Image 01 Image 03



Six hours in the car alone with large gaps in radio coverage (or at least any radio you would want to listen to) can have a clarifying effect.

And so it did:

We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away.

It’s a good thing it wasn’t an 8-hour car ride, or I’d really be upset.

Update:  And who is leading us down this path? A conservative punditry which (in some cases) is a sad joke, like this, S.E. Cupp, Newt Gingrich, natural woman:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. No one in the modern era, save maybe Lorena Bobbitt, has proved the axiom more true than our gal pal Newton Leroy Gingrich, who is now — let’s face it — a woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

I don’t like to peddle in sexist stereotypes, but the poor girl is an emotional wreck, and needs an intervention. As part of the womanfolk clan myself, it’s therefore my duty to give Ms. Gingrich a serious reality check, and save her from herself. Because…I care.

Somewhere Meghan McCain is laughing.

Update No.2:  Santorum launches his first (?) attack ad on Romney after enduring days of Romney’s SuperPAC running attack ads against him:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Yep. Blows my mind.

Our option is a man actively trying to destroy America because it embarrasses him. We can balance Romney, but Obama won’t listen.

And yet, he is literally superior to the incumbent in every way possible.

Now, two words of wisdom: “Sirius XM.”

[…] Despair. Share this:TwitterMoreEmailFacebookPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]

TryingToBeHopeful | January 16, 2012 at 3:10 pm

Hi Professor – long time reader, first time commenter 🙂

Where did you get that quote? I’d like to use it but want to properly attribute it…

Thanks for your great blog and the clarity you bring to the critical (and other!) issues. I used to read Drudge every day but it seems so “National Enquirer” now compared to LI. And I LOVE Blogs I Read! All the good ones, right in one place 🙂

Anyway, keep up the great work! Conservatives, unite!!

StrangernFiction | January 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm

Embrace the suck!

Like I said many times, “Never again!”

I already knew all of this about Romney. I have 50 reasons why I would never vote for the man. He makes John McCain look like an actual constitutional conservative and that takes quite a bit of tom-foolery!

The idea that we can influence Mitt is crazy. He won’t even admit that Romney-care is a bad idea even though it would most likely help him immensely. The word for this is “ideologue” and we currently have another one of those in the White House…

If Mitt is the nominee I’ll be voting 3rd party.

    Never again says I. My wife told me today “lets not tell each other who we are voting for this year.” That is because she doesn’t want to tell me she is voting for romney. My response was if I vote for a liberal it will be a democrat.

9thDistrictNeighbor | January 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Upstate New York is a killer as far as radio is concerned (assuming that is where you were, Professor). We once (emphasis on once) drove to Elmira on Rte. 17. The only station we could get on the radio for an hour was broadcasting a high school football game, then we saw the lights of the game, then another hour of high school football play-by-play. We were reduced to making jokes about town names like Vestal and Horseheads….

Add the above to the supposed overwhelming desire of the people that our politicians get along and we have the makings of a minor impediment to the socialization of Amerika.

…a clarifying…

Yes, but. He (and his sons) have been campaigning for a decade, both overtly and behind the scenes. He’s been collecting IOUs from politicians in office in both parties. He has or has promised to connect them with campaign funding, PAC monies, corporate cronies, and media (over which he has a good amount of indirect control via Bain.) For those Dems who have decided they cannot stand Bobo but cannot directly do anything about that, he is the least noxious alternative. He doesn’t care what his positions are, or who his running mate is, or who his appointments are, and is willing to let the beltway and big state Republican orgs dictate this to him. Because he does have one thing he feels strongly about: he really, really wants to be prez.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    “he really, really wants to be prez.”

    Yep… and I have a feeling that what drives him is because his Daddy couldn’t be.

    Great. Another President with ‘Daddy’ issues. That’s exactly what we need. Ugh.

      My own armchair psychology makes me suspect it’s not about Daddy so much as living up to the Mormon leader religious superiority on Earth thing.

        andcar in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 4:01 pm

        I suspect you’re BOTH right.

        Whatever the case, Operation Counterweight is looking more and more like our only chance to salvage anything from this election, unless somebody manages to pull a 1980 Ronald Reagan and come up from behind.

          Dynamism in reply to andcar. | January 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm

          I don’t know that we have any real leaders left in this country who can pull off a Reagan II. Who has the brains, the charisma, the philosophy, and the experience to pull it off?

          Hence why I like Newt, because he seems to be among the last of a dying breed of capable statesmen.

          janitor in reply to andcar. | January 16, 2012 at 4:53 pm

          And, Dynamism: his positions are sincere, and he actually cares about this country.

    Mary Sue in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    “he really, really wants to be prez.”

    I agree with you. I would also like to know why strong conservative candidates don’t feel the same way. Ask yourself why they preach we are on the precipice of fiscal catastrophe yet don’t feel at least obligated to organize around a solid conservative candidate.

    Instapundit linked this post the other day that sums up the situation pretty clearly:

    The way the Republican party is set up in the primary system means that to even have a shot at winning it you have to be running for it years and years and years before the actual elections. That’s what Romney’s been doing. That’s the game and he’s got the pieces in place to win it. You may not like it, but, hey, change it or play it.

      andcar in reply to Mary Sue. | January 16, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      The reason we don’t have strong conservative candidates who really, really want to be prez is a less severe version of why the Libertarian Party will never be a major force in practical politics: people who are philosophically convinced that government is not the answer to the world’s problems tend to be uninterested in being a part of the government.

        Mary Sue in reply to andcar. | January 16, 2012 at 4:22 pm

        Hmmm maybe. Reagan ran and lost to Ford who then lost to Carter. He ran again and beat Carter in 1980. He persisted. Ron Paul is the energizer bunny of persistence. The key is finding one who will persist and can speak to the necessary coalitions to win.

        If you watch this fascinating but long Sean Trende video you will get a grasp of the thread of coalitions any candidate on the right or left will need to string together to win in 2012. He also has a pretty amazing analysis of Reagan’s coalition which seems to be a continuation of Eisenhower’s coalition. If you’re a political junkie it is an hour and 20 minutes well spent. I watched it 3 times so far. I think anyone who spends the time will come away with a fresh perspective on this election.

          andcar in reply to Mary Sue. | January 16, 2012 at 7:37 pm

          Sure we have candidates, occasionally even outlying good ones, but consider: in this country, self-identified conservatives outnumber liberals 42% to 21%. If we outnumber them 2:1, then why is the balance of power as defined by overall direction of government almost always in their favor?

          It’s because they’re better at politics. That’s not at all surprising when you remember that they BELIEVE in government. Their participation in government has a positive motivation, whereas those of us who agree with Ronald Reagan that “government is the problem” have a negative motivation. Setting aside which group is actually right, positive motivators are usually more powerful psychologically.

        punfundit in reply to andcar. | January 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm

        In other words, we do not yet have a genuine Tea Party Movement candidate.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to andcar. | January 16, 2012 at 5:51 pm

        It’s true those like Dr. Paul who want to see 80+ years of governmental accretion removed don’t like getting involved in groups. But another reason is, between the press picking sides and being ugly, and the intricacies of election law including campaign financing law, disclosures, etc., it’s just too nasty and risky to get involved. Too easy to make mistakes that can unjustly cost you your reputation.

        I am NO gringrich fan, but the fact he had been tarred and feathered because he taught a COLLEGE CLASS would shock ANYONE from the United States who lived in the 19th century. Not comparing Gringrich with Tom Jefferson, but can you imagine passing up an opportunity to take a class taught by President Jefferson?!?!

        It’s self-preservation folks want to maintain.

      janitor in reply to Mary Sue. | January 16, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Yes. The saddest part is that Romney is not even personally liked.

      I would point out to the politicos in both parties who have subsumed their convictions with the rationalization that once in office, Romney will be easy to get along with and compromise, and keep promises, and so forth:

      I doubt that Romney cares whether he serves one or two terms. He wants the prez label. His actions in his one prior office don’t count; that was a stepping stone. He has had this vision of himself since childhood, dressing and acting like an dork with a sense of innate superiority and entitlement.

      Nice? Compromising? Weak? This is a man who has had a ruthless business career in which he did not keep promises, and who habitually talks out of both sides of his mouth. Don’t mistake hedging nonsubstantive flipflopping blather for being mealy. His campaign has been long, calculated, and vicious. Wishy-washy is a false meme. It should be con-man.

      Romney has not demonstrated public convictions of any sort, support for any causes, or any significant philanthropy relative to the amount of wealth he has amassed. Not even military service. He received a deferment as a religious “minister”, “lying for the Lord”. He has no track record or qualifications (legacy university admissions, and the ability to buy the grunts to analyze for Bain investments which mostly produced nothing of value, but were schemes to divert American wealth, in many cases right out of the United States of America.)

      The prime reason to vote ABO is Obamacare. But forget help from Romney on that. I would prefer four more years of lame duck Obama to the possibility of eight years of Romney. If the country is going to tank, let it tank under Obama. Plus, a second term might allow adequate time to impeach him and uncover some of his malfeasances and misrepresentations for posterity.

        punfundit in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 4:50 pm

        But there are Supreme Court nominations to consider…

        All the more reason to get on board with Operation Counterweight. Hire a Senate which will actively and effectively block left wing activist judges. Guess what, folks, the Supreme Court *can* function effectively with less than nine robes. Not only that, hire a Congress which will effectively eviscerate the activist, arrogant, overbearing judiciary.

        StrangernFiction in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        Very good comment janitor. This notion that Romney is a nice guy is absurd. But the way things are going, absurd seems to be the norm.

    gabilange in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Really, really, really, and truly. Willard’s seeming more and more like Bobo II to me, but that’s silly for me to say since I cannot stand to look at or listen to him. Wait, that’s the same with Bobo I. They are starting to get confused in my mind.

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Missed in hours seven and eight: Romney is repeatedly stating that the economy is getting better. No. Really.

Mama said there’d be days like this.


Newt Derangement Syndrome achieves Full Shrill.

“We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away.”

Can some super-PAC please make an ad out of this? You’re on fire Professor.

In spite of all the claims of Romney’s electability, I am coming to the conclusion that Romney is basically a clone of Obama. If Romney is elected, he will return to who he is and he will govern like Obama. I am not even sure he will move against ObamaCare.

As Glenn Reynolds points out, the only advantage is that, as a Republican, Romney will get more scrutiny.

    Dynamism in reply to RickCaird. | January 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    In addition to that, Romney would hollow out and undermine the conservative movement for years to come (though this is really a moot point, considering he’s a sure-loser against Obama).

    At least having another 4 years of Obama might swing the pendulum back for real this time, since I guess people didn’t learn their lesson sufficiently from the lumps of ’08. Rather than the kind of ‘managed decline’ Romney would enable.

    And yes, I’ll be voting 3rd party—probably Libertarian—if Romney’s the nom.

    gabilange in reply to RickCaird. | January 16, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Wow, Rickcaird, I hadn’t seen what you just said, but see above in response to Janitor, e.g. that Willard is Bobo II.

    StrangernFiction in reply to RickCaird. | January 16, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    “I am not even sure he will move against ObamaCare.”

    It doesn’t take a genius to see that Romney is going to reach out to the ‘rats and “fix Obamacare.”

    I am coming to the conclusion that Romney is basically a clone of Obama

    Perhaps this bumper sticker will make it clearer.

The data charges from your wireless carrier would probably cost more than XM Radio and you would kill your Droid battery unless you spent more on a automobile charger.

Move to a civilized state where they play real football and create a regular sports section on your blog. It will be less painful than voting for Romney…

Yes, step aside for a moment and the insanity — or pathology — hits you. How could a person such as Mitt Romney even be contemplated? The only answer as I see it is sickness. This is where the GOP has been heading for a while, no? Their death in 2012 at the hands of Romney is the natural outcome. I’m not sure they even want to win — they certainly don’t to win with a true conservative.

    ntamulis in reply to raven. | January 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    The concern is that a true conservative CAN’T win. Whether that is accurate is up to debate, but that is the thought process. Adding to this fear is the desire to appeal to an incredibly liberal media, and you get watered down mealy-mouthed candidates.

    Is Romney better than Obama? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Romney is not really conservative, no… but he’s not a Marxist, right? The problem is that both party’s have become statist. Both think that the government is the answer to the problem. They both want to solve the problems of the world with government, just have different ways to do so. Ultimately though, both are going to wear away at liberty.

    If anyone reading this doesn’t vote for the Republican candidate though, realize you are going to be standing by watching Obama accelerate the erosion. Romney, Gingrich, it DOESN’T MATTER… We need a conservative Congress. We need to spread conservatism to friends, family, and neighbors.

    We are probably doomed. But I refuse to help press the gas.

      punfundit in reply to ntamulis. | January 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      The problem with the notion of appealing to the dinosaur establishment media is that they focus on *convincing* the dinosaur establishment media, which will *never* happen. Reagan wisely bypassed the media and took his message to We The People.

      janitor in reply to ntamulis. | January 16, 2012 at 8:02 pm

      I suspect that the anti-Romneys are not a minority faction of the Republican party. Given that, in some ways selecting a candidate might be likened to a bargaining situation. If the process has become coercive and intractable, saying one “disagrees” but will “go along” with whatever the other side demands (in this case Romney) is the essence of throwing away all possible bargaining power. At a point in a negotiation like this, the best hope for getting movement is not to be agreeable, but to stand up and start walking away from the table.

        janitor in reply to janitor. | January 16, 2012 at 8:07 pm

        (My point being that we should be doing this with Romney. If he ends up the candidate anyway, it should not hurt him in the general election, but be a selling point, that the extremist Republican whatevers did not want him.)

    donb in reply to raven. | January 16, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    The Republican Establishment is doing their best to make their party irrelevant. (Why not just have their guy Mitt call up his old friends at Bain and engineer a merger with the Democrats?)

      donb in reply to donb. | January 16, 2012 at 10:37 pm

      You know, they could probably get the Socialists, Working Families Party, Communists, etc. to join the merged group and try to establish a truly Marxist “post-partisan” ( to use Obama’s 2008 phrasing) one party system. After all, I’m pretty sure the courts would hold that anti-trust laws only apply to evil corporations and not to utopian politacal groups.

[…] Professor Jacobson with Clarity on Mitt Romney… […]

SE Cupp admits she suffers from female hysteria, making her somehow qualified to judge Newt regarding some perceived breakdown, yet Ms Glenn Cupp-Beck doesn’t recognize her own hysteria when it comes to her anti-Newt derangement. I hope she can get her hormone levels straightened out so she can think clearly and get away from the negative influences at her place of employment.

Subotai Bahadur | January 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm

If it comes down to Obama -v- the White, Mormon Obama [note, that is purely an accurate description and is sarcasm in that Romney’s politics are opposite of the politics of the Mormons I know and admire]; I will be writing in Sarah Palin and Allen West at the top of the ticket in the full knowledge that it will not even be counted. I will vote for Patriots down ticket. Of course by that time I will no longer be a Republican, since my entire family will be changing to “unaffiliated” the first business day after Romney is nominated.

Subotai Bahadur

    gabilange in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | January 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    I will wait to change affiliation to Independent until after the primary, so that I can vote for the Repubs. in the New Mexico closed primary. I hope Gov. Palin does not endorse Willard. Good write-in idea.

RefudiateObama2012 | January 16, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Earlier today, Jedediah Bila tweeted this: “In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr.

It almost sounds like he’s talking about how the GOP has treated and continues to treat Palin, doncha think?

The media thinks we’re stupid. The (leaning right) punditry thinks we’re stupid. They’re right about most of us. We keep proving it.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 16, 2012 at 4:24 pm

I’ve voted Republican in every presidential election since 1984 (I threw my vote away and voted Libertarian in 1980).
In the years there were contested primaries, my conservative nominee always lost but I went ahead and voted for the establishment candidate nominee in the general.

However, I’ve said that voting for McCain in 2008 was the hardest vote I’ve ever cast (if Palin were not on the ticket – I surely would have stayed home). I vowed then that if the GOP ever nominated an equally flawed candidate in the future, I would not vote for him.

And here we are – the very next presidential election cycle.

Since then I convinced myself that it’s worth it to vote for even a flawed Republican if only for the judicial nominations. After all, the Democrats would not have the gall to filibuster Willard’s judicial nominees the way they did Dubya’s, right? Actually, I have such low regard for Democrats that I think they probably will.

So, is it worth to compromise my principles to vote for a guy that’s been on every side of every issue if it’s unclear the Democrats will confirm most of Willard’s judicial nominees if he somehow manages to get himself elected?

It’s not an easy answer, and one I am really going to struggle with. It’s hard, psychologically, knowing that if I refuse to vote for Willard, it may lead to 4 more years of BHO which will ensure, without a doubt, that Obamacare will never be repealed. And at that point, VAT taxes are next and we will be stuck in permanent decline – with a Europeanized, no growth, stagnant undynamic economy and perpetually high unemployment. It’s depressing.

    Focus on the Congressional, state, and local elections. Promote and support worthwhile candidates in those races. The Senate is up for grabs this year. Put more conservatives/libertarians in state houses and city councils.

    (Operation Counterweight)

Too many are drinking the Romney Kool-Aid of inevitability the same way they drank the Obama Kool-Aid in 2008, even Huntsman as we saw earlier today. Unfortunately, it will only lead to more of the same type of non-governance and incompetancy. If Newt makes it to the convention and becomes nominee, he has my vote.
Meanwhile, looking forward to see what happens in the SC debate tonight.

Just sent an email to INFO-at-WINNINGOURFUTURE-dot-COM – Newt’s Super-PAC.
Here is what I sent. Maybe others could send an email out to them. You know, get the ball rolling.

WinningOurFuture: Someone please read and create commercial ad ASAP. Romney SUCKS!
We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away.

Somewhere Meghan McCain is laughing.

Bill Jacobson has an irrational and twisted HATRED toward Mitt.

He wrote:

‘We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan,”

Er um… so did GHW Bush and Dubya Bush.

If Romney was better than McCain in 2007 and in 2008 – years after Romneycare was passed… if Rush and Levin and and Hannity and Coulter could endorse him then, then they can now.

And Coulter has. Ditto Ayotte and Haley and Thune and Issa and Bolton – all of who have better conservative cred’s then the once once pro-Perry once pro-Cain once pro-Newt now pro-Santorum Jacobson.

If Jacobson is so smart, then why didn’t he see Cain’s 999 plan as the joke it was!?!?

It was such a bad stupid ill-thought-out plan that in 10 days Cain had to modify it to a 099 plan.

If Cain was smart, then he’d have vetted the plan and seen the problems with it before announcing it.

If Jacobson was smart, then he would have seen it.
I saw it at once it was a stupid plan and posted on it.
Jacobson never did.

But smart Bill Jacobson says we shouldn’t vote for Romney.
I think Bill Jacobson is a dolt when it comes to politics and should stick to posting jpegs of bumper stickers.












    Karen Sacandy in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 5:42 pm

    I sincerely hope Prof. Jacobson removes reliapundit’s crass, uncouth and vulgar posting.

    If you wish to disagree you should do it civilly. Particularly on HIS blog. Insulting people you should do on your own dime.

      William A. Jacobson in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 16, 2012 at 7:28 pm

      Don’t get upset, he’s just making a fool of himself. It’s a reaction I’m seeing quite a lot. I’ve never said anything about hating Romney, in fact I’ve said over and over that I have nothing against him personally. I just think he is a fundamentally (heh) flawed candidate whose flaws have been hidden by a fawning conservative media who are misguided as to his electability versus Obama.

      As to “the once once pro-Perry once pro-Cain once pro-Newt now pro-Santorum Jacobson” — well he got 1 of 4 right.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to William A. Jacobson. | January 16, 2012 at 7:51 pm

        Okay, I’m sure I should already know this, but which of the four is correct?

          Prof. Jacobson supports Newt.

          reliapundit in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm

          professor jacobson has DEFENDED all four – REPEATEDLY, and in the English language I was taught DEFEND is a form of SUPPORT.

          newt has flip=-flopped as much as jacobson purports Mitt has so it is very weird that he and all you guys don;t see that is a problem as far as Newt goes, but only as far as Mitt.

          Cain was an awful flipper too.

          But BJ never complained about it, as far as I could tell.

          So – for holding Mitt to a different standard than the folks he supports/defends – I consider Jacobson to be a highly UN-reliable observer or commentator on the election.

          punfundit in reply to Karen Sacandy. | January 17, 2012 at 10:43 pm

          Have you taken your Ritalin today?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    reliapundit reminds me of the Ron Paul kid, Scottinwisconsin, the way they both scream and yell and call people names, thinking, I suppose, this is how you change minds. Worst. Salesmen. Ever.

    Dynamism in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Wow, what is wrong with you?

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Well… after reading through that rather screeching comment, I noticed three things.

    1.) reliapundit either has a defective keyboard or he really, really likes the ‘Caps Lock’ key.

    2.) reliapundit is a really big fan of ‘strawman’ arguments. There was so much straw in his screed I was afraid of developing an allergic reaction.

    Oh, and Romney being ‘better’ than McCain is akin to saying: “having gonorrhea is ‘better’ than having syphilis”… I’d rather have neither, thank you very much.

    3.) reliapundit didn’t actually refute any of the points that Professor Jacobson noted. Especially RomneyCare.

    Reduced to its basic elements, the totality of his argument seems to be “because I said so, that’s why!”

    punfundit in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    I see mommy isn’t watching her little boy while he plays on the internets.

      reliapundit in reply to punfundit. | January 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm

      i’m in m y mid 50’s.

      decades ago i helped pay for my brother when he went to med school.

      when my father got alzheimers i supported my mother covering her additional expenses and spending 99% of my free time helping her and my father. for a decade.

      now she is unfirm – with a heart condition HBP and diabetes, and i help care for her.

      i spent the weekend tending to her because she also had a terrible virus.

      so you and the other as**oles at this blog can stop with the idiotic off-the-mark vitriol.

      i stand by the substance of my original comment.

      folkks who are ABMitt are the morons, not me.

      anyone who thinks mitt is no better than obama is a moron.

      a dangerous one.

      gerard vandderleun said it best:

      This is not a “Vote-For” election. This is a “Vote-Against” election. This is not a “Sit-It-Out-And-Pout” election. This is a “Get-Obama-Out” election. That is what it is about and that is all it is about.

    Ediv710 in reply to reliapundit. | January 16, 2012 at 8:33 pm

    He definitely touched a nerve with you. The truth is that the GOP is a stupid party, mostly made of silent and timid conservatives and party-men like Reliapundit. In 2008, a man who openly despised conservatives, who constantly sided with Democrats, and who insulted GOP leaders, ended up as the GOP nominee. I’m not sure what the solution is, other than to have conservatives stop being so timid, but nominating Romney is about as destructive as one gets.

[…] Legal Insurrection, The Santorum campaign is fighting back with this ad comparing Romney to […]

Henry Hawkins | January 16, 2012 at 7:54 pm

lol….. reliapundit says Mitt hasn’t flip-flopped, he’s simply become more conservative over the years, just like reliapundit has. Mitt & reliapundit, peas in a pod. Now I’m confused. Does he want us to vote for Romney or not?

Romney is the natural product of a GOP establishment confounded and passive-aggressively enraged by the tea party, and awed and traumatized by the Left’s ballsiness and success. That is, Romney is big “f*ck you” to the grassroots, as well as a pathetic imitation of Leftists who pushed so hard for Obama in 2008. These GOP elites think that by pushing a mealy-mouthed moderate as hard as the Left pushed their extremist Obama they can tap into the same success. It really is pathetic.

The healthy, confident response to Obama would have been to promote and push a bold, contrasting, in-your-face conservative. But that’s not even close to possible with these sad little figures. Pushing Romney so aggressively gives them the chance to apologize for conservatism on one hand (because that’s how they really feel) while pretending to be strong and decisive on the other. In fact, they’re running in fear from their ideological traditions. And so they will lose – badly and deservedly.

[…] Legal Insurrection. “We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the […]

[…] Legal Insurrection, The Santorum campaign is fighting back with this ad comparing Romney to […]

999. you defended this moronic plan. what does thatb say about your intelligence?

and you defended cain’s serial sex harassing. that was immoral.

and you and your comment herd criticize me!?

that’s a HOOT!


for your gang of idiot defenders: i am still a registered dem. got a b.a. & an m.a. from major universities. am in my mid 50’s. a manhattanite.
have been for 30 years.

(i am a registered dem because in nyc the dem primaries are for all intents and purposes the election.)


i was praying perry would be our answer this year based on his fine record, but he’s a loser on the campaign trail.

and you are an anyone but mitt guy. which makes you as dumb as the morons at weasel zippers.

oh and please mr lawyer genius, tell me how romneycare is a “government takeover of healthcare”.

was it a 2000 page law?

doesn’t the fact that he passed a major healthcare reform bill make him the BEST critic of obamacare with the MOST credibility on the issue? especially with independents who will determine who out next president is?

i think it does.


i criticize anyone i see needs it: obama, bush – even bigtime bloggers like you.

what, are you somehow sacrosanct and above criticism?

if you dish it out, then you must take it.

oh, and btw: you did use a wordpress product and that info did appear on your blog at the time i argued for a boycott of wordpress because they banned the BNI. you have since deleted it, it seems. my position was and remains that anyone who is using or promoting wordpress should be boycotted.

Free us from the South Carolina Five…

I didn’t watch last night’s debate. Stacy McCain live-blogged on-site, The Daley Gator caught Ron Paul in another lie, and Professor Jacobson sums up my impression of the trainwreck that is Mitt Romney’s impending nomination….

[…] The Case Against Romney, Summed Up: Filed under: Lunacy — Leave a comment January 17, 2012 We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract … […]

[…] look over at Wyblog, Chris raises some great thoughts Professor Jacobsonsums up my impression of the trainwreck that is Mitt Romney’s impending […]

[…] in South Carolina: Dumb rednecks don’t read The NY Daily News and didn’t know that Newt’s just a “woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown”: Reply With […]