George Will and Erick Erickson predict near certain loss in the presidential election.
“[T]here would come a point when… conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than… electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.. [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013,” writes Will.
Will argues that a Republican-controlled Congress would be able to strongly oppose the president’s agenda.
“If Republicans do, their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation … [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a substantially reduced capacity to do harm,” he says.
When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d’etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving….
At least we can be rid of him and, hopefully, his most ardent cheerleaders on November 7th when what the rest of us know will happen unless an economic catastrophe happens.
This tape dug up by ABC News doesn’t help the election narrative, or give me confidence that we know everything we need to know about either of the two frontrunners:
Nothing Will or Erickson says about the weakness of our most likely nominee, or currently second most likely nominee, is anything I haven’t said before in substance. I am not so pessimistic about the general election, however, notwithstanding these weaknesses.
But neither asks the question whether, if we are so sure to lose with our current top two choices, we should stop playing it safe and swing for the fences.
Or at least shoot for the moon.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Exactly, the so called Republican establishment has been pushing Romney because of his “electability”. I suspect he will be every bit as electable as Kerry.
More than 9 in 10 U.S. registered voters say the economy is extremely (45%) or very important (47%) to their vote in this year’s presidential election. Unemployment, the federal budget deficit, and the 2010 healthcare law also rank near the top of the list of nine issues tested in a Feb. 16-19 USA Today/Gallup poll. Voters rate social issues such as abortion and gay marriage as the least important.–Gallup
For some reason, energy was not on the poll.
What that says is that we CAN win…the whole enchilada…if we stay focused and make Obama run against his record and who he has shown himself to be.
America doesn’t have the money. The whole world doesn’t have enough money.
Right on the money. There are so many bases on which Obama could be defeated. The economic prospects long term cannot be fixed with the present team in place, but even if the economy is looking up in the short term, the spending/deficit/debt issue will remain. There are also many other areas in which Obama has been abysmal. We just need a candidate who can keep the focus on these shortcomings and explain, briefly, how he will be different. Romney is fully capable of doing that, if he will.
Any of them are capable but so far Gingrich is the only one hammering Obama.
Romney has, in fact, said he will not attack Obama, excuse me, President Obama, in the election.
Gentleman’s agreement of the Ruling Class, dontcha’ know?
And we know how far that got McCain.
Shooooot, in fact that’s not, doggone it, what Romney actually said, don’tcha know?
If you don’t think Mitt is going to go after Obama with a bag full of rhetorical brickbats, you haven’t been watching any of the last twenty debates or listening to any one of the “attack” ads Romney has been airing all across the country for the last six months.
Sorry, I just can’t get excited about Republicans winning both congress and the White House. Especially if it is Mitt in the White House. It just means a different set of cronies to receive taxpayer money.
Still, Republicans do tend to spend less than Democrats, so I guess that would be better. What we truly need though, are enough Republicans elected that understand the difference between “spending less” and “cutting spending.” And then choosing the second option.
Admittedly, neiter of the above concepts is something that a Democrat will understand.
Thanks a lot Eric and George; that is very helpful.
With God’s help, you’ll be eating crow January 2013.
I say shoot for the moon, LOL!
Here is another “On the Record” with Newt.
http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/video/gop-presidential-candidate-newt-gingrich-on-the-record-7/
It’s such a pleasure to see how a Newt Presidency will look.
Maybe it’s just me but Romney is better suited for the 4am “I’m rich and I can make you rich here’s how” informercial lineup.
We are voting on Tuesday and I am voting for bold ideas, not pastel platitudes.
Why not shoot for the moon – I love it!
Newt is the only one taking it to Obama right now. Hitting him on Afghanistan, gas prices, Energy Secretary Chu comments just this week. Preview of what he will do as the nominee.
Well to quote someone very special “Keep Walking Toward the Fire” and that is why I want Newt. I KNOW he will shake things up in both the House and Senate!! I know he has the vision to lead this country to great things.
“Too bad that toffs in the out-of-touch Establishment stubbornly back ‘moderate’ Mitt Romney in a race upon which rests the very future of America. The same martini sipping toffs who gave us presidential candidate John McCain, and therefore Barack Obama back in 2008, are sending Mitt up to the batter’s plate at a time when a majority of Americans want a repeal of an ObamaCare that looks just like the one Uncle Mitt pulled off on Massachusetts.”
Voting for the Empty Orange Juice Can
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44990
Oh, how quickly we forget…
Or am I the only one who remembered that the GOP ticket quickly picked up steam (and polling points) after Palin’s acceptance speech? Or how Teh One started whinging that Sarah was stealing his schtick by playing the reformer? (ironic in that she was the genuine article) Or that the numbers were getting better week by week as the fall went by?
…Then we hit the bank meltdown, and McCain suspended his campaign & returned to DC. That’s when his standing imploded.
This is really a dumb move on so many levels. George Will has sadly become the Bob Michel of Republican commentary. “Let’s just get used to losing, and make the best of it.” Since we did we become such defeatists? And it’s only March!
This, at a time when Gallup shows Republican enthusiasm growing and continuing to stay much higher than the Democrats.
Also, Professor, I appreciate you’re loyalty, but suggesting that we should choose for even longer odds when a commentator says our odds are long seems very silly. When you’re bleeding chips and have a no-pair hand, do you go all in and hope for a straight?
Erick should know better than to blog that soon after one of his (increasingly frequent) predictive losses and should have slept on Michigan and Arizona before firing this one off.
The bottom line is: Until Newt proves he can win in the primary, any argument that he is better positioned to win in the general is specious.
Erick is wrong. The Romneybots absolutely will not learn their lesson after Mitt loses, just like they didn’t learn after Dole and McCain lost. They’ll just blame conservatives, and keep doing the same thing.
Do not fear to support Newt. He has the vigor, the vision, the intellectual firepower, and the record of accomplishment that forecast a successful presidency.
I told Hugh Hewitt on Townhall in 2007 Romney had no chance. Romney has even less chance now. Romney is an anti-Zeitgeist phenomenon, at once a confounding mistake but also a totally explainable one, i.e., he represents, embodies, is, the end result of a confused, fearful and self-loathing establishment traumatized by Obama and responding with fatal, supplicating delusion. Who else could they possibly promote other than Romney? This goes well beyond a failure of imagination and risk into the realm of psychotic breakdown.
I’m kind of looking forward to it, in a way. We either overthrow the establishment at the convention and wrest this party back in 2012, or it goes down in glorious immolation with Romney. In either case, they’re done.
Here’s some irony for you. An earlier comment from a Romneybot included this: “The bottom line is: Until Newt proves he can win in the primary, any argument that he is better positioned to win in the general is specious.”
That’s right. From a guy supporting a candidate he calls the most electable, but who lost the 2008 primary.
Anyway, I don’t think these types will ever be done. Sadly, they continue to exist like parasites off the efforts of the base. What we need is the equivalent of a flea bath.
Agreed. I prefer the metaphor of fire. Burn it to the ground. Something cathartic and complete about fire, the heat and light and then the ashes.
Also, the “electability” thing is like a children’s word game. Why is he electable? Because he’s electable. Oh, that’s why. But let’s spend $50 million and direct the entire polemic power of the establishment to destroy all others and this will confirm he’s “electable.” Right?
Good point about “electable.” At its best, it’s the lowest possible threshold. They are basically saying that there is a meaningful possibility that, if everything goes right, he could potentially win. Wow. What high standards we have set for ourselves.
But even that is better than “inevitable.” Death and taxes are inevitable. I can’t think of anything good that is.
Everyone should read this:
http://www.redstate.com/thomas/2012/03/01/i-blame-us-all-dont-worry-you-will-too/
“Death and taxes are inevitable. I can’t think of anything good that is.”
Great line. Good must be fought for and risked for.
I’m right behind you with the flea powder. We need a Pest Control SuperPac
I don’t think you understand what irony means.
Keep patting each other on the back, telling yourselves how smart you are. The rest of the electorate doesn’t seem to be listening.
I’m confident my use of “ironic” was correct, but if you prefer “moronic” that works too.
Also, you do a pretty good job of putting on the pompous ass persona, but then linking to a plebeian dictionary kind of spoils the effect. You know, for next time.
Hey, as long as you are confident! Me? I’m absolutely positive you used it improperly and am not the least bit ashamed to admit I check dictionaries/facts etc. regularly to make sure I both spell things properly and express myself in a precise manner.
Which brings me to another point: There is another difference between my pomposity and yours. Mine is, increasingly, being buttressed by results- the “math” I mentioned below. Yours stems not from evidence but rather the hope that Newt will somehow turn it around and, once again, catch fire.
What’s amazing is that so many of you only see arrogance in those who disagree with you yet you completely fail to see it in the myriad responses you make daily.
Go Newt!!
I think George Will is just stuck in the Republicans-as-minority-party syndrome, which syndrome Newt certainly does not recognize (Contract for America, anyone? First majority in 40 years??????).
The real danger in thinking that winning the House and Senate alone will suffice to stop the rapid descent into socialism-on-steroids resides in the demonstrated fact that this President has and obviously will again do absolutely anything to bypass Congress: fantasy recess appointments, gonzo regulation promulgation, government by unelected bureaucrats, the czar-ification of the Executive branch, etc., etc., etc.
1. A few months ago when Obama’s prospects looked worse than they do today, I cautioned that an incumbent President is very hard to dislodge.
Otoh, if conservatives had listened to advice like Will’s and Erickson’s, they would have lost the elections of 1980 and 1988.
2. I don’t understand the loathing of Romney by some conservatives. I oppose him, but I don’t get the loathing.
the loathing of Romney by some conservatives…
From the little I’ve read at moderate sites it seems to me that they don’t like him either.
Maybe he’s just not a likeable guy. We may seek to be rational, but often times it gives way to a gut feeling we have.
At some point TPTB should be able to realize that.
Perhaps it’s because he loathes us?
He won’t set “his hair on fire” to please us. Huh?
He won’t “use incendiary rhetoric” to get us excited. Huh?
We loathe him because he first loathed us.
hrh40 — I so agree. I feel that I’m responding to his attitude. “Severe,” indeed. yuck.
What does he mean, he won’t set his hair on fire. What a creep. So he thinks people would vote for him if only he would set his hair on fire? What does he think Americans are? This sounds like the same bitter-clinger analysis from Obama. yuck to both of them.
I think he was referring to such things as Limaugh’s comments about a certain young woman whose has indulged in rather excessive and less than responsible amatory behavior and desires a generous public subsidy for it. Limbaugh’s version is enormously crowd-pleasing, to a certain crowd, but that’s not where Romney thinks the votes are. Santorum’s reference to Obama as a “snob” is another of the same kind, an attempt to please the base, that wound up costing him votes.
I’m a Liberal, and I loathe lying. Mitt Romney likes to tell lies about other candidates — severe, crippling lies. He damaged Mike Huckabee and John McCain in 2008, and he’s done the same to the other candidates in this election. He has been very industrious about adopting and reinforcing lying Democratic methods of attack, thereby enhancing the ability of the Democrats to attack Republicans in the general election.
I want a genuine 2-party system, with good people on both sides. I loathe what Mitt Romney has done to his party, for engaging in the kind of behavior I detest, generally.
I suspect some Conservatives feel the same way about him.
Hi Valerie — interesting — do you mean you’re a Classical Liberal? Your comments here seem pretty much things I would agree with, IIRC.
I often wish we could resurrect the term Classical Liberal. I like the look and sound of it.
I want something that captures the mix of conservative for economics, libertarian for “don’t tread on me” & keeping government small and out of our lives, and also something about the “can do,” practical, independent spirit of Americans
— with vision for what may be, dreaming big, a love of opportunity, teaming up for new chances, new technology, all of it. Excitement for tomorrow. Optimism. Cheerfulness.
(ha – “cheerfulness” – smiles)
So when you say you are Liberal … ?
I want something that captures the mix of conservative for economics, libertarian for “don’t tread on me” & keeping government small and out of our lives, and also something about the “can do,” practical, independent spirit of Americans.
“Barry Goldwater.”
You’re welcome. 🙂
As for Ms. Valerie, if Romney’s mud-slinging gives her the vapors, I can’t wait to hear what she has to say about Obama’s team…
Hi Casey —
I’m not an expert on Barry Goldwater.
But I remember something someone said from back then, and I wonder if it was Pat Buchanan, that extremism is no vice in the defense of liberty.
I think that is kind of creepy.
The person who exemplifies what I like best is Ronald Reagan. Reagan had principles and also common sense. Reagan spent a lot of his time in the White House hand-writing letters to American who had written to him. Reagan was asked, after he had been president, what he was most proud of in his life, and he said it was that as a summer lifeguard in high school, he had rescued 77 people from drowning, IIRC.
One thing NEWt talks about in the Citadel speech is how practical the early American colonialists and settlers were. Their lives were very independent. I’ve read that the early farmer, craftsmen, tradesmen colonists were mostly very prosperous by middle class European standards. And I think Reagan exemplified this very practical side of American life, also.
You know, also, Casey, I haven’t seen your comments here, and I don’t know you at all, but I think your reference to Valerie as having the “vapors” is a mischaracterization, at least of anything I’ve seen Valerie say. I also think it’s uncalled for. Why the snide tone?
From the little I’ve seen, it looks to me as if you support Romney.
It’s a theme here that Romney supporters come to this blog, where the blogger has endorsed NEwt, and fail to make a case for Romney, and then write in a nasty tone to Newt supporters. Why is that?
— Because guess what? John Hinderaker is a big supporter of Romney. You can go on over to Power Line and talk to your heart’s content about how great Romney is and how Romney is sure to win. What are you doing here, except to try to talk Newt supporters out of our support?
If Romney is so great, if Romney’s sure to win, why are you here?
Or is it possible, Casey , that you sense that your preferred candidate has shown up to a chess match clutching a box of checkers?
As the good professor linked to the other day:
Richard Miniter
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/did_gingrich_just_win_in_michigan.html
“Now watching Romney and Santorum each beat the other’s brains out in Michigan I think I finally figured out what Newt is up to. Waiting for it to finish so that he can move south and east again. Just like he always does. And if I’m right it means we’ll look back and see that both Romney and Santorum showed up for a chess match, clutching a box of checkers.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/did_gingrich_just_win_in_michigan.html#ixzz1o1wvWDy6
Maybe Romney invites comparison with another highly intelligent RINO who was known for dirty tricks.
Even if I’d known what lay ahead, I still would have voted for Nixon over McGovern in 1972.
Yes, the House with Crybaby Boehner and the Senate with Murkowski’s pal McConnell and everything will be right with the world. Welcome to spaghetti spine Central. These wimp’s will really kick Dumb-0 butt. LOL! That’s why we can’t elect Willard. It will be the 3 RINO Stooges!
Maybe this is the intent of the “we’ll screw it up no matter what” Republicans. Nominate someone who is no threat to Obama and his base will not be motivated to show up on election day and Republicans will walk away with all the house, senate and local elections.
Then again, maybe they have no plan.
Insanity.
If Romney ends up being the nominee (and he isn’t my favorite candidate but I suspect he will be the nominee right now), he needs to take a good, long look at both the messages that Newt is offering us and how Newt is communicating them. Newt has been off the charts with the messages he has and how he has been presenting them. I haven’t seen anyone do a better job at both of these since Reagan.
If Romney doesn’t do this, I fear that Obama will win another term – and I don’t want to even think about what another four years with Obama will be like.
I honestly feel that Romney doesn’t have it in him to be able to communicate anything conservative much less an idea like Newt can with the history, passion, vision and the love of his country.
turfmonster, that’s like saying margarine needs to take a good long look at butter.
A Yugo needs to take a good long look at the Corvette.
The jackal needs to take a good long look at the lion.
The buzzard needs to take a good long look at the bald eagle.
Tinker Creek needs to take a good long look at the Mississippi River.
Hey. This is fun.
That Mitt video is probably just the tip of the iceberg of what the left has on Mitt.
Someone said to me:
The more I listen to and hear about Mitt, the less I like him. And the more I listen to and hear about Newt, the better I like him.
That is a very important distinction between these two men. It’s the difference between winning the General or losing it. That’s why we have to do all in our power to make sure Mitt loses on Super Tuesday and beyond.
They don’t need an iceberg. All they need is the photo of Mitt and his Bain cohort in Armani flashing big grins as money spills out of their pockets and beneath it the line “I’m not concerned about the poor.”
But that still won’t stop them from going for the whole berg, and it’s a big one.
It’s way, way, WAY too early to call.
Plus, events may have more to do with the election than who the candidates are: http://propertyfreedompeace.blogspot.com/2012/03/events-may-determine-obamas-fate.html
The problem with this logic is that if the conservative voters are not enthused about the GOP presidential candidate, too many of them will stay home. A low turn-out will have negative repercussions on the down-ticket elections.
The second problem is that if Obama is given a second term, he will go crazy carrying out his agenda thru Executive Orders, over-burdening regulation by the EPA, continuing the implementation of ObamaCare, etc. Unless the GOP has a veto-proof majority in the US House and Senate, they won’t be able to stop him.
Plus, BostonBruin, my Ursine friend, Obama is setting up an extra-legal shadow government. This is what the czars are about. This is why Obama’s trying to go through agency fiat and keeps say they “can’t wait” for Congress to act.
Daniel Hannan, an English member of the European Parliament, has written, “The New Road To Serfdom.” (After, as you know, “The Road to Serfdom” by Friedrich Hayek).
Daniel Hannan explains that what has happened in Britain is that all the power has been taken away from the elected representatives and is in the hands of the “quangos,” which are quasi-governmental agencies. so when an Englishman goes to his elected representative for help, the representative is helpless.
This is what Obama is trying to do here. This is why Obama keeps trying to get money without Congress appropriating it and making decisions through czars and agencies.
This is why electing “downstream” House and Senate isn’t gong to be enough. It’s like the French Maginot Line in WWII, designed to keep the German army out or France. The Obama administration plans to CIRCUMVENT the firewall of the Congress if Obama gets re-elected.
This is why I believe Newt is the ONLY choice. Newt understands this.
Romney is a go-along-get-along guy. Romney has no idea what’s going on. He’s more liberal than Bush H.W. (!)
Santorum trying to campaign on Newt’s programs as talking points, but Santorum’s real interest is in getting into a brawl over social issues. To get into a brawl over social issues when people are having a hard time putting bread on the table and hanging on to their house is SELF-DEFEATING IN THE EXTREME.
Social issues are cultural issues. We’ve let the Left capture our movies, novels, TV, universities, courts, et cetera. You don’t start yelling at the average guy and saying “Satan” is running some of the churches, when WE — WE — THE CULTURAL CLASSICAL LIBERALS, allowed the American People to swim in a steady stream of Leftist propaganda, mixed in with education and entertainment.
WE are going to have to change the culture and it’s going to take a hell of a lot more work than we want to do.
No one wants to stand up to the Left because the Left try to destroy you if you do. THAT IS THEIR TACTIC AND THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS. Ronald Reagan found this out. Read Reagan’s “An American Life.” All about the Left in the film industry unions in Hollywood, when Reagan was still a Democrat. Talk about the education of Ronal Reagan.
And BTW, THIS IS THE LEGACY OF ANDREW BREITBART, as far as I personally am concerned. Andrew told us, CULTURE IS UPSTREAM FROM POLITICS. We have allowed the CREATORS OF media and education. the CREATORS of culture, to be captured. The creation of our Public Square was allowed to go into the hands of people who degraded our culture.
For us to now get into a big war with the average person because the culture is degraded is UTTERLY FUTILE. That is one reason I totally cannot support Santorum.
WE, the Classical Liberals, have to make movies. WE, the Classical Liberals, have to speak up. We have to write books. Fiction and non-fiction.
WE have allowed nihilism and cynicism to be the hippest point of view. This is going to be a big task.
Something that will, I think, help us, is that the younger generation is probably hungry for something more than the meaningless darkness the statists offer. So we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.
Anyway, BostonBruin, sorry for the rant. I guess I’m feeling this so much because of Andrew leaving us.
What I started out to say was, a “veto-proof majority” is just a Maginot Line. The Obama administration is ready to go around it. They aren’t going to be trying to get their way through legislation. You see the problem.
Look, in 2008 Romney ran smack dab into the mighty McCain juggernaut and no one could have reasonably eexpected him to beat The Maverick. Now it’s 2012 and Romney, if nominated, would face only the incumbent Barack Obama, a $750 billion war chest, and 90% of the media. Hope isn’t even needed – Romney’s a shoe-in.
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha.
Romney couldn’t get past McCain in 2008 and can’t get past Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul in 2012 – the party keeps searching, desperately, for an alternative to Romney, and this despite Romney having outspent everyone else, often by multitudes, and with at least 75% of the media behind him during the primaries, attacking for him whenever a not-Romney rises in the polls. But Romney’s electable against Obama? How’zat again? Reminds me of that cartoon of a physicist at a chalkboard writing out the mathematical formula for the Theory Of Everything, lines and lines of formula, interrupted in the middle by the phrase, “and then a miracle happens,” followed by the rest of the formula. This “Romney is the electable one” formulation also relies on some unexplained magic or miracle.
Several of us LI commenters have been asking Romney supporters since last fall to list the things Romney has done to further the conservative cause or any other conservative achievement, an easy task, one would think, considering Romney is not just a garden variety conservative, but is ‘severely’ conservative, whatever the hell that was supposed to mean. We wait in vain for even a single offering of Romney’s conservatism, except for a few links to videos, rejected as not answering our question, wherein Romney says, ‘I’m conservative!’ That’s all it takes, just to say so? Cool! In that case, I’m saying I’ve got Warren Buffet’s money, Frank Sinatra’s voice, and Professor Jacobson’s looks – and it’s all true! Why? Because I said so!
Obama 52%, Romney 48%. Gingrich 54%, Obama 46%. Bank on it.
See Hank, and I thought you were just (admittedly, eloquently) irrational. You are not. You are just confused. There is no “magic” or “miracle” to it. Let me help you: It’s called math. Romney ate 5 points overnight in Michigan last week and has always been within 10 points (often, within 5) of Obama for well over a year and the general election hasn’t even kicked off yet.
Is that what “several” of you have been doing “since last fall?” Crazy. Because from the outside looking in, rather than requesting a spirited debate or an informed exchange, it appeared as though “several” of you were jumping off the top ropes on any pro-Romney commenter on here with the ever-erudite “Rombot” and/or “troll” labels (Good one, you got me there Hank!) and then clapping each other on the back, congratulating one another on your individual/collective wit, brilliance and powers of persuasion.
I know a handful of very professional, very informed, very intelligent and extremely dedicated LI readers who refuse to comment on here because many of you are middle school jackals. They ask me why I even bother posting anything on here at all. I often wonder as well. At least once a week I chastise myself for condescending to your level by responding to anything on here at all but, unlike many of my peers, I actually enjoy getting in the ring against all comers.
I take it back. You are irrational . Why? Because you “said so.”
You couldn’t be more arrogant and condescending if you tried.
Lol, that first thumb cam from me and I don’t usually vote! At least we both agree I’m not trying…
How many times have I heard this sort of sneering, phony self-flagellation from unmasked trolls.
You’re po’d because you got outed as Romneybot masquerading as an undecided seeker of electoral success.
Nice to pat yourself on the back for being a battler against the awful forces of middle-school jackalism, but you might want to reconsider the distasteful sacrifice. It doesn’t seem to be paying off.
Oh Raven. I saw your little hodge podge of quotes, and your little triumphalist trumpeting of your own wit, what was it, yesterday? Hardly an “outing.” By all means though, keep telling yourself that the first string of citations you could dig up in a reactionary hour was a cogent case against a “troll.”
When you asked, then, I truly was undecided and was seriously thinking about the possibility of throwing in for Newt. Things have changed and nothing has convinced me that my decision to back Romney over anyone else was a mistake. Certainly not your frequent, dilated anger management exercises or Hope’s endless, often completely off-topic, repetitive shilling/trolling for Newt or Hank’s logical, very well-worded and well-framed posts. Sure, you can try to hammer Romney supporters everytime one of us dares to raise our head, you can pass all the links in the world around of this speech or that, you can echo chamber yourselves to death over how brilliant each of you is for attacking Paul or Santorum or Romney, but not one of you can make a case, a real case, for how Newt, or anyone other than Romney for that matter, can realistically win the primary- let alone the general.
There is no sacrifice to this Raven. You, especially you, make this easy. Oh, and the only one here, right now, who is “po’d” is you but I understand, psychologically, both why and how you would want to project your own anger onto others. It’s okay. Things will get better. Don’t forget, life is good!
“When you asked, then, I truly was undecided and was seriously thinking about the possibility of throwing in for Newt.”
Sure you were. I suggest anybody interested refer to the original thread. It’s a case study of disingenuousness trollery.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/romney-starts-war-in-the-republican-balkans/comment-page-1/#comments
“but not one of you can make a case, a real case, for how Newt, or anyone other than Romney for that matter, can realistically win the primary- let alone the general.”
No one has to make any case about who else might win. Maybe they’ll all lose. The point at issue and worth making (made so well by Henry Hawkins above) is that Romney “the frontrunner” will CERTAINLY lose.
Further, what has really never been made is the case for Romney as an effective and unflinching standard-bearer of core conservative principles necessary to smash a seductive, well-armed and compunctionless leftist assault. Because it cannot be made. Time and again people have asked for a compelling account – any account — of Romney’s conservative bona fides or electoral prowess. Neither exists. To the contrary — we have a compelling record of prevaricating progressivism, enduring unlikeability and electoral ineffectualness. Romney is an intellectually shallow, risk-averse, politically expedient wannabe career politician who has never – NEVER – either stood up to the Left or shown a capacity for generating voter passion.
WoodnWorld, you say you like to get in the ring with all comers.
But WoodnWorld, you come HERE. Nobody here has come to your ring. This is a blog where the blogger has endorsed NEwt.
Many of us here don’t like Romney and we have excellent reasons for not liking Romney.
And forgive me, but WoodnWorld, among the people here who call names, I would say you are one of the first and foremost, and quickest to lose your temper.
And yet — I feel sure that you want the same basic things I want, that we all pretty much want:
an America of free and prosperous independent citizens, government based on civic spirit and the rule of law,
fair play in the way we treat each other, a
good education for our kids, a chance at a better life,
a chance to work hard, use our gifts, use our smarts and our drive and ingenuity and to make good with what we’ve been given.
And ultimately, I would like that to be true for everyone everywhere. IN a perfect world, that’s what I would want.
So, WoodnWorld, as I said yesterday in a post about Andrew Breitbart, I have no enemies in this fight, except maybe those who wish to enslave the human spirit. So I have no animosity toward you.
But I do have a question. Here is my question for you. What is it, that is precious, that you value, that you feel is threatened if Romney is not the nominee?
Here’s why I ask. I want to understand.
You really want Romney to be the nominee.
You seem to react with anger when others don’t agree.
When a person is angry, it’s almost universal that something very, very precious is threatened from their point of view.
Anger is a signal that something precious feels threatened. What is it for you?
As I’ve told you before, from where I’m sitting, everything I want has a better chance of happening if NEwt is the nominee, because I feel certain Newt will win this fall and I feel certain that we can then fix a lot of the problems with our government caused by the Leftward lean over the past 50 years or 80 years.
So I prefer Newt because
1) I think Newt will win against Obama and
2) I think we can work together with Newt’s leadership to really get back to prosperity and a fair and lawful government within the Constitution.
What is the crux of the matter for you?
Maybe they will all lose? Are you here with us on planet Earth Raven? I ask because, right now, only one candidate is “winning” the Republican primary. There isn’t even a close second. Romney will “CERTAINLY” lose? Because you say so. Picking Romney is “playing it safe?” Because you say so. Newt is the “smarter” choice? Because you say so. I am a “troll” (I do love it when you play that card btw! It suggests you have gone to the well for credible responses yet found your repertoire wanting.) Because you say so.
You are right, no one “has” to make a case. My point is that you are incapable of making that case based on anything other than your opinion, your gut feeling, a tendency to link disparate facts together/revise history to fit your worldview, and, your “say so.”
Those were good times. Ah, Dark, Cal, Awing… I miss them. For the record, while I do support Romney (now), and am more convinced my even tangentially defending him, and the rest of Conservatives from a Civil War (someone needed to), was wise- I stand by every word I posted then. I also have not sent a dime to anyone, or made call one on their behalf. If Newt does somehow, magically, pull it out, I will max my contribution and spend every minute I am home working on his behalf to ensure we, Republicans, win.
You act as though making this case, proving these things to people who will NEVER be convinced they are wrong about Romney, is necessary to win either the Republican primary or the general election. It’s not. You act as though your opinion is sage analysis yet you fail to back it up with anything concrete. Hope, and I really do enjoy reading what the person posts, thinks thirty speeches or the (highly selective) opinions of others should supplants facts and reason.
Somewhere along the line you got it in your head that you have to be either “excited” or “angry” to win an election. You don’t. All you have to do is show up. Right now, quite a few people who either do not agree with you, or do not feel as ah… strongly… about Romney as you do, are showing up and voting. Whether you like it or not, in spite of everything you have been saying for weeks, Romney is winning and is best poised to beat Obama in November. His money says so, his organization says so, his endorsements say so, his campaign says so, his MSM enemies say so, President Obama says so, the polls say so, the delegate counts say so and the battleground state atmospherics say so. Because of all of those, perhaps insignificant to you, things, I also say so.
As far as invoking history goes, you are being too selective Rave. While we are going back to January, let’s not forget the one of the catalysts that prompted me to come out of the shadows in the first place.
Good. Stuff. Because I “say so.”
Hope- I responded here to maximize the horizontal space…
I don’t just say I like to get in the ring with “all comers,” I genuinely mean it too. You are right, I do come here. So do you. It matters not one whit that Professor Jacobson supports Newt Gingrich, this is his blog, his ring, not yours. We all enter that ring when we take the time to comment here. I say against “all comers” because too many of you only echo/parrot one another incessantly and the comments get stale because of it. I say against “all comers” because the few, brave souls who dare (DARE!) disagree with you are browbeaten and bullied by a handful of you here. I say against “all comers” because for too long, too many of you have been parrying with shadows, training against imagined enemies and sparring with emotion and rhetoric rather than evidence and reason. None of you have had a live challenger in some time.
Which brings me to my next point: This is not personal for me.
There is no question that I can be sarcastic as hell, and am often arrogant to a point of fault (mea culpa), but please do not mistake my (very) selectively responding to either the good Professor’s posts, or any of your comments here to them, for anger. Projecting your own emotions, and your own psychology and (perhaps) your own insecurities with your candidate’s performance (thus far) on to my responses here would be a tactical error on your part. One that would prevent you from seeing our exchanges clearly and (perhaps) cause you to underestimate the person you are sparring with. I meant what I said the other day Hope; I am genuinely and truly happy and firmly believe life is good.
Nor I you. I meant what I have said before. Of all the commenters on here, you are truly one of my favorites. I had to give you a hard time because you say the same thing, over and over and over and over again. I had to rib you (and am not sorry for it) because if anyone else did for Romney, or Santorum or Paul, what you do here for Newt, they would be ridden out on a rail for being a troll.
It’s always:
“Hi [So and So]- your comment here has made me wonder, have you ever considered that Newt may be the second coming of Republican Jesus, of true conservatism values? That he may be the best thing since balls bounced, cookies crumbled, bread sliced and 15 other clichés I can’t think of right now?
[Such and Such] posted a link to a speech Newt once gave that I really think you need to see. It will blow your mind. It will do your dishes. It will file your taxes. It will change your life. But, only if you are ready. If it doesn’t change your life you are probably confused. I hope while watching this video you invoke the spirit of Pocahontas, My Little Pony, Pokemon, Paul Bunyan, Paul Ryan, Nolan Ryan, Ayn Rand, Jar Jar, R2D2 and 15 other “cheerleady,” absolutely off-the-wall, inspirational figures- if you do this, you will realize that there is only one hope to save our souls, our lives, our economy, our environment, our minds, our receding hairlines and expanding waistlines, our children, our children’s children’s children’s children, our ancestors, their ancestors, puppies, kittens and apple pie. There is only one hope for America and that is Newt friggin Gingrich. etc. etc. etc.”
^^^That was tongue in cheek, I read (almost) every word you post here, do NOT take that personally. Moving on…
If Newt is the alternative to Romney, and he actually wins the primary, there is absolutely nothing I would feel threatened about. I cannot say the same for either Paul or Santorum, but please believe me (or don’t), when I say that, right now, Newt would be my second choice. This is, again, why I caution you not to read anger into my responses, this isn’t personal for me; politics hasn’t been personal to me for years and I urge you to get to this point in your overall political-psychological development, you will be healthier and happier for it.
I don’t want Romney to be the nominee, I think he will be the nominee. There is a difference. I see a marked difference in style and a marginal difference in substance between Mitt and Newt right now but only one is bringing home the bacon. I refuse to believe Romney will in any way resemble Obama in thought, word or deed and mentally reject the notion that they are one and the same. Obama threatens me far more than anyone on the right ever could. He is so far to the Left it does not matter to me if someone on this side of the aisle is perceived as being slightly closer to the center than anyone else; there is still a vast gulf that separates us from our real enemies. It’s a poor analogy but, much like the Irish, we will fight ourselves until the British show up. When they do, we will band together to beat them back. And we will fight the Brits until the Romans show up. When they do, we will band with the Brits to beat them back. When the Romans go home, we turn on the Brits, when the Brits go home we turn back on each other.
The crux of the matter for me is simple: The primary, in my opinion, is sport. It’s baseball. It’s play-by-play, tit-for-tat, popcorn chewing, bubblegum popping good fun. It sharpens our swords, hones our skills and prepares us for what really matters. We train on one another so we can wade right through the people who really threaten us.
The general election on the other hand? That is war. That is combat. That is tooth and nail, blood and guts, elbows and knees, winner-take-all, fight for your life, knock down, drag out WAR for me. Until we have a nominee I am not going to take any of this too seriously.
More windbaggery. And still no case for Romney.
There is none, and was never even a startegy or intent to make one. His primary campaign has been about nothing other than attrition-by-money and establishment muscle and avoiding risks.
As for the case against him, it has been made exhaustively and by many. How many times do you need the various citations: his 1 for 3 electoral record; his notorious depressions of voter turnout; his lackluster term in Massachusetts (Bill Weld the previous Republican governor balanced seven consecutive budgets and won relection with 65% of the vote while Romney couldn’t balance one and didn’t have the numbers even to attempt re-election); his Nixonian awkwardness and avoidance of the media; his prissy, weird petulance when pressed by even friendly reporters; his serial dishonesty which seems to compound daily and now includes lies about the funds he sought for the Olympics; his legendary flip-flops and vacillations; his disavowal of Reagan, his avowal of “progressivism”; his Nixonian awkwardness and avoidance of the media; his pathological risk-aversion…
“Somewhere along the line you got it in your head that you have to be either “excited” or “angry” to win an election. You don’t. All you have to do is show up.”
Internally incoherent. Why does one show up? Provide just one example in modern presidential history of a victorious candidate who could not and did not passionately or even effectively solidify his own base.
As for his money and organizational advantages? How many times do people need to make the point that they are nugatory against Obama. That is to say, the sole reason for his ability to pound Gingrich in Florida with mendacious carpet-bombing is canceled against Obama. Moreover, Obama will own 90% of the media, now silently sharpening their knives.
Against Obama, he’ll have only his wits, the puissance of GOP establishment and the passion of his constituency.
Oh dear.
If you say so Rave. I do trust you know what ah
…windbaggery… looks like, and in this instance will defer to your expert judgment.
As far as an argument “for” Romney, why would any fool even try to explain anything to you about anyone other than Newt here? Like it’s going to make a difference. Like your mind is open and your ears are willing to listen. Please. What’s awesome though is, even without the argument, and in spite of your assurances and predictions, Romney just keeps steadily marching on and some of you just become increasingly more shrill that it’s never going to happen, it’s never going to work. One of the reasons I actually like, genuinely like Hope Change on here is that he (she?) is more FOR Newt than they are against Mitt. You, you’re just angry and negative. Sure, you can make a “case” against Mitt, but you sure as hell can’t make one for Newt other than you reeeeeaaallly really really hope he beats Romney.
As far as the “base” goes, newsflash Raven, have you been paying attention to the exit polls lately? The rank and file Republican base doesn’t seem to have any problems with Mitt. If you aren’t part of that group, perhaps you aren’t part of the base but rather out there on the fringe, the rightmost wing. Just a thought…
A Parthian shot:Have you ever considered that the other candidates might have something to do with voter turnout too? That there is no need to turn out now because they know, no matter, what that they are going to vote against Obama? There are more people in the middle and on the Right who dislike Obama more than they loathe Mitt Romney. Sorry to burst your bubble, but recent polls actually show increasing voter enthusiasm. Give it a few months, wait until November and then we will talk.
I’m not making a case for Newt. I thought that was clear. I’m being openly and entirely negative. Romney is a loser and will lose. That’s my point.
Of course Romney goes marching on. Money pays for a lot of marching. Until it runs out.
And after “marching” for six years and with a 50-to-1 money advantage he struggles to put away “Shoestring” Rick Santorum in his home state. Yes, there stands a titan of electability.
Romney supporters constantly attempt to drag others into a abstract argumentative mire of “electability.” Polls are used as long as they serve the purpose (I recall a recent hiatus from poll references when Romney was tanking). But as there is no compelling evidence of Romney’s electability — (indeed, more evidence of his unelectability) — the argument shifts to the virtue of the “last man standing.” This was always the real strategy — to lie and buy the cachet of electability (inevitability). As we know, at a cost of $23 per vote in Iowa next to Santorum’s 70 cents per vote, and with God-only-knows what absurd disproportionate advertising advantage, he has paid for it dearly. But this is all that Romney is buying, and selling, or can sell. There is nothing else to the man.
So, it, i.e., Romney, won’t ultimately sell. In trying to imitate the Leftist technique he’s proved only that he’s a pale simulacrum, an apprentice to Obama’s sorcerer. In the end, more people will see the important distinction: Obama has actual conviction. Obama’s supporters understand that the compromises he makes and tacks he takes are purposeful and aimed at a final unifying goal of total statism. Conservatives, who are even more intuitively tuned to human character, have no such abiding faith in an countervailing conviction in Romney.
There is no evidence of a deeper inner life or purpose, a greater goal. Obama put himself on the line for Obamacare –risked it all (however duplicitously). Romney has never done anything like this in his political life. Romneycare wasn’t an ideological quest or sacrifice, it was a petition for progressive appeasement. With Romney, there is only this: the need, the ambition, the expedience, the weakness dressed up as reasonableness and mangerial pragmatism. With Romney, it is a “fierce weakness.” His only discipline is caution, a brittle discipline of fear and anxiety. Has there ever been a more profoundly and observably anxious and insecure politician? Nixon was a Nelson of leaderly cool by comparison. In my years watching and working politics I’ve never seen a more spectacular putz than Romney.
As improbable as it may seem, Obama is the more authentic. He also has more money, more passionate supporters and a ferocious phalanx of media support. A race with Romney is over before it starts.
Yeah yeah yeah. I know I know, I get it, the race is over because you say so.
Oh dear. It’s interesting. You note that we, Romney supporters, use polls to make a point when they do in fact aid our case, but that we are noticeably silent about them when they don’t- yet you fail to realize that both actions, citing a positive, and not citing a negative, point towards the relevance and salience of polling. This is only one, of a handful, of logical inconsistencies that you have exhibited over time but don’t let me confuse your dark little position with something as low and mean as logic and reason.
No matter what, you have firmly painted yourself into a logical and rhetorical corner with your bitter, anhedonic, we are all doomed, burn it all to the ground Eyoreisms. You can bet your angry ass as the extremism of your position is underscored and you are steadily proven wrong (even more than have been already), I will be over here smiling from ear to ear. Count on it.
Raven, I think Romney’s primarily trying to prove to his daddy that he’s a good boy.
WoodnWorld said: “The general election on the other hand? That is war. That is combat. That is tooth and nail, blood and guts, elbows and knees, winner-take-all, fight for your life, knock down, drag out WAR for me. Until we have a nominee I am not going to take any of this too seriously.”
This is what I think you are saying:
You will not test the weapon for accuracy, endurance, strength, sharpness, adaptability, resourcefulness, trueness, usefulness, viability or its other merits. Because the primary is just sport to you.
But then, with the possibly inferior equipment you have now received by happenstance, through “sport”; with whatever ammunition may or may not be there;
with whatever strategy, mainly to spend money; which however, will be woefully outspent in the fall; with this weapon, that has fallen into your hands as the result of a meaningless sporting contest,
WITH THIS WEAPON, which you did not test or carefully choose, that has never been used in a battle like this, that others are warning you is deeply flawed, WITH THIS UNTESTED WEAPON, you plan to go to ALL-OUT WAR?
I mean, I’m not ex-military, but I can think. That makes no sense.
On the other hand, here’s my story: I have tested, researched, read and thought and reviewed the record. And I support Newt. Newt has been tried and tested. I have chosen NEwt after deep and careful consideration.
The future is being created NOW. The ELECTION IS NOW. BECAUSE NEWT WILL BEAT OBAMA AND ROMNEY WON’T. The election is NOW.
Newt will win and that’s my goal, because Newt will reform Washington, D.C. And THAT is my goal: Reform the government and the Establishment.
Newt has strategy, intelligence, adaptability, responds well to changing situations, thinks on his feet, plans ahead and also improvises, understands the past and our history, is visionary about the future, and is doing this for good of the country.
And when we win with Newt, it won’t be a war. It will be an American campaign, for ALL Americans, based on the 80% issues, that 80% of the country agree on.
And yet heading into Super Tuesday Newt’s pulling less than 20% of Republicans nationally and is viscerally loathed by upwards of 80% of the rest of America. You missed my point up above by a mile: I see very little difference between Newt and Mitt on the issues. As of right now, only one of those two is proving they have what it takes to organize a winning campaign in the primary. Only one is proving he can win the support of voters from all across America. Newt has what? South Carolina? Georgia? Awesome. You tell me how he gets from here to Victory, tell me HOW Newt can win, why I am wrong, and I will listen.
In the meantime, as long as Mitt is winning without me, and winning in spite of you and yours, I see no need to make his “case” for him. He seems to be doing a fine job of that with the people who matter, the majority/plurality of primary voters.
People do change in their political opinions, and I don’t know how old that video of Romney is. It’s common knowledge among his supporters that he wasn’t always the conservative he claims to be now. The question is whether this is opportunistic posturing or represents a real change in belief.
Cofutus. yes, yes, that is the question. What do you think is the answer? Oh please.
I believe that it is real, althoug I could not prove it. I see a a collection of small indicators from his family life, his religion, his education, and his business and political background long preceding his presidential run that suggest that he is what he professes to be, as much as any fallible human can be.
Confutus. not Cofutus. sorry
If you want to understand the Institutional Republicans’ game plan, you have to start with an understanding of what their goals are. Trying to interpret their actions only through the lens of our goals just distorts our understanding.
Pretty much everybody here has a goal of:
1.) Defeating and removing Buraq Hussein Obama from office.
2.) Defeating and removing the influence of the totalitarian Left from our government and society. [I am speaking bluntly here, not in a “moderate” fashion.]
3.) Rolling back and correcting the damage done to the country by 1.) & 2.).
The Institutionals have two goals, one being a subset of the other.
A.) The maintenance of the current position of the Institutional Republicans’ portion of the joint Political Class that rules [word carefully chosen; “govern” in our system implies a degree of stewardship for the country that does not exist amongst them] the country. That position is knowingly subordinate to the totalitarian Left, but they believe that to be both personally profitable and secure. I compare them to the remora fish that hitch rides on sharks, profiting from the leftovers of the sharks’ kills and posing no threat to the sharks and not being at risk unless the sharks happen to turn their attention to them.
B.) A.) above requires the maintenance of control of the Republican Party against any insurgency of the base who have different goals AND who actually believe the stated [but ignored] tenets of the Republican Party. Provoking the base to to the point where they would actually leave would weaken the Institutionals to the point where the marginal utility of the Left keeping them as a facade will decline to the point where they will lose their privileged position of being “eaten last”. They are desperate to maintain control so that they can hold on to their positions in the Republican Party and not have their profitable but subordinate positions vis-a-vis the Left destroyed by any real reform that tends to move from “rule” to “governance”.
We are playing very different games, and there is no Unified Grand Theory that can reconcile them.
All of the following is predicated on the existence of actual elections in November 2012, with a degree of honesty and accuracy in the vote count sufficient to actually reflect the wishes of the electorate. The probability of the 3 does NOT approach unity.
I.) Purely by electoral mathematics, and the kamikaze nature of the Democrats’ support for anything Obama wanted [to the point of totally destroying the convenient facade of the existence of the mythical creature called a “Blue Dog Democrat”]; the Republicans would have to do something spectacularly stupid to avoid gaining the 4 seats necessary to take the Senate majority, even after Snowe tried to give her seat to the Left. That is still possible; but if they did such, it would provoke an open party split which would reduce their utility to the Left to the point where they themselves would be on the shark’s menu.
Winning the Senate by a small margin would serve goal A.) in that it would increase their relative power vis-a-vis the Left, without posing a real threat to them given their supine record. It may be more expensive to cut deals with the Institutionals, but the Left [and the Institutionals] believe there is an inexhaustible fountain of borrowed or taxpayer money available.
Since 2010, the Institutionals have deliberately maintained their subordinate status by refusing to fight and claiming that since they only control the House, they cannot put up a fight against the Left, even as the Left dismantles the Constitution. They can maintain that paradigm even if they win a small Senate majority.
It has been a tried and true tactic to have a number of Institutional Senators who can be expected to defect to the Democrats on any given vote of import. McCain is one, and his co-conspirators who helped the Democrats block judicial appointments are a good starting list. Judicious use of a rotating group of defectors will allow them to continue to claim that nothing can be done because they do not have sufficient control of the Senate. Of course, as any of the defectors come up for re-election, the Institutionals will pull out all the stops to make sure that no challenger succeeds.
II.) Since a Senate majority is a given, the last thing that the Institutionals want is to win the Presidency. Any Republican in the White House will totally destroy any excuse that the Institutionals have to not try to roll back Left’s actions. If they fail to do so, there will be a Third Party, and the Institutionals will be it, because their base will form the larger party. At the same time, if the Institutionals hold all three elected power centers; they will pose an existential threat to the Left, even if they have no intention of using it. Thus, the sharks will turn on the remoras.
George Will, coyly and not with total candor, is laying out the actual strategy of the Institutionals he supports. They have no intention of winning the presidency, thus the imposition of a candidate guaranteed to depress the base’s turnout and who if accidentally elected will pose no threat to the Left; having a perfect track record of running and governing from the Left.
When viewed through both lenses, the current situation suddenly makes a lot more sense.
It also explains the fact that the Institutionals at the National and State level are far more devoted to fighting the TEA Party/Patriot movement than they ever are to opposing Democrats. At the county level, the Institutionals are losing power [pesky elections of precinct chairs and thus of County Central Committees] so the field is more favorable there. I expect that in the aftermath of the loss of the presidential race the National party will attempt to push “reforms” to centralize control; but at that point the relevance of electoral politics will be somewhat lessened, and we will be concerned with other things.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur. yes. wow!
What you said.
Exponentially.
I don’t know where I’ve seen it set forth better. Thank you!
It costs nothing to vote. Ignore the polls, the partisans, the special interests, etc., and vote for the individual who maximizes the correlation with your principles. This technique is optimal (given limited or incomplete information) in engineering and there is no reason to believe the outcome will differ in a society.
Here’s the full video report on Romney’s cadging for federal money for the Olympics. Much more damning than the short clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_si-JVfhI&feature=g-logo&context=G27ac758FOAAAAAAAAAA
As you’ll see, he plainly lied in the debate.
What in the heck happened people? The tea party went to town hall meetings, rallies, wrote their congressmen and senators, and for what? Why isn’t there a movement to stop Mitt from getting this nomination? Where did you people go? Don’t tell me you are just going to sit there while someone who serially lies, flip flops and supports every liberal position under the sun, not to mention Obamacare, buys his way into the nomination!
Mitt’s only support is from fellow Mormons and people he has bought and paid for. That is it. That is his base. And we can’t fight this? Even a ham sandwich would be better than this guy. I can’t stand here and watch the Republican party commit suicide while the country goes down in socialist flames!
Stop the Insanity! Newt 2012!
Here’s another beauty. The case for Romney is unraveling.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/03/02/breaking-mitt-romney-urged-obama-to-embrace-the-individual-mandate/
Lol, again because you say so. Erick is just angry that the conservative electorate isn’t listening to him. So are a number of people here. “We had the keys to the kingdom! What. HAPPENED?”
Isn’t it funny that, after all of the concessions so far, and everyone that has dropped out, Erick chose Ace’s candidate, SMOD, over Newt Gingrich?
Erick:
Proving once again, the enemy of my enemy…
Oh, oh and Professor, I’ve been meaning to say, I see what you did there with the title, “shoot for the moon.”
Because NEwt said we should have a space program and return to the moon, and that would be like shooting for the moon, and yet there’s also a card game strategy called shooting the moon, right? — and so it’s like a play on words and all like that. Clever! Deep! Witty!
this must probly be the best blog evah.
“Clever! Deep! Witty!” … and “Underrated!”
oh yeah!
WoodnWorld | March 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Huh?
Still no case for Romney, I see.
I offered my opinion: Romney is a loser and will lose. That’s it.
You’re free at any time to detail my “handful of logical inconsistencies.” But I’m not sure you want to open the door on a comparative analysis. The rest if blather. I said nothing about polls other than to observe that it is Romney’s people always opportunistically hyperventilating about one or another poll — or remaining studiously silent when he intermittently tanks.
Pointing to polls is one more substitute for, or distraction from, an actual case for the candidate.
Further, how strong can these poll numbers be if a month ago Romney was badly trailing Santorum and three months ago badly trailing Gingrich?
Rather than anhedonic, I consider my argument totally hopeful. Only by discrediting, humiliating and purging the last of these elitist weasels and losers from our political culture can America recover. Romney is a relic of a moribund political class. If we haven’t kicked his craven, preppy loser ass by the convention, Obama will finish the job. Then we have a chance.
Yes, that’s all you have. An opinion. Nothing more. At some point you are going to have to come to grips with the, yes, fact that the majority of primary voters do not agree with you. Put another way, you are losing.
As I just said to Hope up above, I see no need to “make a case” for Romney, especially (and I cannot emphasize this enough) to someone like you. Without me, and in spite of you, Romney is doing a far better job making his case with the people who matter. Put another way, your opinion does not matter. You being actually right or secretly the smartest person in the class does not matter. The majority of Americans do not care what you think and until any of you can prove how Newt, the current loser, becomes a winner, I don’t care what you think or what you have to say about the primary.
You can try to spin your comment on polls and try to make it out as though Romney supporters are the only ones who intermittently use them but the facts are Newt supporters would use those same polls to make their case if they could, one, and two, the only reason why they don’t is because they can’t.
Given your penchant for opinions, and the unshakeable faith you place in your own, I can see why you would so flippantly dismiss the single, best quantifiable measures we have for a candidate’s predictive performance. You strike me as more of an emotion rather than reason, arts rather than sciences type.
Finally, an opinion of my own: I don’t think you are capable of analysis, either comparative or otherwise. 1st gear for you is inflated rhetoric. 2nd, “that’s just blather.” 3rd, “trrolllll.” You have no 4th, and certainly no intellectual “overdrive” that I can discern other than the ability to properly spell/punctuate. Reverse for you is, in spite of your being wrong about this, you are secretly right about everything else and, last but not least, your engine runs on “hopeful anger.” So yes, I’ll open that “door” any day of the week Raver.
I have no illusions that my opinion “matters.” I’ve observed that Romney is a loser and I maintain he will lose. Make what you will of this. I’ve provided what I believe to be a fairly solid and empirical litany of reasons why I believe this. The chief one: he’s a loser. He lost to McCain and Huckabee, as both played with him like two cats with a mouse before quartering him up for lunch. In his one clash with a Leftist he got clobbered, dropping 20 points in the polls after his final debate and his tone-deaf flailings. The man has never galvanized, moved or inspired a constituency with exciting growth potential or provided intellectual or polemical substance whatseoever to the conservative movement that I can detect. His anal and fearful strategy seems to be to be to say as little as possible and be the last man standing. He may succeed. But his failure to understand or, forfend, lead the seething and shifting forces within the country and conservative corpus will prove disastrous.
I admit I also personally despise him. I grew up in the Harvard culture with dozens of privileged, entitled daddy’s-boy preppy twits like Romney. No more of that for me.
I called you a troll because you represented yourself as a neutral above-it-all booster of the “best candidate” when you were anything but. The January 29th thread I cited earlier here embarrassing laid it out. Your “critique” of Romney was laughably transparent foolishness — definitive trollery.
You haven’t and evidently cannot make a case for Romney. You assert I won’t listen or am too afflicted with intellectual vanity or obduracy to comprehend. This is a boilerplate dodge. You refer to logical inconsistencies in my arguments but won’t cite them. You make other vague slurs and slights. Who cares, in the end, you don’t make a case for Romney.
It’s just this: I’ve never heard a cogent and persuasive argument for Romney, at least not one without the constitution of a gingerbread house. Instead I’m told to look at the polls, think on the basis of caution and calculation, tremble at the electoral dangers of right-wing extremism, weigh the importance of not scaring away “independents,” i.e., submissively worship at the false idol of electability. No one stands up and full-throatedly defends this guy as a champion of this or that belief in the manner that people do for Santorum and Gingrich. Meanwhile Hope Change tirelessly and with specifics exhorts the cause of Gingrich, a flawed man and candidate but a genuine and deeply thoughtful warrior.
Romney is a loser and will lose. Hold me to it.
Ok, got it. Besides the anger issue, and the possible inferiority issues, and the chip on your shoulder, you are right, everyone else is wrong. Roger that. For someone who despises elites as much as you claim, you certainly adopt the mannerisms of the class. As an unashamed, “Establishment elite” I know, I recognize the symptoms. In addition to having been surrounded by the same sorts you were growing up, I went to college at one of those ridiculously expensive private schools and had to put up with some of the same attitudes, but I am not bitter about it.
Ok, I’ll bite. Some recent examples:
“Move that goalpost as much as you like.”
-Romney’s a loser. If he does happen to win the primary, he is still a loser. If he, for some reason, by some miracle, does win the general, he is still a loser because we all lose, or something? Did I paraphrase that properly? Do I really need to highlight how ridiculous that sounds?
“A historical fallacy of sorts.”
-Mitt Romney lost to a Kennedy. In Massachusetts. He conceded to McCain, very graciously, well before he had to. Are those really the two biggest bullets in your “Loser Gun?” The two brightest observations you have made over all the years? It apparently doesn’t matter to you *how*, or *why* he lost, just *that* he lost. This is the basis for your calling him a loser. This is what you call an argument. Seriously?
“Argumentum e silentio”
-It’s not that you are too “intellectually vain,” but rather that you mask some of your ignorance with intellectualism. I *could* make a case for Romney, I could provide *my* reasons why I support him; I simply choose not to. Why would I? Why would I here? That’s what you don’t comprehend Rave. My silence on the matter, my not taking your cheap bait isn’t for want of ability, but rather my not caring enough to get that personal with someone who is, at the end of the day, not listening to anyone but himself/herself.
“The Burden of proof.”
-You don’t need to make a case for Newt or prove how he can win, but I must make one for Mitt and prove he’s not the loser you think he is? And you say I am dodging. You are holding me to a standard that you are somehow exempt from simply because you aren’t for anything and want to burn it all down to the ground. If you can show me how Newt can win, I will rise to the challenge and make my case for Mitt Romney. Hold me to it. Until then, get off the “make a case” schtick, it’s intellectually unbecoming.
I could go on and on and have a long list of some of your greatest hits to work with, fierce little rants I have been collecting over the last month or so, but to be honest, I am tired and the next couple days are going to be rough.
The only case anyone needs to make for Mitt Romney right now is that he is quietly kicking everyone’s ass. I don’t need the polls, although they certainly help. All I need to do is look at the delegate count. If trends continue, we are rapidly approaching case closed.
In January, I really was torn between Newt and Mitt. That was sincere and I don’t give a flying hockey puck whether you believe me or not. I will concede that people like you solidified my decision for me very rapidly when I realized many of you are more against Mitt than you are for another Republican candidate and, worse, that many of you are more against Mitt than you are Obama. There is a vast difference between Hope Change and you and I am happy to see that you see it as well. Hope stands for something, you apparently stand against everything.
Take the last word. If you post something I will come back and read it but I’m a little over this discussion and really want to move on.
For what it is worth Raven, I respect the fact that you keep coming back and (not even begrudgingly) admire your passion. I suspect only a small handful of us are paying attention to this thread any more and commend you on being here even though we probably don’t have an audience.
“Move that goalpost as much as you like.”
One goalpost: Romney will lose to Obama. He may also yet lose the nomination. That he’s even in doubt at this point of winning the nomination with the preponderant money and machine advantages he’s had for five years is rather incredible. That’s all I’ve said. Hold me to it.
“A historical fallacy of sorts.”
-Mitt Romney lost to a Kennedy. In Massachusetts… He conceded to McCain, very graciously, well before he had to… Are those really the two biggest bullets in your “Loser Gun?”
Disingenuous. The case for his electoral flaccidness and loser-ness has been made repeatedly (by myself and others) and the record involves more than losing to a Kennedy. He barely won his first term as governor (the lowest margin for victory of any republican who’d run in the modern era) against a no-name non-incumbent. With sinking poll numbers, he didn’t run for a second term. (In contrast, republican Bill Weld’s 65% victory for his second term). Ted Kennedy was at his lowest ebb in Massachusetts and was eminently beatable. Romney was even with him as late as September. He then collapsed. Failure in the clutch: that’s what makes a loser. He lost to McCain and Huckabee despite the same ridiculous advantages. We know as a fact his ratio of money spent to votes won is the widest gap in modern history. In any case, the loss to Kennedy is dispositive as Kennedy employed the Leftist tactics one can expect to see from Obama. Romney responded haplessly.
“Argumentum e silentio”
And I’m the one who uses intellectualism to mask inadequacies? “Argumentum e silentio”? You’re kidding, right? You’re making an argument by not making it because I’m unworthy to hear it? You “simply choose not to”? Yet you consume chunks of bandwidth with windy expatiations about why you’re not making the argument? Why would you make it “here”? Why not here? Isn’t that why “here” exists?
More incoherence: you don’t care about getting “that personal” but then get that personal lengthily explaining why you won’t get that personal.
And what is “personal” about making a case for Romney?
“The Burden of proof.”
I accept no burden. I’m being entirely negative. I said that upfront.
In any case, I’ve made the case for Newt at least a dozen times, and many others have as well and still do. NO ONE has made the case for Romney. Romneybots just keep churning the smug and self-pitying pot about how no one listens or we’re too stupid to understand and it’s beneath you to try.
“I could go on and on and have a long list of some of your greatest hits to work with, fierce little rants I have been collecting over the last month or so, but to be honest, I am tired”
But not tired enough to keep you from rambling about what you might do but are too tired to try.
“In January, I really was torn between Newt and Mitt…”
Sorry, not buying it. I’ve seen that faux neutrality shtick too many times. You were bearding for Romney.
[…] “But neither asks the question whether, if we are so sure to lose with our current top two choices, we should stop playing it safe and swing for the fences.” […]
I should add that Romney is a loser for far more reasons than bottom-line electoral outcome. He’s a metaphorical loser in his fearfulness and failure to defend and advance conservatism. He’s a loser by employing leftist tactics against fellow conservatives. He’s a loser by defending the media against Gingrich’s attacks — indeed, what greater loser could the Republicans put forward than a man who came to the media’s defense. At this fateful moment in history, at this point of conservative revival, there is no greater loser for us than Romney.