the past three years have been the worst three years I’ve ever seen with regards to the degradation of freedom in this country. I can not fathom not supporting, fully, whoever runs against Obama. From the perspective of a father and a productive citizen; Obama with a second term means terrible things for every man, woman, and child on the planet. Disgusting to read anyone not pull for Obama’s opponent, regardless of that person’s stance on the second amendment. The devil we know (Obama) is light years worse than anything we might pretend Romney could ever be.

    • avatarDaveM says:

      Get Some, couldn’t agree more
      1. Vote for Obama and 4 more years of social experiment and more libs on SCOTUS
      2. Vote for Romney and roll the dice
      3. Write in candidate, same as a vote for BHO
      This election is about more than 2A

    • avatarWes says:

      Boy, I just can’t decide who to vote for this election. Should I vote for Tarp-supporting, Patriot Act-supporting, NDAA-supporting, gun-grabber Obama? Or should I vote for Tarp-supporting, Patriot Act-supporting, NDAA-supporting, gun-grabber Romney?

      Santorum just dropped out. Now all the people who wanted Santorum because they thought he’s a conservative even though he’s a fake conservative can now get behind the only real conservative and most pro-gun candidate in the race Ron Paul.

      • avatarDaveM says:

        Good idea voting for RP, split the vote, don’t bitch when BHO is reelected.
        Don’t much care for Romney, hopefully better than BHO
        Sad state for this country when my choice for POTUS is voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate

        • avatarMadDawg J says:

          “Sad state for this country when my choice for POTUS is voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate”

          I have never had a chance to vote any other way.

        • avatarWes says:

          Split what vote? You know the Republican nominee hasn’t been chosen yet, right? The nomination process is only halfway done.

          I’m telling people to stop thinking NDAA gun-grabber Obama vs. NDAA gun-grabber Romney and start thinking NDAA gun-grabber Obama vs. constitutionalist, veteran, and most pro-gun candidate Ron Paul.

          Ron Paul just had three huge rallies in California last week. One had 7000+ people. I know what people are thinking, “Hmm, I didn’t see that on the news.” Indeed!

          Here’s a quick video of some of his big rallies you’ve never seen on the news:

  22. avatar"Dr."Dave says:

    Hunters are no friend of the second amendment.

    They’ll be happy so long as they can keep shooting at Bambi or other creatures.

    They don’t give a damn about the actual scope and purpose of the second amendment.

    “ARs arent even legal to take a deer with, so why does anyone need one?”

    I’m sure many of you have heard that.

  23. avatarMadDawg J says:

    GETTYSBURG, Pa. (AP) – Bowing to the inevitable after an improbably resilient run for the White House, Rick Santorum quit the presidential race on Tuesday, clearing the way for Mitt Romney to claim the Republican nomination.

    So it’s official.

    • avatarDaveM says:

      Yup
      Previous post – Attempted to edit after reading that Santorum had dropped out, too late to edit.
      I am going for door #2-Vote for Romney and roll the dice.
      Years ago I voted for Ross Perot, still have black and blue spot on my ass

  24. avatarTF says:

    “What do you believe should be the limits of the second ammendment?” Rather than asking what he’ll do and getting whatever politician bs he can think of regarding all the bills he would promise to pass or laws he’d repeal I think it’d be harder to fake an answer to a question from the other end on what limits he supports.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.