Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Romney starts war in Republican Balkans

Romney starts war in Republican Balkans

I have been trying, as best I can, to sound the alarm about the damage being done by the scorched earth tactics of the Romney campaign and its supporters in the Republican political and media establishments.

The effort long ago left the political realm and has devolved into a collective settling of decades-old communal scores.  Romney very adroitly has exploited to his advantage some of the deepest intra-Republican personal and emotional grievances and grudges.

As reported by Zeke Miller at BuzzFeed (h/t HotAir):

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.”

Humiliation, not mere electoral defeat, appears to be the goal.  Much as among warring communities in the Middle East and the Balkans, Romney supporters even have sought to deprive Newt of his own history.

Last night I posted Romney is winning his battles, but losing our war, about how Romney is tearing apart a very fragile coalition which will not easily be put back together anytime soon.

This election did not have to turn so destructive.  As in 2008, going negative was a conscious decision by the Romney campaign in response to an opponent rising on a positive message in Iowa.  The problem, it seems, is not with the opponents, but with the way in which Romney runs campaigns.

Mark Levin, who supports Rick Santorum, has been a voice of decency and clarity as to the attacks on Newt.  Mark has just published a note on Facebook which gets to the heart of the problem, Character matters and Romney’s worries me (emphasis mine):

I am beginning to think that the nature and level of attacks being launched by Mitt Romney against Newt Gingrich, which he would surely use against any conservative threatening his nomination, are going to make it very difficult for Romney to unite the different factions of the GOP and the conservative movement behind his candidacy should he win the nomination.  While I have said that I would vote for Rick Santorum, I am appalled at the “anything goes” assault on Gingrich.

Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism.  Even many years after the success of the Reagan administration, he sought to distance himself from Reagan and the GOP, self-identifying as a progressive and independent.  Thus, he resorts to spending multi-millions of dollars trashing his opponents, rather than providing thoughtful arguments on conservatism and constitutionalism.  Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him.  Romney declined.  I have no doubt that Romney would do the same thing to Santorum if Santorum was rising in the polls, albeit on different issues.

I have said that Romney is in many ways Richard Nixon, and that Romney would not successfully lead efforts to repeal Obamacare but, in fact, would grow the federal government in many respects.  Romney’s advisor, former senator Norm Coleman, has now said as much.  That is Romney’s record.  Despite having been a businessman, he was not a defender of free market capitalism while governor.  Romneycare is, as Santorum pointed out, a top-down government health care system with an individual mandate that is breaking Massachusetts’ treasury and destroying private health insurance.  It is a disaster.  Romney also backed cap-and-trade and TARP (as did Gingrich).

My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction.  Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney’s financial advantage will be non-existent.

We better start paying a lot more attention to holding the House of Representatives and winning the Senate with a bunch of solid conservatives.  I have spent a year on my radio show identifying and interviewing these candidates, and will continue to do so.

Thank you Mark (and Sarah).  With your broad audience (and most recent bestseller!), hopefully someone will listen before it is too late, if it is not too late already.

I’ve been struggling to come up with a good analogy.  Perhaps this works.  I’ve dealt with many businessmen who just can’t leave the last nickel on the table; they not only have to get a favorable deal, they have to get a deal which humiliates those on the other side of the transaction.

I don’t know if Mitt Romney was the type of businessman who could not leave the last nickel on the table.  But that is the way he is running his campaign.

And we will all pay the price for it.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I don’t think it will make much difference to have more Rs in the House and the Senate if Romney’s the nom. Hacks like Boehner and McConnell will just be complicit with Romney, and arguably make things worse.

    ID_Neon in reply to Dynamism. | January 29, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    It is time we form a Christian Party with the highest of standards for the party leadership. Not in their morals but in their profession of the Lordship of Christ over this Earth! Only that way will we resist the powers of Satan that control the elites. It is as the founding fathers intended!

    This is not to say a theocracy, but a higher standard for our elected officialsthat the United States may be the Kingdom of God, and continually Blessed!

      Anchovy in reply to ID_Neon. | January 29, 2012 at 6:00 pm

      No thanks.

      Dynamism in reply to ID_Neon. | January 29, 2012 at 6:31 pm

      Not into theocratical political parties, sorry.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to ID_Neon. | January 29, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      God has given us governments because once we were stupid enough to ask for a king, like the heathen nations. Besides, Jesus Himself laughs in your face because His kingdom is not of this world. He refused to govern this kingdom of the left. The nature of man is such that no theocracy is good since men are the ones running it. Will everyone need a religious ID card?

      Let me stop trying to be polite. This is a seriously stupid idea?

Newt Gingrich: ‘”I Will Go All the Way to the Convention. I Expect to Win the Nomination’ (VIDEO)

http://tinyurl.com/7fk6vvu

I know people who are beginning to actually hate McRomney, to the point where I doubt they’ll be able to even hold their noses and pull the lever for him if he’s the nominee. And these people held their noses and voted for McCain. He’s losing a lot of good will.

    Valerie in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 6:39 pm

    That’s me you’re talking about.

    Count me in that group.

    RickCaird in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Kitty, that is exactly the way I feel. Living in Florida, I am seeing first hand the “Sherman’s march through Georgia” being run by Romney. I have come to detest hi as much as I detest Obama. If Romney were to win the nomination, I will vote for the Libertarian candidate. Romney is a mini Obama.

    ECM in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 6:55 pm

    I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m one of those people that held my nose on McCain, but I’m dangerously close to not being able to do so for Romney.

    Dynamism in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    A few months ago, I would’ve been able to hold my nose and vote for Romney with the attitude of, “yeah he sucks, but whatever it’s better than Obama.”

    I’ll never vote for Romney now though. I’ve a visceral disgust towards him that isn’t going to go away.

    I actually find myself liking Obama more than I do Romney, and that’s pretty sad.

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    I think I have it figured out. A poll last week said that when people were asked about their approval of Obama’s performance, something like only 12% of Republicans approved while 80-something% of Democrats approve.

    Willard’s campaign believes they can take the base for granted. They are betting that no matter how horribly Newt (or Santorum) is treated in the primaries (and by extension their supporters), we’ll still turn out to vote for whoever has the “R” next to his name because we want Obama to lose so badly. In fact, if Newt is really despised so deeply by independents, then destroying Newt may actually help Willard with independents.

    The key to the strategy’s success is believing we stupid rednecks in flyover country hate Obama so much we’ll pull the lever next to whoever has an “R” next to their name, even if that person has been treated like crap to get the nomination.

    dwlayman in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    “dittos” in spades… I voted for McCain, because of Palin. Up to now, I was a firm ABO .
    Romney is making it very, very, very, VERY difficult….
    God have mercy on us all.

    ldwaddell in reply to Kitty. | January 29, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    I too am against Mitt Romney to the point that I will refuse to vote for him if he is nominee. I have decided that if Mitt is the nominee I will vote third party and go with the Constitution Party. Because my state in a closed primary I will remain registered as a Republican just so I can vote against Mitt. After the primary I will re-register as an independent as a protest against the GOP. I have written letters to the Republican National Committee, Mitt Romney and state Senator, Jim Inhofe, expressing my disgust with the GOP and Mitt Romney for the dirty campaigning they have engaged in.

    PatriotGal in reply to Kitty. | January 30, 2012 at 2:52 am

    I can’t stand Romney either!! What he is doing to Newt Gingrich is completely disgusting. Do you really think he’ll win in Florida?? It seems to me that the people of Florida would see how he absolutely destroys anyone who gets in his way (sounds like Obama, doesn’t it?). There is a very fundamental difference between Newt and Romney. Romney is running for himself, whereas Newt is running for his (and our) children and grandchildren. That speaks volumes to me and I really do believe that Newt would gather a wonderful team (Perry, Cain, Palin, West, etc.)to really put America back on track. I pray that this will happen!

From Iowa to Florida, Mr. Romney has shown himself to be a fundamentally dishonest person.

    I agree. Because Mitt is a fundamentally dishonest person, he’s ran a dishonest campaign.

    We already know that he will say anything to win, and unfortunately, it is memorialized in print and video.

    When we examine his business record, we will discover that he was willing to do anything to make a buck.

    Mitt’s record contradicts his every utterance, which is why the Romney surrogates and supporters are left with flogging the blogs and the news media with false narratives 24/7.

    Unfortunately for Mitt, all of the distortions, deflections, half-truths, untruths, and false narratives will collapse of their own weight once they’re exposed to the light of examination.

    In other words, Mitt Romney is a total phony who is running as fast as he can to stay just ahead of being exposed for the phony he is.

    janitor in reply to Samuel Keck. | January 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm

    Mean, selfish, dishonest and a fake.

    I am almost to the point at which I’d vote for Barack Obama instead of not voting. 4 years of the devil that you know versus 8.

      I hope you or others don’t reach that point….as much as I abhor Romney, he is the lesser of our choice of devils…as reference I refer you to the professor’s contributor, Louis R. Lombardi’s post today.

      McCoy2k in reply to janitor. | January 29, 2012 at 6:48 pm

      I’m ready to focus on electing conservative and Tea party people Republicans (or Independents, or if they are sincerely conservative – a Democrat or two) to the state and federal level.

      If enough people follow this logic, either with Obama or Romney BUT especially with Obama, we would be denying the President the confirmation votes in the Senate for Supreme Court appointments. Imagine not only of obtaining a filibuster proof Senate, but a veto-proof Congress.

      A veto-proof Congress = the votes would be there for impeachment; which would hold either Obama’s or Romney’s feet to the fire.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d prefer Obama to be reelected, than to elect a liberal Republican whose policies as faux-conservative President would further discredit the conservative brand and movement; it would set the movement back at least a generation.

      I know what it sounds like, but there is very real logic behind wanting Romney to lose to Obama.

Buchanan put himself in the Mitten’s Myrmidons ranks…and I DO mean ranks…today.

That makes the roster of GOP losers from recent presidential elections pretty much in lock-step with Mittens.

Impressive…

At the beginning of the primary I, like many others, said that my preference is not Mitt Romney but I would vote for him if he wins. But after witnessing the conduct of him and his followers, I’m seriously contemplating changing my mind. I may write someone in. I’m starting to develop a visceral hatred for the man.

    I’ve stated myself that if the choice is between Rino Romney and Pres. Obama, I will vote for neither. Romney has no way of getting my vote and I can’t trust Obama not to continue tearing up the country.

    I would have voted for Romney with much reservations just to get Obama out. But to say you don’t just want to win but destroy someone goes beyond the boundaries of competition and just plain decency.

    Speaker Newt Gingrich said from the get go that he wanted it to be a clean, positive primary. As soon as Romney sank in Iowa polls, he got nasty. Romney is a liberal. He is not nearly the patriot, intellect or statesmanship of Gingrich. As far as I’m concerned a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. So I’ll vote for no one thank you unless Gingrich wins. I’ll not support the establishment power brokers.

P.S. I may write something soon about the Newt backlash. Palin’s detractors could not help themselves from beating her until they evoked sympathy and outrage in observers. I really, really hope this is going to happen with Newt.

Henry Hawkins | January 29, 2012 at 5:32 pm

I hope we are all keeping a record of those who are lending support to this travesty of a campaign being waged by Romney, with a keen eye to those from our respective home areas. Obama’s bigger travesties since 2009 are so many that I struggle to recall the many midling and small travesties, and I don’t ever want to forget precisely who in the media, culture, and in office supported Romney’s lying attack strategy against any and all challengers, especially against Newt Gingrich. At some point in the future they’re going to want our support on something, hoping we’ve forgotten what happened over the winter of 2012 – revenge is a dish best served cold.

Others have noted this as well…… Romney’s lying supporters are almost all the same [email protected] Repubs and pundits supporting raising the national debt and bigger government. Newt’s not so much. Hmmmmmmm. Is there a lesson rattling around here somewhere?

    janitor in reply to 49erDweet. | January 29, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    Well, let’s see. Using Romney’s track record (the past is the best prediction of the future): lots more debt laid on the U.S. taxpayers, adding some more crony business deals into ObamaCare for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries (under the guise of “fixing” it of course), a pretense at cutting federal jobs and reducing expenditures while setting things up elsewhere to funnel goodies to friends and supporters through newly opened back doors.

DINORightMarie | January 29, 2012 at 5:36 pm

I find myself continually going back to the movie character in Pretty Woman – not the Richard Gere character (Edward), but rather his “partner,” the Jason Alexander role (Stucky).

Stucky was the “can’t leave the last nickel on the table” guy. He wanted to destroy, took pleasure in it.

(What got me first thinking about this in general is that the mega-rich Gere is one of the guys who went in and chopped up companies, taking the money and running…….like, apparently, Romney did with Bain.)

Trivial, of course – it’s a Hollywood movie; but, a fitting image, perhaps, of what you describe.

“Romney supporters even have sought to deprive Newt of his own history.”

Existential annihilation. It’s what Leftists do. Only a truly miserable man with no belief in himself could lead or tolerate such a project on his behalf.

Levin is “worried” about Romney? He’s too polite. Palin is too polite. Gingrich is too polite. We’re dying of politeness.

Gov. Palin: ‘The Math is the Math’ (A Call To Action for Palin Supporters!)

“In order to give all the non-Romney candidates the push to go forward, “the math” has to be accepted as we are two days away from the Florida primary.

What some seem to be missing is that this was no call for the rest of us to pit the Non-Romney candidates against one another. “The math is the math” and right now, Newt Gingrich is the closest candidate who can carve out a modest win in Florida if the entire tea party and grassroots would coalesce behind him. It’s a strategy and not a campaign for one person for the remainder of the primary season.

So yes, as Palin supporters, out of respect of Governor Palin, our mission and immediate call to action has been sounded. This means that leading up to Florida’s primary, our collective support should be to do whatever we can to get Newt Gingrich as many votes as we can before Tuesday’s primary.

“The math is the math.” It doesn’t matter if we personally prefer Ron Paul.

It doesn’t matter if we personally prefer Rick Santorum.

Clearly, on the basis of common sense, the only candidate who isn’t Mitt Romney who can win Florida’s primary by the rallying cry of the non-establishment voters who are looking for that “imperfect vessel” and that “agent of change” for sudden and relentless reform is Newt Gingrich.”

http://tinyurl.com/6sfbj2r

Although I too am beginning to abhor Romney, I will indeed vote for him in November if he is the Republican nominee.

The truth is that I’d much rather be fighting the war between the real conservatives and the elites of the RP than dealing with another four years of Obama and the loss of our nation to socialism and crony corruption.

Emotions are running high, however, we need to prioritize things at this time. Even if Romney turns out to be a total RINO, we would be much better served with that scenario then having another 4 years of Obama.

I encourage people to put their motions aside on this one come election day. In any objectionable situation there are only three alternatives anyone ever has:
1. Remove yourself from the situation.
2. Change the situation.
3. Accept your situation.

In the case of Romney getting the nomination through nefarious means, we should work to change the situation (#2)after the election. Removing ourselves from the situation, or sitting out the election (#1), will surely bring about another 4 years of Obama. We cannot possibly accept the situation (#3) because our DNA causes us to fight for our freedom and to resist repression from any elites.

    Well said!

    No way. The conservatives won the House for the Repugs and this is how they pay us back. We warned them at the time not to mess with us.

    Insanity is having the same behavior and expecting a different outcome.

    There will NEVER be another conservative nominee for the Republican party if we do it your way.

    It’s time for tough love. The Republican elites are acting like children. It will never be the conservatives turn.

    So take your football and go home!

    These are the same people who told us Orange Charlie would beat Rubio in Florida. These are the same people who told us Rick Scott couldn’t win the governor’s race. We are battle tested veterans in Florida. We aren’t buying their BS. We are 75% of the Republican base and we are being disenfranchised.

    Independents aren’t voting in our primary. Mittbama can’t win unless they cheat. Which Mittbama Central is capable of.

    Dynamism in reply to Ipso Facto. | January 29, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    Hell no. I’d rather keep the enemy out in the open—those marked as Democrats—rather than aid the enemy within otherwise known as the GOP. Merely making sure more Rs get elected to office is the worst possible strategy.

    Deekaman in reply to Ipso Facto. | January 29, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    If Romney is willing to win the nom “by nefarious means”, what else is he willing to do. I will not vote for him. I can no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. It is still evil.

I just found this comment right on:

“Just keep it up with the lies Willard. Keep promising Crony payoffs to all those endorsers. We are keeping a list. The face book demon is flushing you out into the open. Destroy Newt at your own peril because it will unleash a “Grizzly Spring” upon you, Christie, Rove, Scarecrow Coulter and the FOX crew. You like scorching the earth, eh?”

If I have to live with someone in the WH who’s actively creating divisions in the country, causing long-term harm, with no demonstrated morals whatsoever, and defines everything in terms of their own good, I would rather have that person be a Democrat than a Republican, because at least then we Conservatives would have a better chance to get a good person in on the next election. In a word: It would be better for Obama to win, and a decent Republican in 2016, than for Romney winning in 2012 and 2016. I’m looking to win the war, and sometimes you have to lchoose ose a battle in order to win the war.

Prof. Jacobsen – the important thing to pick is who to write in, and then get it to happen as much as possible in all states – that would be the thing that would keep the established system wondering what’s going on, and thus cause them to move more hesitantly. It could be any combination of Tea Party-supported candidates, as long as the Tea Pary announces a ‘any of the above’. That way, people could vote for Rubio, Palin, Gingrich, or whomever the local Tea Party announced support for.

1. Like [email protected] 29, 2012 at 5:09 pm says. I may leave the top two entries (Romney and Scott Brown) on my ballot blank.

2. Palinistas savaged Kathleen when one of her first posts expressed mild reservations about La Sarahnissima. Bill has pointed out Bachmann’s lying and character assassination. Romney is not the only candidate utilizing negativity though he is the most clinical about it.

Etc.

3. Reagan gave us the 11th Commandment and ran hard-hitting but clean campaigns against Democrats. Thereafter, to defeat Dukakis in 1988, Bush and Atwater ran a negative campaign. It worked and may have been necessary, but once the genie is out of the bottle…

“Humiliation, not mere electoral defeat, appears to be the goal.”

Which has very much been the goal of the Gingrich campaign. Launching attacks against Romney as someone whi strip mined companies during his Bain years and mistreated his dog. “As the ancient Tibetan Philosophy states “”Don’t start none, won’t be none!””. Now you want to complain that Romney is using the same tactics? Come on! Be man enough to admit Gingrich has employed the very tactics you now assail.

    raven in reply to Zaggs. | January 29, 2012 at 6:04 pm

    Mark Levin: “Lest we forget, it was Gingrich who was trying to run a positive campaign and who offered to debate Romney one-on-one, asking Romney to stop with the millions in unanswered ads attacking him. Romney declined.”

    JRD in reply to Zaggs. | January 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    Romney’s minions drew first blood. They were the ones who started trashing Sarah Palin saying she was going rogue, called her a diva, and set her up for the 3 day Katie Couric interview that ended up on the cutting room floor. Romneybots Steve Schmidt and former Bush White House lackey Nicole Wallace, yes, you. Romney and his minions chose to torpedo the McCain/Palin ticket in 2008 before the election even happened in order to take Palin out as the front runner for 2012.

    Palinistas haven’t forgotten. There isn’t one of us that would vote for Mittbama. He gambled and lost. He chose Obama over us in 2008. Now it will be our turn to chose Obama over him should he win the nomination. But he won’t win.

    We are ready to pay back Mittbama and give as good as we got.

    Game on Willard! Bring it.

    wodiej in reply to Zaggs. | January 29, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    oh, you had to be the one who gave the thumbs down to the rational comment below yours. Gingrich didn’t start this-Romney the liberal did.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to Zaggs. | January 29, 2012 at 7:16 pm

    “As the ancient Tibetan Philosophy states “”Don’t start none, won’t be none!””.

    To bad Romney didn’t heed that advice. He started slinging the mud at Gingrich, not the other way around.

DINORightMarie | January 29, 2012 at 5:45 pm

As was mentioned somewhere, Reagan was down about 30% at this time in the 1980 election, and most were proclaiming Reagan winning as impossible. And we all know how that turned out.

Newt can win this, too; it can be done. And, if Romney continues to jump the shark, he will fail – it’s just a matter of how and when. It must be our goal to ensure it isn’t in the general against billion-dollar-Alinsky-ite Obama.

A possiblity – Romney hoist on his own petard. Show how he is using Alinsky tactics against Newt, and mirrors Obama. Possible? I sure hope so.

Using Alinsky tactics against one of your own is beyond the pale, ruthless, and is exposing the fetid vomitous rot that is destroying both the Republican Party and our nation.

Continue to expose the evil for what it is. Truth must prevail.

    Snorkdoodle Whizbang in reply to DINORightMarie. | January 29, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Yep… its a long way to 1214 delegates. Anything can happen between now and the convention. Glad Gingrich has said he’s in it for the long haul… he knows that a long primary works against Romney. The more voters see him, the less they like.

“Romney is not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he has a record of big-government Republicanism.”

Romney’s 4 years in office:
– Romneycare (after 30+ years of Dems trying to pass it)

– Cap & Tax (Romney bragged: “Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 limits on power plants.”)

– single highhandedly allowed Gay Marriage (while Dems complained they should ignore the completely unconstitutional court hearing Romney cites as the reaason)

– gave Planned Parenthood 5 Billion to build abortion clinics

– gave free abortions through Romneycare (with merely a $50 co-pay)

– forced Catholic hospitals to give out birth control

– Planned Parenthood placed on Oversight Committee

– one of tougher gun laws in country made permanent and vague

– 3/4 of judge appointments Democrat or agenda-driven Independents (Romney bragged: “(I have) not paid a moment’s notice to nominee’s political leanings.”)

– ensuring sanctuary cities get state aid

– Raised taxes from 9.3% to 9.9% overall over his time

– Doubled corporate tax rate

– 100s of new “sin” taxes, consumption taxes and carbon taxes (including increasing gas tax, internet sales tax, tax on hunting licenses, etc)

– so much regulation, state only saw 1.4% growth while the Country as a whole witnessed 5.4% over the same time

– 47th in gob creation

– State budget up 37.5%, from $23,011,620,000.00 to $31,649,416,000.00, leaving a Debt per Capita of over $15,000

I’m sorry, but how is that even “Big-Government Republican”? That record is “extreme liberalism” in the eyes of most. It’s LEFT OF F*IN OBAMA for Petes sake!!!

Romney can be considered the Birth-Father of the Individual Mandate, Cap and Tax and Gay Marriage considering he was the first Governor to put each into actions. He was one of the worst Governors financially, on Job Growth and Employment. Oh, and he couldn’t even manage 50% of the vote when being handed the job in MA, while being so disliked after his short time in office he had no shot of re-election.

I’ve been sitting on the edge of the “wont vote for Romney” boat for a long time, and he has done nothing but show me reasons why I should take the plunge off his ill-fated boat. Still Zero reasons given to vote for him; yet an entire 4-year Governors record and 7 years worth of Campaigning record giving reasons not to.

    1. I deleted an uninhibited assessment of the claims above, but it’s getting harder and harder to hold my tongue.

    2. Somebody observed that the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’.

    3. I previously followed up, and posted about, the claim about a 37% budget increase. The effort to check out such a claim is much greater than the effort to make it. Until Bill gives us the capability to search our comments, I am not going to revisit the point.

Joan Of Argghh | January 29, 2012 at 6:09 pm

Professor, I’ve been thinking of an apt metaphor for Romney and I came up with this yesterday.

On Fox News Sunday today, Brit Hume said of Romney’s ads, “They may not be fair, but they’re not false.” In other words, details of Gingrich’s past are being aired and sorted out, by Romney. It’s the same thing Obama will do, only with more vigor, relish, money, and frequency.

OTOH, Newt did lie during the SC debates, and he is being called to task for it by the American Thinker, Newt and the truth factor.

Both Gingrich and Romney are throwing everything at the wall to get the nomination. To call one on it, and not the other is only fooling yourselves.

    Smedley in reply to tsr. | January 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm

    Newt Gingrich has never been accused being a child molester but he has never claimed he was not. That is true but not fair. How far does it go. I am disappointed in Brit Hume of whom I had a great deal of respect. Something has happened, maybe its money, maybe its age but he no longer provides the type of incisive commentary that would note the destructiveness of the Romney campaign.

    JRD in reply to tsr. | January 29, 2012 at 6:37 pm

    Brit Hume has his nose so out of joint for the Tea Party and is so in the tank for Mittbama it’s pathetic!

    We can argue about what Newt knew, which is something we don’t know, but I tracked this down last week because I realized news summaries can be misleading. IMO they were. (My emphasis).

    —Transcript via NewsBusters:

    KING: We did talk about other issues, but a lot of people in the state were talking about that issue that day, as you well know, sir. A lot of people think that exchange worked to your benefit. That’s not for me and my calculation.

    But again, have you spoken to your ex-wife at all? Why did she come forward at that time? ABC can speak for itself. It says — I can’t speak for ABC, but it says if you had offered people, it would have interviewed them.

    GINGRICH: Oh, that is just plain baloney. I mean, I’ll check with R.C. Hammond in a minute. But if they’re saying that, they’re not being honest, because they said explicitly the opposite. So I will check with R.C., because he was briefing me on this the whole way through. We had several people prepared to be very clear and very aggressive in their dispute about that. And they weren’t interested.

    —From Politico (your link with the Politico headline: Gingrich admits claim was false):

    “Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday,” King said on tonight’s edition of John King USA. “Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage.”

This reminds me somewhat of the Jimmy Carter style of campaigning. The ultra moralistic know it all who sticks his finger in peoples’ faces while claiming a higher moral plain. Romney, the first presidential candidate with a Swiss bank account, believes he was acting morally when destroying companies and jobs in order to add to his millions and now lives on the proceeds of foreign bank accounts, barely batting an eye. Carter ran a negative race baiting campaign against Sanders in 1970 then an even worse campaign against Reagan in 1980 all while acting as if he was morally superior not only to his opponents but also to the American people. I see a lot of that with Romney.

I have decided that unless Romney picks Palin or West as VP, I am voting for Obama. Here’s why: under either the country will be a disaster, but if Romney wins, the disaster will be blamed on capitalism and the Republican party, if Obama wins, the disaster will be blamed on socialism and the Democrat party.

    Smedley in reply to ssns4ever. | January 29, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Took the words right out of my mouth. If the people cannot recognize the mess in this country they need another four years of disaster. Let him implement Obamacare, Romney will do the same, he will never destroy that monstrosity. Let the Democrats deny health care to people, after that we will see real change.

    Anchovy in reply to ssns4ever. | January 29, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    In addition to selecting Palin or West as VP he is going to have to show a certificate from a cardiologist that indicates one of those two need to begin selecting oval office colors.

    I don’t care who Romney picks I will never vote for him. We played that hand last time.

    huskers-for-palin in reply to ssns4ever. | January 29, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    I don’t think West or Palin are dumb enough to hook up with Romney for VP.

    Ipso Facto in reply to ssns4ever. | January 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    This is the logic of a spolied child acting out. If you can’t see that Romney (who I do NOT support) would be MUCH better than Obama, you need to have your diapers changed and a good long nap.

      No it is not the logic of a spoiled child. The Republican elites are acting like spoiled children. We told them we didn’t like their brand in 2010 and they slapped conservatives anyway.

      I will NEVER vote for Willard. A vote for him is a vote for Obama. Willard lost to McCain who lost to Obama.

      Keep believing the Republican elites BS.

      Willard will appoint Supreme Court judges like Justice David Souter who vote with the Democrats, no thanks.

      Willard is being backed by Wall Street to deliver Cap and Trade to them so they can initiate carbon trading enabling them to feed their addiction for the revenues they lost due to the implosion of mortgaged backed securities, no thanks.

      Willard = Obama. Wall Street is in a win/win situation. They don’t care who wins. They get carbon trading either way.

      Even George Soros said in Davos Switzerland this week that there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama.

      A vote for Willard means socialized medicine is here to stay.

      You can have Willard. I don’t want him.

        McCoy2k in reply to JRD. | January 29, 2012 at 9:37 pm

        You’re exactly right. We extended our hands, not across the partisan isle, but within our own party to the establishment, showing them a pathway to victory. They chose to slap our hands back and walk away.

        Give us a promise, a contract of conservative principles that will be brought up and voted upon, and we might very well turn out and vote for you! Gingrich did it in ’94. If they want the party grassroots ready and energized, they need to do the exact same thing. Promise to stand and fight for conservatism and they’ll have our votes.

    Aitch748 in reply to ssns4ever. | January 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    West as Romney’s VP? If West knew that it was a Romney supporter who was phasing out his Congressional district, would West even accept a VP offer from Romney? I’m guessing no.

    Justin in reply to ssns4ever. | January 30, 2012 at 1:21 am

    Palin and West are two people with real conviction and moral character. They’d never allow themselves to be so tarnished as to be a VP or cabinet member IF Mittens were elected.
    If they would then we know they are just as much of sellouts as Pam Bondi. Also considering the Mittbots attacking West in FL now…I don’t see that ever happening.

Oh, please. It is perfectly clear that when a political aide tells a political reporter that a campaign is not just about “winning” but “destroying,” he does not mean humilating the other guy just out of spite. Those are your words. He means that they are going for a big enough victory in Florida to destroy Newt’s campaign — his ability to keep running — an understandable political goal given that Newt has come back from the dead twice.

Romney had drudge in his back pocket? Well Mitt better not sit down then!

Okay I think Drudge is helping Mitt, but more from that is where the traffic is than any in the pocket of Romney thing. I am not buying Drudge is force behind the wave, Drudge is riding the wave.

But I am convinced Team Romney is ruthless and will throw conservatives under the bus in a heart beat if it benefits them to do so. Now Newt is hardly great on this issue either, he would do the same if given enough rope–but Newt is somewhat conservative. He responds to criticism. Romney will just give us lip service than run things like he ran things in Massachusetts.

huskers-for-palin | January 29, 2012 at 6:36 pm

The “lesser of two devils” is still the devil. One will roast you, the other will roast you, but with add BBQ sauce.

No thanks, I’ll go vegan at that point. Pass the carrots.

Romney de facto?: A lot of money is changing hands to buy the presidency and to be a part of the “inner circle”.

Too many lives have been sacrificed to reduce our country to a commodity owned by a few.

Denis from Australia | January 29, 2012 at 6:50 pm

As an outside observer with a vested interest in the outcomes of the American political process I cannot help but think that in 2012 there is no way that Ronald Reagan could win the Republican nomination for President.

Our problem still remains, we are going to need every vote to defeat obama. After cruising the web it has become clear that Romneyites will only vote if Romney’s the nominee.Herein lies our dilema. WE are being blackmailed by so called conservatives of our own party. They want and need our vote to get Romney the Presidency But OMG if Newt should pulled it out you can forget about any support from them. So what do we do??? To be honest,I not sure what I’ll do on NOV. 6th. I do know that Romney has made it nigh impossible to vote for him,and if I can’t it’s his fault not mine

    Milwaukee in reply to pamiam. | January 29, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    I’m confused. With this sentence “WE are being blackmailed by so called conservatives of our own party.” are you identifying Romney supporters as conservatives? Myself, I would identify Romney supporters as “Republican Moderates” and “Establishment Republicans”, neither of which, I believe, are representative of the Party as a whole.

    One problem I see with a Romney presidency is that he would make 0bamaCare work. His failure to disavow RomneyCare is indicative of more serious problems to come.

Paul, Gingrich or Santorum has to take the “free enterprise” mantle away exclusively from Romney.

For example, RomneyCare = “free enterprise on trial”

And, I would ask Thomas Sowell to recommend a quote from say Thomas Paine.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 29, 2012 at 7:02 pm

War has not only been declared against Newt, by the GOP Republican Party RINO establishment, but they have also declared and are waging an all out war against the Tea Party movement, people, and all elected politicians, especially in Florida where they have made a concerted conspiratorial effect to oust Rep. Col. Allen West, by redistricting him out of conservative areas, which already has be done by a Romney aide..

Make no mistake about it, they are waging an all out war to destroy all the Reagan Tea Party Constitutional Conservatives from power and influence..  which is why we must not fail meet them head on, to get out the vote and message to all Patriotic Americans, all over the nation, but especially in Florida, as it is now ground zero in this fight to save America, and Reagan Conservatism.

Quote-

“While Newt has been a part of the Washington scene for some time, he always has been the outsider challenging the establishment and insisting on reforms and transformation. He has been vilified, targeted with ethics complaints, subjected to lies and mythology. Millions of dollars have been spent on attacks against him. And he’s still standing, offering America the kind of ideas and leadership it needs in the 21st century.

It boils down to this: Newt Gingrich is a conservative; the establishment prefers moderates. Newt prefers to stand up and debate conservative ideas and ideals; the establishment prefers to keep people guessing. Newt is a proven leader, someone with the background, understanding, vision and discipline to be our president; the establishment fears that he just might win.”

Gingrich, like Goldwater and Reagan, is running as a strongly populist outsider.

Conservative outsiders never trust the GOP insiders. Sometimes they tolerate them – but, right now, they despise them. In cases where this happened before — California in 1964, North Carolina in 1976 and New Hampshire in 1980 — —it became a badge of honor to vote against the GOP establishment.

In each case, history was made, just as it was made once again Saturday in South Carolina.

No one goes around calling themselves a Nixon Republican or a Ford Republican or a Bush Republican. But plenty now proudly call themselves Goldwater Republicans and Reagan Republicans.” – unquote

We, the Reagan Conservative Tea Party folks, will not,  and must never capitulate to them, and give up this great Nation to a bunch of low life colluding liberal RINO scum, so they can continue to live a life of minority party luxury, in their so called compromised negotiations with the anti-American liberal Obamacrats, every step of the way. !!

    “Make no mistake about it, they are waging an all out war to destroy all the Reagan Tea Party Constitutional Conservatives from power and influence”

    Where is there evidence of this “all out war?” What you’re smoking is certainly not tea.

Something to consider:

“A longtime Wall Street Insider explains how the Obama administration and decades of progressive liberalism are accelerating China’s rise and America’s demise…

‘WSI: Let me tell you of my world…a life’s work, ensuring the always-present security of the United States, and this administration and its supporters’ seeming clear intention of dismantling that security .

For once our economy falls, (raises index finger)… then the Chinese jackboot will soon follow. The attempted slashing of our military, the destruction of our manufacturing and natural resources base…the speed at which it is all happening now…

…let me explain exactly what is being done.'”

http://tinyurl.com/7w9b4uf

Professor;
It would be interesting to see the results of another poll asking, for a romney/Obama ticket, who would vote Romney, who would vote Obama, and who would refrain from voting for either.

Thanks,
Ted Bell

Please. Mitt Romney is not starting the war, you are. You never had any intention of working with him. This is the TEA party dog whistle many of you have been listening for, waiting for, for months now. Some of us (those one fence, those who find themselves torn between this new, fanciful bipolarity you are trying to construct) have been watching for weeks, months, carefully scrutinizing the comments and trying to objectively decide who we wanted to support and how that support was going to manifest itself.

It’s gone full blown ridiculous now. This isn’t about what’s good for the party or what’s good for the nation anymore. It’s about what’s good for you. You needed an excuse to turn your coats and are now using Florida’s familiar tactics in a time worn process to channel your frustrations through. It’s as transparent as it is shameful.

Most of you, the good Professor included, are seriously ticked Mitt is on the verge of winning a very important state. Fine, we get it. Like the rest of us haven’t been watching as you all serially flirted with anyone, and everyone else BUT Romney. Now, somehow, by some twisted, contorted, convoluted process you are trying to convince yourself that Newt-friggin-Gingrich is the “anti-establishment” candidate? Again, please, who are you kidding? Certainly not anyone with the eyes to see and a brain the remembers. Hey, Newt’s great. But anti-establishment, small government he AINT.

The bottom line is “we” (meaning those who DO identify with the TEA Party/Grassroots etc) like Newt because we think he needs us. It makes us feel relevant, it adds credence that our influence is still in the ascendant. Newt certainly did not need us two months ago, or two years ago. He could have reached out to the “grassroots” in any one of its many iterations at any time, but no… NOW, he has found a tactic and constituency he can roll, and we buy it hook, line and sinker simply because he is NOT MITT ROMNEY.

Be honest, many of you do not think Mitt needs you, you never really liked him in the first place and you are now stomping your feet, invoking “war,” and “Balkan” references, threatening to take your toys and go form your own club. Why? Because you are getting your way. Two words: DO IT.

Leave. Vote third party, don’t vote, vote for anyone else. No one cares. If this is all it took to drive you out of the GOP, you were never Republicans in the first place; you were, in essence, “RINOs,” in the truest sense of the word, all along. Good riddance. If you think threats are going to sway everyone else who does not agree with you, are is not sure where they stand you are both wrong and grossly overestimating your own relative strengths. Be the ones who lose this one for the Right, you will never have a voice, a platform to stand upon or a lectern to from. Oh, but the “establishment” will “feel the sting of the people (!!!)” No, we won’t. You can’t even organize, with years notice, a cogent counter to what you KNEW was coming (Romney). You will make whatever gains the people have made irrelevant. You will be marginalized and you will be outnumbered.

It’s a weird place in the history of this country when the “true believers,” the purists, the standard bearers are threatening to revolt, or sit out the biggest election in the history of our lives yet every moderate, every independent and every liberal I know is begging for an excuse not to re-elect this administration. Many of you think you are playing chess. You aren’t. You aren’t even playing checkers. You walk away from this one and you aren’t even on the board.

It is painfully simple. This is about Barack Obama and I sincerely hope you collectively remember this between now and November. I do not care what rhetorical gymnastics you employ, or how many illogical hoops you have to jump through, there is absolutely NO WAY any one of the four candidates we have now will be worse than Barack Obama. That is. a. FACT. You want to have a say in what happens with the next administration? Quit acting like children who are shocked (SHOCKED!) that the primary process is a nasty process, get on board with the big fight, shape the outcome however you can and win in the end. Turn your backs, stomp your feet, leave the tent and you will have no excuse, and absolutely no recourse, when things do not go your way.

    WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:13 pm

    Roger, should read:

    “…those on* the** fence, those who…”
    “…anyone with the eyes to see and a brain that* remembers.”

    I am sure there are more mistakes, that post came out fast.

      Dynamism in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Obama isn’t ‘the issue’—Obama’s little more than a symptom of a much deeper, far more insidious disease wrought by an entrenched, ruling political class that never meaningfully changes no matter who’s in power. If you haven’t come to grips with that realization yet, then you’re just part of the problem.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Dynamism. | January 29, 2012 at 7:28 pm

        Let me translate that for you: “If I don’t agree with you, I am part of the problem.”

        The problem here is that you, none of you, none of me and/or MINE is the arbiter of what is right or what is wrong. You act as though any thought outside of your own is incorrect and somehow fail to see how blindly arrogant and ignorant that position really is.

        The TEA party is leaderless, headless. It’s one of it’s great strengths. Quit acting like any one of you speaks for the rest of us, you don’t. Quit acting like any one of you has the ultimate say, you DON’T.

          Dynamism in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm

          Cute assumptions you just made there—I never said nor implied that I speak for the Tea Party. I only speak for me.

          It’s clearer to me now, that fixating this entire election on scapegoating Obama has been a tragic mistake. Why? Because this has become little more than a manipulative ploy to narrow the focus of the electorate in a singular direction, so now they’re not paying attention to the other ways in which they’re getting screwed, and can’t even meaningfully discern at this point that Romney is fundamentally no different from Obama.

          “Let me translate that for you: ‘If I don’t agree with you, I am part of the problem’.”
          So, you didn’t notice that the focus of this post was on Romney’s tactics? That he’s behaving like someone who wants to destroy other Republicans? Or are you so fond of Mitt that you do not care about his vile methods?

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 12:18 am

          pst- “So, you didn’t notice that the focus of this post was on Romney’s tactics?”
          -On the contrary, I did notice that but it does not concern me as much as it does Professor Jacobson. It’s certainly not the “dog whistle” I mentioned above, the shrouded signal declaring war (WAR!!) on all grassroots Americans. Conflating the one to the other, to me, is irresponsible, a waste of a fine reputation (for levity, clarity and objectivity) and a dangerous precedent to be setting when the stakes are so high and the need for relative unity is so imperative.

          “That he’s behaving like someone who wants to destroy other Republicans?”
          -See, I don’t get that from what I am watching down in Florida. I see two men who would do whatever it takes to “destroy” the other. I know it’s crazy, but we have this little thing we do every so often. We build a cage, we throw all of our conservative champions into it, tell them only one person may exit alive and then watch as they tear each other apart. It’s. called. a. PRIMARY. Funny, the Democrats do it too… why are you, why are any of us surprised by this? More importantly, why are we taking it personally?

          “Or are you so fond of Mitt that you do not care about his vile methods?”
          -To be clear, I am not “so fond of Mitt” to be anything nor am I so “fond” of Newt to be ignorant of anything else. Both of them are doing their best to win, both are taking cheap shots, and both are equally guilty by the standard Professor Jacobson wants to hold Romney to, of using dirty tactics. As a long-standing political junkie and an avid student of history, I have been around long enough to see that this primary process is no different than any other I have witnessed in my life time. To make it more than it is smacks of manipulation. We cheer when “our” guy uses vile methods on the other guy, and boo when our guy has those exact same methods employed against him. Be honest, if Newt had the same resources and the same openings to strike that Mitt does, and he used both against Romney, many of you would not say a WORD. Rather, you would be cheering him on.

          While I don’t like the process, I completely understand why the Romney campaign is doing everything in their power to knock Gingrich down, knock him out and keep him down. Honestly, it’s a twisted compliment to the power Newt wields. He has risen from the dead, so to speak, more than once. He is a capable opponent and the Romney camp is not taking him for granted. I believe they are getting a tremendous amount of help from people outside of their campaign but that we give Romney way too much credit for the independent antipathy Gingrich has earned from others.

    Dynamism in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    Bugger off you inane shill.

      WoodnWorld in reply to Dynamism. | January 29, 2012 at 7:25 pm

      This is what the GOP will be missing? Please. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this site, and have been watching for months but the mindless (inane, if you will?) cheerleading/rabblerousing got to be too much for me.

      If you have something to say, say it. If you have a point to make, that hasn’t already been made day after day, hour after hour, MAKE IT. This isn’t the playground and childish name calling, besides confirming my suspicions, does not elevate your standing. Be better than that.

        Anchovy in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 8:06 pm

        While I don’t necessarily agree with your other posts, I sure agree with this one. This place is transforming into a clone of FreeRepublic.

        Dynamism in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm

        Well, apoplectically ridiculing a large number of people with the kind of rhetoric you’re displaying, isn’t exactly conducive to a reasonable discussion. Maybe try a different approach?

          WoodnWorld in reply to Dynamism. | January 29, 2012 at 8:44 pm

          If seeing things from a different perspective is “ridiculing,” guilty as charged. No one is ridiculing you here, in fact for some time now it has been a virtual echo chamber of “Mittens” and “Willards,” which speaks the merits of your argument far better than I ever could. The few who have had the temerity to disagree, or to voice another opinion are “Mittbots, shills, stupid, lacking principles, lacking vision, elitists, Repugs” etc.

          You don’t like what I have to say? I don’t care. I am not trying to earn “upvotes” and am not seeking your approval. On the other hand, I am also not trying to insult you. If you, or anyone like you reads my “you don’t speak for me, quit acting like you do,” looks at their neighbor mouth agape and says, “Did you HEAR that? He just called me a HICK!!” it says far more about your own position that it ever could mine. Rather than project what you think people are saying, “he doesn’t agree with me/us/ etc. he MUST think he’s better than me/us (!11!!), stop, and read what I have actually said. It’s not code, and I am trying to be a precise and as direct as I can.

          It’s this in a nutshell: Re: this entire thing, the article, your response(s) to it, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination, you WANT THE WAR.

          My rejoinder is equally simple: If you are willing to start an intra-party fight because you are not getting what you want, or are willing to sit this national election out because of the same, two things- BRING IT and BEST OF LUCK. You deserve what you get.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Dynamism. | January 30, 2012 at 12:33 am

          wow, for not caring about “upvotes”, you sure talk about them quite a bit…

          Anyway, I actually wanted to comment on this post because of one simple sentence:

          The few who have had the temerity to disagree, or to voice another opinion are “Mittbots, shills, stupid, lacking principles, lacking vision, elitists, Repugs” etc.”

          Yet you have never actually done that. You haven’t stated a pro Romney sentence or corrected incorrect information – instead you are here screaming at people telling them not to scream after they have been screamed at by Romney. Its the most idiotic, backwards logic I have ever seen; you are attacking, telling the attacked to not go responding.

          So Dismiss when Romney does it, ignore the grand-canyon size gap between his actions and statements, and instead complain about “the Tea Party dog whistle” which has us upset at the very thing that should upset us – the blatant disregard for everything Conservative in an effort to win at all costs so Government is free to grow at whatever pace the insiders desire at the hands of possibly the most empty suit we have had running in the last 30 years.

          WoodnWorld in reply to Dynamism. | January 30, 2012 at 1:17 pm

          “wow, for not caring about “upvotes”, you sure talk about them quite a bit…”

          Caring? On the contrary. I have noticed over time you and yours seem to put a great deal of stock in them though. As though they are somehow a measure of how “right/Right” you are rather than an indicator for the site moderators to know how popular their arguments are and which piles of populist poo they might want to avoid in the future. You have been here awhile, I don’t need to get back through time, and past threads to validate this. You know it is true.

          “Anyway, I actually wanted to comment on this post because of one simple sentence…Yet you have never actually done that. You haven’t stated a pro Romney sentence or corrected incorrect information – instead you are here screaming at people telling them not to scream after they have been screamed at by Romney.
          -I have no interest in defending Romney from someone like you. It seems as though he is doing a rather good job of defending himself without me… Screaming? My, you are sensitive aren’t you? Deaf too, to the volume and quantity of voices on the other side. In this thread alone there are what? three, four other voices who have said, “War? You guys are either nuts or childish.” Compared to 20-30 others who believe saying the same crap over and over either somehow refines their thinking or confirms their “rightness.” Each time you seem to get more insistent too… If I have ever “screamed” it was while very sarcastically mocking your tone. There are too few people on here forcefully standing up to your mindless, inane (thanks Dynamism!), repetitive drivel. It’s old. It’s tired. It’s unoriginal and the only people you are convincing is yourselves.

          “Its the most idiotic, backwards logic I have ever seen; you are attacking, telling the attacked to not go responding.”
          -I trust you have a great deal more experience with this, am certain you are more familiar with idiocy and backwards logic than I, and will therefore defer to your expert opinion. Put more simply, if you say so Dark.

          “So Dismiss when Romney does it, ignore the grand-canyon size gap between his actions and statements…”
          -You really are new to this aren’t you? On one hand, your innocence is a little refreshing, you being all aquiver with the injustice of it all. On the other, it’s saddening. Romney is no different in this regard than Newt, and the both of them are no different than any other politician since the dawn of time. Welcome to politics, glad to have you!

          “…and instead complain about “the Tea Party dog whistle”… whatever pace the insiders desire at the hands of possibly the most empty suit we have had running in the last 30 years.”

          *Yawn.* I am not complaining about the whistle, not at all. I am simply underscoring the transparency of your actions, statements and behaviors because of it.

          More directly, I am not interested in the tactical defense of this person today, and that person tomorrow, the shape shifting, serial dating and the temporary alliances and agreements you all have made with each other while trying to settle on ABR first, and ABO second.

          Even more directly, I am calling anyone who uses Romney as an excuse not to vote in the national election a (here you go, you ready? I am about to call “you” a name…) a HYPOCRITE, and a LOUSY, SELF SERVING CONSERVATIVE.

    Darkstar58 in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    ok, so if this is about Obama then why the F* should we vote for someone who Governed left of Obama?

    Read it, its scarey as all get out and details one of the most Liberal Governors records you will ever find:
    http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/the-case-against-mitt-romney/

    When all is said and done, Mitt Romney is worse then Obama – he appoints the same activist judges, passed the same extreme Government Healthcare/Cap&Tax/Gay Marriage/Anti-Life/Anti-Business/Anti-Job/etc bills, but simultaneously tried to act as if all these things were Conservative actions while doing so.

    If elected President, Romney will set back the Conservative Movements and Republican Party 20 years. At the absolute best he will be BushJr; at worst Obama he’s on steroids with merely a different mask. (and since I don’t figure Republicans will keep the house in the mid-terms if he is elected, he will probably be Obama-like using the same “well Democrats control Congress” excuse he used in becoming the most liberal Governor of the last 50 years)

      WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 29, 2012 at 7:30 pm

      If you truly believe that, I will say it again. DON”T VOTE. Vote for Obama, go third party. No one really cares brother, I certainly don’t.

        Darkstar58 in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:39 pm

        yeah, I get it:
        “If you believe his actual actions, don’t vote. If you believe the empty smile, Establishment pushing and visions of flying unicorns lifting America up to the highest of peaks, vote”

        …life really is just grand under the thumbs of elites; where you’re merely flicked away if you go against their narrative…

          WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 29, 2012 at 7:50 pm

          Who buys this crap? The “elites?” Seriously? I get this noise from the OWS clowns, your comment sounds exactly like what the Left is spitting out these days. Class warfare 101.

          I would ask you who the “elites” are, who the “Grassroots” are, who the “Establishment” is; I would ask you to define any one of the three but I know you can’t. No one can.

          I don’t care that you have differing opinions, or even that you feel very strongly about the issues as they stand in the nation right now. I do care that many of you swear you speak for the rest of us, that this is a done deal, that everyone who is a supporter of the “Grassroots” or the TEA Party feels the same way you do. Get off your high horse, speak for yourself and quit pretending that some of our individual silences signals agreement or compliance.

          Darkstar58 in reply to Darkstar58. | January 29, 2012 at 8:10 pm

          Are you really that stupid?

          Want me to define them, here

          Elites – those which tell us they know what is best for us, and call us inbred hick or racists when we don’t just accept it

          Establishment – those in both parties who are more concerned with protecting their own power then representing the people or party name they cloak themselves with. You know, like those who blame Sarah Palin for “Political Rockstar” McCain losing, or attacking the people for “costing us the Senate” while ignoring the only reason they took the House is because of the enthusiasm we created for the cause.

          Grassroots (in the context you seem to be implying; Tea Party) – those who are more concerned with listening and investigating the issue then the narrative delivered by the Media and Political Insiders. Those willing to take a stand for something in the face of a Government which is being expanded at record pace by both parties.

          and just so you know, I do not, nor would I ever, claim to speak for everyone – that is just you talking out of your ass because you apparently feel as though everyone should swallow their medicine or sit in the corner with a dunce cap.

          Sorry if you don’t have principles you are will stand up for, but some of us do – and that is why you are hearing our voices. If you don’t like it, I suggest you don’t come here and read it; but you are not going to shut us up by name calling and dismissive remarks (you know, the same crap we are complaining the Party is doing to us because we wont rollover for their money-machine smear-campaign against anything we might gravitate towards…)

    Mittbama is NOT on the verge of winning a state that went totally all in for the TEA Party in 2010.

    We in Florida had the TEMERITY to elect Allen West for Congress, the AUDACITY to elect Marco Rubio for the Senate and, the NERVE to elect Rick Scott as Governor. All of them went up against the Republican establishment guy and WON!

    You Romneybots are trying to intimidate us. It won’t work. You guys are in a panic. Your reign of the Republican Party is over. Your backs are up against the Wall and you double down just like your totalitarian buddies across the aisle.

    Who’s foolin’ who? The pure unadulterated truth is you are scared of us. We aren’t scared of you. We stared you down in 2010 and kicked your behinds!

    We will NEVER vote for Willard. He should have challenged Obama for the Democrat nomination.

    You lost. We don’t believe Obama is the Bogeyman. We KNOW Willard is!

      WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 29, 2012 at 7:55 pm

      There is no “we.” There is “YOU.” You don’t like him? You won’t vote for him? Fine. Don’t. You and yours, the lot of you. Every, last one. Doors, bottoms and ways out, ever the three shall meet.

      Some of us see Barack as the real threat and do not appreciate your attempt to speak for all of us simply because you (really, really REALLY, *REALLY*, *REALLY*!!!, I MEAN IT DAMMIT- DON”T MAKE ME SHOOT MYSELF IN THE FOOT- I’LL DO IT MAN- I SWEAR I WILL REALLY) don’t like Mitt Romney. It’s shrill.

        Dynamism in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm

        Some of us see Barack as the real threat and do not appreciate your attempt to speak for all of us simply because you (really, really REALLY, *REALLY*, *REALLY*!!!, I MEAN IT DAMMIT- DON”T MAKE ME SHOOT MYSELF IN THE FOOT- I’LL DO IT MAN- I SWEAR I WILL REALLY) don’t like Mitt Romney. It’s shrill.

        ↑ Lol. Pot calling the kettle black, much?

        No pal. You gambled and lost. You thought that you could shove Romney down the Republican base’s throat and scare us that Obama is the enemy. We know you Romneybots are the true enemy. You will NEVER take the fight to Obama.

        The trouble is YOU need US now. TOO BAD! Go get your moderate buddies to help you out.

        We ARE the Republican base. You aren’t. We have been disenfranchised for a long time now. And you’ve got a dilemma and WE know it. There aren’t enough of you moderates to get your boy over the finish line.

        You haven’t been playing fair. Your rules are: it will NEVER be the conservative candidate’s turn. The cat is out of the bag.

        So good luck with your loser. You calling us names doesn’t work any longer because Willard is the same as Obama.

        The truth hurts. If Willard gets the nomination, he loses.

          WoodnWorld in reply to JRD. | January 29, 2012 at 8:53 pm

          This is where you and I disagree. Besides my having neither gambled nor lost anything, I don’t think “we NEED” you (not sure where you think “I/we/us/ours” falls here but I will assume it’s somewhere near your seventh ring of hell, because WE are the real problem???) While “we” WANT you, and want your voice as much as any, we don’t want the Blue on Blue. If you/yours (whomever) are hell bent on a civil war, are hell bent on forgetting in the heat of this moment, in January, that this is about Barack, in November, then “we” DON’T need you. In fact, “we” are better off without you and the sooner you realize this party, and this election will go on without you, the better off we all will be.

          This is bigger than either you or I. Don’t forget it.

      raven in reply to JRD. | January 29, 2012 at 8:30 pm

      Great stuff. Thanks.

    Deekaman in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 8:24 pm

    Waving the bu11s#it flag here.

    JEBurke in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 29, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Right on, brother!

    The idea that the “anti-establishment” and “tea party” candidate is Newt Gingrich should be laughable. No one in Republican politics for decades more epitomizes the permanent Washington establishment more than Newt. If you had asked Tea Party activists when they convened on Washington a couple of years ago who in national politics they might follow, you would have waited a long time for someone to name Newt.

    From his initial forays into politics, Newt has been consistent — consistently opportunistic. In his first decade, he was a Rockefeller Republican — in Georgia, no less. As the GOP zeitgeisf shifted right, so did Newt. When it suited him to support Reagan, he did. When it didn’t, he didn’t. When he needed to rouse conservatives to elect Republicans, he said what they wanted to hear. When he needed to help elect and reelect Northeastern “RINOs” to get a majority, he did what was necessary to do that (funny how those “RINOs” came in handy). When it suited his agenda to work with Democrats in Congress and the Clintonistas, he did without worrying about conservative consistency. When he thought it would help him solidify his majority, he launched an attempt to impeach Clinton. Out of office, he became a highly paid Washington influence peddler.

    None of this matters a bit to me, in one sense. That is politics, and politicians are all opportunists — ALL of them.

    But in another sense, it is bothersome because after five decades of the above, Newt now parades around as if he were the One True Conservative. It is such a joke. Yet, having exhausted all the other notRomneys, a clacque of conservatives have attached themselves to him, clinging desperately and emotionally as if he were the Last Best Hope of the nation.

    It is just really silly. Silly.

      WoodnWorld in reply to JEBurke. | January 29, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      Very well said. Far better than I could have, or actually have, articulated it thus far.

      Newt had plenty of opportunities to cozy up to the TEA Party; it’s no coincidence that after all of these years, particularly after the last midterm election, he has only recently found his anti-establishment credentials. The figurative shoe fits now. Apparently they, the shoes, want to be both worn and tread upon and Speaker Gingrich will continue to walk as far with them for as long as he can. Really, it’s a marriage of convenience if, and only if, no one points out that this guy would not have passed the anti-establishment litmus test a year, or even six months ago. Let’s not confuse ourselves with things as trifling as “details” or “facts” though…

      It’s unreal to me that “true” conservatives are choosing Gingrich as the hill they want to make their last stand on, the champion for whom all slights must be defended, no matter what the cost, for all of the reasons you listed above and more. I am definitely old enough to remember the Newt of the 90’s and find the man’s new found street cred to be a little much. Recasting him as the “outsider” or the advocate for the little guy requires revisionist history or cognitive dissonance, or both.

      That’s not what really gets to me though. It’s absolutely unfathomable that they, the aforementioned “true” conservatives, would choose an abhorrence to “scorched earth” policies as their most recent raison d’être. Because, we all know Newt has been against these methods throughout his entire career…a real champion for civility that one, he would never employ these same tactics if he had the means and ability to do so. Not Newt.

      Using the anger (“this is an outrage!!!”) of poor, defenseless, Newt being bullied to justify a behavior (e.g. voting 3rd party, voting for Barack or not voting at all) that any one of them, given a different candidate other than Romney, would outwardly deplore, just makes the irony, the dissonance and the hypocrisy that much more deplorable.

      Were it not Romney on the other end of this process, the same people here who are banging away loudest and longest about the need to part ways (“don’t make me do it!”) would be shouting the threats down and drumming those who make them into a state of silence.

    Sanddog in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 3:37 am

    “If this is all it took to drive you out of the GOP, you were never Republicans in the first place; you were, in essence, “RINOs,” in the truest sense of the word, all along.”

    I would describe a “RINO” as someone who would vote for a candidate who raises taxes on corporations, imposes a mandate to purchase private insurance, supports gun control and panders to the left continually as long as he has an (R) after his name.

    How’s that shoe fit now?

      WoodnWorld in reply to Sanddog. | January 30, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      “I would describe a “RINO” as someone who would vote for a candidate who raises taxes on corporations, imposes a mandate to purchase private insurance, supports gun control and panders to the left continually as long as he has an (R) after his name.”
      -It’s a cute definition, and may very well express the sentiment for you, but I know for a FACT if I polled everyone I know who has ever been associated with the TEA Party I would come up with Baskin Robbins, 31 Flavors of RINO. I like to look at things a little more literally.

      What you, and anyone else who would threaten to either sit the general election out because Romney *might* be the nominee, fail to understand is YOU are RINOs. By strict definition of the word, you are Republicans IN NAME ONLY. Your primary political loyalty is not to the Party, it’s to yourselves. If the contest is between Barack Obama and anyone with an “R” after their names, and you either do not vote for that “R,” do not vote at all, or, as some fools here have actually suggested, vote for Barack, you were a RINO all along. You wore the name when it was convenient, and cast if off when it was not. Rather than take a long term perspective and try to change the course of party over time, some suggest snapshot loyalty tests, purity tests, litmus tests, all while not realizing that each and every one of you has a different standard of measurement.

      How’s the shoe fit? You tell me.

….or Romneycare = Mandated Enterprise

Lemme’ take a wild ass guess here. Romney has welcomed three NEW front men.

Obama. Axlerod. Emanuel.

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/he-who-must-be-destroyed-palinization.html He who must be destroyed: The Palinization of Newt Gingrich is an ugly thing.

Another twist on Gingrich of, “Do as I say, but not as I do”:

Gingrich urges Students to get jobs, apparently unlike himself

“Students take fewer classes per semester. They take more years to get through. Why? Because they have free money,“ Gingrich said. “I would tell students: ’Get through as quick as you can. Borrow as little as you can. Have a part-time job.’

In a 1995 profile for Vanity Fair, author Gail Sheehy discovered that Gingrich financed his own education largely via the hard work of this then-wife. When things got tight, finding a job was not high on his to-do list. Sheehy wrote that Gingrich turned first to his adoptive father for help, and then to his biological one:

“Newt, who avoided Vietnam with student and marriage deferments, resisted taking a job. During his college years, Newt called up his father and stepmother to ask for financial help. His stepmother, Marcella McPherson, can still hear his exact words: ’I do not want to go to work. I want all my time for my studies. . . .Bob Gingrich told me he will not help me one bit. So I wondered, would you people help me?’ Big Newt began sending him monthly checks.

“Dolores Adamson, Gingrich’s district administrator from 1978 to 1983, remembers, ’Jackie put him all the way through school. All the way through the PhD. . . .He didn’t work.“

That Gail Sheehy article is a must read for anyone who wants to know the real Gingrich. Even though it was published in 1995, based on many interviews with close friends, family members, political cohorts, staff, and Gingrich himself, the language and description of Gingrich, incredibly, has not changed much in the last 22 years. The article is entitled, The inner quest of Newt Gingrich.

    gs in reply to tsr. | January 29, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Without independent verification, I do not believe anything Sheehy writes. Her reputation is sleazy. Wikipedia, too, should not be taken at face value, but the article I cited seems credibly sourced and it is consistent with my passing impressions.

Well, I guess one thing can be said for sure – Mitt Romney is the most polarizing person in Politics.

He now has managed to move the topic completely off Obama and instead split the Republican Party into two halves; the (largely) Conservatives on one side put-off by his Liberal actions and inability to pick a side on any issue and the (largely) Establishment-types who want to force the base into electing the person they know is just better for us, even if we don’t realize it (despite their inability to give us a reason to actually vote for him that his campaign team or personal history hasn’t contradicted)

Even here, on this very site, we have those of us who are getting to the point where we cant stand the man talking about the reasons we will have a hard time voting for Mitt pitted against those who (for some reason) came here and (for some reason) read the posts and for (some reason) feel the need to call us names or dismiss us as if we don’t know what is really better for us or whatever (while still staying away from that whole “reason to vote for him” issue that pro-Romney or Anti-Anti-Romney people don’t like to get anywhere near)

    WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 29, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    Please, enough with the melodrama. You get some points for the “spectacle” of it all, but not much more man. Neither this article nor your many, many responses have anything to do with Barack Obama. No one flipped the narrative, this entire piece is about what Romney, not the lot of you, are doing to the party. Let’s please not pretend otherwise.

    In addition, no one is calling you names. Scroll up, scroll down, take your time…

    I think the real problem is that you, and perhaps others too, read something you don’t agree with and you FLIP out. I think so many of you are so used to having the same types of things cheered and applauded, so many of the same types of comments being “upvoted” or “downvoted” (what is this, high school?) that you reflexively assume everyone agrees with you. They don’t. Some of us are VERY “Grassroots,” very independent and very tired of the status quo, we have read the articles and completely ignored the comment section of this blog because they are sooo one-sided and so monochromatic. I felt as though in the heat of the moment we were all being ginned up to escalate what is absolutely NOT a civil war, into something that very well could look like it. (I did NOT just call you a racist, or a hick there, just to be clear…) In the Marines, we called this tactic “FPF” or “Final Protective Fires.” It’s what you do when you are about to be overrun, don’t like that prospect and are willing to burn it all down to make the “enemy” pay as dearly as you can. It’s what you do to the ENEMY. Not your own. It’s what you do when you are losing.

    Rather than project your own (potential?) insecurities on to otherwise well-meaning and absolutely contradictory responses, than reflect what you “think” someone is saying about you, or to you, read what is actually being said. No one called YOU anything. If you read, “stomp your feet” etc. and translate that to “he just called me an immature brat, a petulant bully” (for example), it is more of a reflection on how you perceive yourself than it ever could be my perception of you, or yours.

    Don’t get it twisted Dark, this isn’t about you. It’s not about me either. This party will go on without us. We will win, with or without you too. Count on it.

      Who do you support?

        WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | January 30, 2012 at 12:47 am

        Honestly? Right now, I just don’t know. Some of the potential candidates I admire most (for different reasons) never jumped in the race in the first place. I have worked on campaigns in the past, was heavily invested in both 2004 and 2008 on both the local and national level and learned valuable lessons from those experiences. One was that being too wedded to any one candidate or the other in the primary process can be a painful thing. As such, I have kept myself to myself and tried to be as objective as possible throughout this process. I have not sent money to anyone (yet), and I have not volunteered my time for anyone either.

        What I care most about right now is who stands the best chance to beat Barack Obama. I understand a case could be made for either Newt or Mitt and think both positions have merit. I want whoever does win to have earned it. I know how vicious the Democratic machine can be and am not put off by our guys being a little ruthless with one another right now because of it. It will toughen them up, it is making them both better, harder, and stronger. There are arguments that could have been made later, about either one of them, that are now stale because they were aired earlier rather than later.

        Long answer to a short question, I know. Bottom line: I am going to wait to see who wins before I back one over the other.

      CalMark in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 12:19 am

      OK, here goes.

      Why I support Gingrich:
      1. Has experience in bringing home victory against the odds. Nobody even gave him a chance in ’94.
      2. Helped balance the budget. OK, that’s not QUITE accurate, but…he had a Dem President and a Dem (OK, cave-in RINO, same thing) Senate Majority Leader. He did darned well, even though I fault him for helping Clinton eviscerate the military to pay for it. I was on active duty and it infuriated me, but…perspective: Ron Dellums, who vowed to dismantle the military, was in line to be the next Dem House Armed Services Chairman.
      3. Reformed welfare. Indisputable.
      4. Led the first re-election of a GOP House Majority since ’28. That’s 66 years, if you’re counting. Also indisputable. More important, took the GOP House Majority from “impossible dream” to “possible” to “normalcy.” In less than 2 years. THAT is nearly miraculous.
      5. Strongly supported Term Limits. Was backstabbed by the RINO Establishment who didn’t even want to vote on it–never thought they’d win in ’94, so they signed onto it in in the Contract with America. Speaking of which…
      6. The Contract With America. When time gives perspective, historians will rank it as one of the seminal political strategies of the 20th century.
      7. Grand vision. Visionaries aren’t always right. But Reaching for greatness means taking chances, not playing it safe

      That’ll do for now. Your turn.

      Give me REASONS. Don’t tell my why you hate Gingrich. Tell me why you are supporting Romney?

        Darkstar58 in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 12:40 am

        I’m not even sure he is supporting Mitt, or hates Newt, or even has an opinion – getting him to actually touch a topic at hand is near impossible; and he seems much more focused on just attacking us in an effort to keep things from “escalating”

        I really do think he is merely trolling; too many inconsistencies and contradictions to be a rational person trying to take part in an actual conversation.

          WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 30, 2012 at 12:54 am

          Dude, let’s start over. I am not attacking you. In fact, the only reason why I am here at all is because I do NOT want to see us start tearing each other apart. My biggest fear is that we will lose this because we beat ourselves. When I saw the last few posts from Professor Jacobson suggesting “war” or the “Balkanization” of the Republican Party, I freaked out.

          It’s my worst nightmare. I was perfectly happy lurking on the sidelines, watching everything all of you have had to say. I jumped in last night, it was impulsive, and I know it.

          If the topic were anything other than this, we would all be slapping each other on the back. We would be ripping Obama, Pelosi and everything the Democrats are doing to shreds. I want to be on the same team as you, all of you. I understand full well we are not going to get along all of the time but I am okay with that, as long as we don’t go all hari kari, O.K. Corral on each other every time it happens.

        WoodnWorld in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 1:43 am

        Cal, I appreciate you trying, and will do my best to honor the effort.

        First, given my recent ah… “introduction” to him, and the oh so pleasant exchange we have had so far, I hate to say this, but Dark is right, but only up to a point. Re: “I’m not even sure he is supporting Mitt, or hates Newt..” he has me nailed. That’s where I am precisely. He is wrong, however, in thinking that I am either “trolling” or that I do not have an opinion on the matter. I am not, and I do.

        What brought me out of the shadows was the very real fear that there might be a civil war between two aspects of ourselves simply because some of us really do not like one of the prospective candidates. There are days when I am convinced we cannot lose this election, and then I read articles like that, and comments like some of these and I am convinced we cannot win.

        I think your reasons for liking Gingrich are valid. Every single one of your points has serious merit. I do believe you have made a strong case for Newt and would add that there is material value in having someone who can fire people up, someone who can, will and always has fired up the base. It’s a trait you can take to the bank. Newt is, by far, a better speaker than Mitt (he certainly stutters less), and I think he would make an extremely cogent case against Barack Obama. Newt has always been a big thinker, many of those thoughts have borne very productive fruits for us. We are all in a big mess right now and I think the status quo, or thinking small will only make the mess worse.

        On the flip side, I cannot ignore some of Newt’s negatives. More directly, I cannot ignore Newt’s actual negatives. His approval/disapproval scares the hell out of me. If he were less well-known, if his skeletons were made out of whole cloth I would say that time and effective management could drive those negatives down. The truth is, I believe he has a very narrow margin to work with and very little wiggle room to massage those down to an acceptable level.

        Why does this matter to me? I will tell you. Barack only won by ~6-7% points. Not exactly the sweeping mandate they wanted it to be. They had the perfect storm in 2008, no record to run against, a stealth candidate and all the sexiness in the world of “electing the first black President of the United States.” Frankly, it will never get that good for them again. He has an actual record now, it’s not pretty and many of that 6-7% are either disappointed/ disillusioned or bored by how ordinary it has all become. It’s just not as sexy to RE-ELECT the first black President as it was to elect him, many of those college student from then have graduated and moved on to the real world where jobs are scarce. They, the Dems, have suffered some serious attrition. IF we can carve off enough of the Reagan Democrats (re: labor), enough of the minority votes (through either conversion or attrition), enough of the liberal hawks (because our foreign policy right now is poo), enough of the Jews who are fed up with the way he has handled Israel, and bring back all of the moderate Republicans who jumped ship last time, it is game over. At a certain point, it comes down to math. Newt’s negatives scare me because I know (because I have heard, in no uncertain terms) from many representatives of the aforementioned constituencies, that they are either “terrified” of him, or they viscerally loathe him. Neither bode well for the numbers game.

        If everyone felt the same way we do, if everyone had the same values we do, I would say “NO. PROBLEM.” But the fact remains that there are large parts of the country who get a vote too (FOR NOW!! jkjk) and we have to contend for them as well.

        In addition, I also worry about Newt being able to control Newt. I know of the man very well, and can admire him for both his strengths and weaknesses, and he definitely has both. As long as Newt is grounded, and anchored, he is as good as they come. When he is not, he is his own worst enemy and a liability to everyone around him.

        That’s Newt. Next up, pros and cons to Mitt.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 2:59 am

          There are a number of things that bother me about Mitt Romney. Most of them are rendered, and rewritten over and over and over here. My biggest fear in nominating Mitt relates to everything that I have been reading from Professor Jacobson over the last couple weeks, and absolutely everything I have read here in the comments.

          Specifically, I am worried that some of the people on the Right will sit this one out if he gets the nod. I am worried that their antipathy for his obvious moderate tendencies, for his record in Massachusetts, for RomneyCare etc. will “force” some of them to stay home on principle, and others of them to stay home so, if we do actually lose in November, they can say “we told you so.” I think for a lot of people here, their political reasoning for them being so vehemently against him is a thinly glazed mask of anti-Mormom bigotry, and caught in honest moment, they would candidly admit it. I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist (ok, rigidly fundamentalist) Christian household, know how deep anti-Mormon hatred can run and am sure this is part of the problem. That Christians won’t vote for a Mormon does not bother me as much as them not voting for a Republican against Barack Obama. Either way, it’s a serious liability for “Mittens,” and one which cannot be either easily dismissed or overlooked.

          Romney’s apparent ah… flexibility… with the issues over the years also concerns me, deeply. I hear his camp saying he has “become” more conservative over the years (whatever that means?) and am absolutely aware of his record as both a private citizen and an elected official. I want to believe that he did as well as he could with an extremely liberal state, and will concede it must not have been easy to govern there, then, as a Republican, but I am not entirely convinced that this explains why he did some of what he did.

          He can be, forgive the pun, very wooden, and I think the charge of him being plastic has merit. But this is where he starts to “win” me over. I don’t want to elect someone I like. I don’t want to elect someone I want to have a beer with and I certainly don’t care if the President of the United States isn’t “one of the folks.” I think the whole cult of personality trap is part of what Obama into office and part of why we are in the mess we are here, now. Somehow we got it into our heads that voting for office is akin to voting for Prom King/Queen, or “American Idol.” I don’t want a rock star, I want someone who can keep us safe from our enemies and get shite done back home period.

          I do think Mitt knows money better than Newt does, and believe he could put together a team that would turn this economy around. We put an economic rookie up there in 2008, it has not worked out well for us.

          I do think Mitt would kill ObamaCare off and am unmoved by the arguments that he, for some reason, will be rendered impotent to argue against it. He screwed up, I honestly believe he knows it, and would do things differently if given the chance to do things over. But, if he came down, on any level against what he did in Mass. we would hang him with one more “flip-flop.” Any grade schooler could make a convincing, Federalist argument that what is good for the goose (Massachusetts) does not have to be good for the gander (the entire United States). Why he cannot make this argument, forcefully, is beyond me.

          The fact that he seems to be so “receptive” to the electorate, to put it euphemistically, actually encourages me. If we made gains in the House (and put more of the right sort into office), took back the Senate and put him in office, I genuinely think he would listen to what we have to say, he would have no choice. I think there is chance, a slim chance that Mitt has never been able to be as conservative in office as he truly wants to be but I wouldn’t bet on it. What I would bet on is that we could pull him to the right far easier than we could pull Newt ANYWHERE.

          A final plus for me with Mitt, and this one is huge, for ME. I know a lot of people from all across the spectrum: Upper, middle, lower “class;” liberals, moderates, libertarians, independents, old school Republicans, new found converts to conservatism, (legal) immigrants, academics, scholars, self-proclaimed idiots, blue collar, white collar, Christians, Jews, Mormons etc. No one I know on the Left or in the middle, with VERY few exceptions, is happy with Barack Obama. They are begging for an excuse to jump ship. As long as whomever we put up does not absolutely terrify them, we stand a very good chance of winning them over.

          I know that doesn’t count for much with purists but it means a great deal to the numbers game. I have heard the arguments about Dole, and about McCain. While McCain was not my first choice, I did end up working for him in 2008. We did not lose the election because he was a moderate. I know this is going to piss people off, but I really don’t care. We lost because too many people were turned off by Sarah Palin. I liked her then, I love her now and what they did, and still continue to do to her is not fair and it is not right but, after 3-4 years remove from it, and after having had too many conversations with people about what went wrong (and there were plenty of things) then, I honestly believe we lost because we scared people off. I know, I know, John should have covered for her better, we let them define her, we let the media control the narrative. I know, I get it. You are right about all of that. But the fact remains, there are people who were going to vote for us who decided not to because of how badly she either scared them, or turned them off.

          Romney does not scare the middle. In fact, I have had too many of my “Communist” or “Squishy Middle” friends tell me they both like Mitt and would vote for him in a heartbeat over Barack. Now, that’s not exactly the endorsement I would want for a conservative candidate but I think there is a case to be made that Mitt could win more of the 6-7% we lost in 2008 than Newt could.

          In closing, I have given too much to elections in the past to have my head twisted or my heart broken again. I am torn between Newt and Mitt and see clear strengths, and weaknesses to both. I think either could beat Obama, but, ONLY if we stick together. Whomever wins the nomination this year will have done so under a tremendous amount of adversity. Either will have earned it, for different reasons and with different strategies. I will support whomever wins absolutely and have no intentions of sitting this one out. E encourage you all to do the same. If the Democrats win, let them do it because we made them fight for every inch, not because we turned on one another.

          CalMark in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 3:03 am

          I gave my reasons for liking Gingrich. It should be easy to make a list like I did for your favorite candidate.

          I asked you for a similar list for Romney, but not talk about Gingrich. Looks like you couldn’t do it.

          If you can’t immediately give me a bunch of good reasons to support your guy, how are you going to convince undecided people? “He’s not Newt,” may beat Gingrich in the primaries, but it’s nowhere near enough to win the presidency.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm

          “I gave my reasons for liking Gingrich. It should be easy to make a list like I did for your favorite candidate.”

          -Either you did not read a word I said or your reading comprehension skills are in need of serious work. I do not have a favorite candidate right now. My “favorites” either never stepped in, or washed out along the way.

          “I asked you for a similar list for Romney, but not talk about Gingrich. Looks like you couldn’t do it.”

          -Oh yes, pardon me for responding the way I want to. There is a list up there, believe it. I can go back and point little numbers next to the points if it will make it easier for you to read Cal…

          “If you can’t immediately give me a bunch of good reasons to support your guy, how are you going to convince undecided people?”

          -I have absolutely no desire to “convince” anyone of anything (other than to get over themselves and vote against Obama, no matter what). I will leave the conversion attempts, the “persuading,” in an echo chamber no less, up to those like you.

          ““He’s not Newt,” may beat Gingrich in the primaries, but it’s nowhere near enough to win the presidency.”

          I love, LOVE, statements like this. All the weight and authority of someone who KNOWS. It’s an opinion, nothing more. Give it a rest, will you? Only time will tell.

      Darkstar58 in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 12:20 am

      wow, you are so full of yourself (yet oddly, contradicting) its comical…

      First, “who believes this crap” and “I get this noise from the OWS clowns” and “your comments is what the Left is spitting” and “Class warfare 101″… well, its all name-calling and dismissive elitism; so don’t give me that “no one is name calling” nonsense and you can stick the whole (weird) “projection” paragraph up your…

      Second, each and every one of my posts had to do with Obama in that Romney is a spitting image of him in his actual actions; both Governing and Campaigning. So, again, you can cut that crap out as well.

      Now, because you again didn’t actually stay on topic with anything (again) and tell me why it is wrong for me to point out that Romney’s Governor Record and Campaign Style is actually Left of Obama’s, well I can only assume you concede that issue. That would have me question why you ever opened your trap; but whatever, I have a strong idea as to why you here.

      Moving on, I could care less about “upvote” or “downvote” (like you claim), and instead have tried to focus on the actual issues at hand. You know, what you seem unwilling to do with your choice to instead attack the messenger ignoring his message. (anything to hide reality in a runaround instead, right? You learn that from Mitt himself?)

      Now, you claim “Some of us are VERY “Grassroots,” very independent and very tired of the status quo” yet follow it up with “This party will go on without us. We will win, with or without you too. Count on it.” which indicates to me two things
      1) you are not very grassroots at all, and actually prefer the status quo if you are so resigned in it continuing on without its supporters. (never heard a grassroots person tell people not to vote, so…)
      2) you’re doing nothing other then trolling; saying anything you can think up in your effort to gin up hostility in the comments (which is where your never actually having a point glows quite bright, I might add)

      Supporting both is a pair of sentences we can find between them:
      “we have read the articles and completely ignored the comment section of this blog because they are sooo one-sided and so monochromatic. I felt as though in the heat of the moment we were all being ginned up to escalate what is absolutely NOT a civil war, into something that very well could look like it.”

      Here you back-up the trolling train of thought, explaining that you normally ignore comment sections but felt the need to cause disruption this time around in an effort to keep it from ‘escalating’. Yes, I usually start throwing as many punches as possible at everyone but the issue in an effort to keep things from resulting in violence as well. Its the intelligent thing to do…

      You also claim the comments here are one-sided and monochromatic, so you completely ignore the other side and instead attack the people for having their thoughts. Another great idea.

      And if you want to know why it feels like ‘we’ are in a Civil War; well, its because we are. Whether you recognize it or not, the insiders and elites of the Republican Party are in full-blown assault mode on everything anti-status quo – ignoring facts, re-writing history and constantly attacking from the Left with Leftists Tactics while screaming that others shouldn’t ever question what is the “true Conservative”, look into his questionable business background or attack him because its unbecoming and not what honorable men do.

      Of course, I use the term ‘we’ lightly up there as I question if you have a conservative bone in your body. If you did, you would recognize the above and be using your alleged “grassroots” capabilities to inform everyone you come across they must stop this nonsense by holding Romney to task, or flat out bringing him down if he continues to ignore it. Instead, you’re here fighting against the very people doing just that. Maybe that “Independent” label you have given yourself is merely your outing yourself as more Liberal and/or Status-quo then you otherwise want to allude.

      Anyway, I have now wasted too much time with your off-topic and off-point slandering and dismissive attitude towards the very people actually taking part in the fight you claim you support (the one against the status quo) in your attempt to bring disruption in a quest to stay away from escalation. Please don’t bother replying again, your runaround game is old and your topic-dodging is pitiful. We don’t need your “go along to get along” mentality pedaling delivered in the form of a slamming door to other peoples opinions.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 30, 2012 at 12:55 am

        You really need to chill man. I suggest a little less of the melodrama, a whole lot less of the polemics, and a pinch or two of perspective.

        WoodnWorld in reply to Darkstar58. | January 30, 2012 at 1:05 am

        Dark, straight up brother, you are the only person I see here who is either A. taking things personally or, B. making things personal.

        I would, sincerely, go line by line, and rebut/refute a lot of what you just said but I am pretty sure it would not make a bit of difference with you. To put it differently, it would be a waste of both our time.

        “Troll” this, “disruption” that, ad hominem here, ridiculously simplistic definitions there… blah, blah, blah. There is nothing new here, it’s the same crap I can get from any other bully in any other comment section on the web.

        Believe for a moment that I do not care what you think about me personally, that I am not trying to attack you personally and that this is as important to me as it is to you and we MIGHT have a conversation. Until then, go beat up on someone else who will actually take it because I am not the one.

          Darkstar58 in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 1:30 am

          hahaha. Well first, I am not taking a thing personally and can honestly care less what you think or say. My issue is, and has pretty much always been, I have absolutely no idea why you say any of it as its some of the most contradicting and confrontational off-topic spiels I have read. Not once have you asserted a position or addressed an actual topic; instead focusing on everything but.

          That said, this post possibly takes the cake as the most idiotic of them all. Why? Because it was delivered 10mins after this:

          WoodnWorld | January 30, 2012 at 12:54 am

          Dude, let’s start over. I am not attacking you. In fact, the only reason why I am here at all is because I do NOT want to see us start tearing each other apart. My biggest fear is that we will lose this because we beat ourselves. When I saw the last few posts from Professor Jacobson suggesting “war” or the “Balkanization” of the Republican Party, I freaked out.

          It’s my worst nightmare. I was perfectly happy lurking on the sidelines, watching everything all of you have had to say. I jumped in last night, it was impulsive, and I know it.

          If the topic were anything other than this, we would all be slapping each other on the back. We would be ripping Obama, Pelosi and everything the Democrats are doing to shreds. I want to be on the same team as you, all of you. I understand full well we are not going to get along all of the time but I am okay with that, as long as we don’t go all hari kari, O.K. Corral on each other every time it happens.

          So after having fairly-ignoring the post once, and after having posted a “start over” post, you decide to come back and try to restate your non-topic, attack the messenger stance once again in an attempt to, I can only assume, keep your runaround argument over nothing going.

          If that isn’t the definition of a troll, I don’t know what one is…

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | January 30, 2012 at 2:03 am

          You are right. I had a moment of humanity, I genuinely felt for how hard you were struggling to connect seemingly disparate dots and tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. I fired that off, scrolled down and saw how much of a clown you were making of yourself, how desperately you were trying to pick apart the “contradictions.” As soon as I saw how much of an ass you were being, I immediately regretted trying to reason with someone who is, obviously, unreasonable. We are not on the same level, you and I. I am not saying I am either higher or lower, but only that we have two completely different styles and I find no redeeming value in trying to either reason, or communicate, with you. In all honesty, I have already given you far more time than you deserve. My mistake, will not happen again.

As you might have seen, yesterday Mitt Romney’s Super PAC began blasting out an ad attacking Newt Gingrich for only having been mentioned once—and not in a flattering light—in Ronald Reagan’s diaries. Today, National Review stepped it up a notch and actually claimsNewt Gingrich “repeatedly insulted” Ronald Reagan.The thing that makes these attacks so absurd is that they are being made on behalf of Mitt Romney, who wasn’t a Republican when Ronald Reagan was president and specifically said in his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign that he was not seeking public office to support either Reagan or George H.W. Bush. Romney ended up getting trounced by 17 points.
Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, was busy leading Republicans to their first victory in forty years in the House. And the following year, Nancy Reagan credited him with taking up the mantle of conservatism, saying Barry Goldwater had passed it to Ronald Reagan, and that Ronald Reagan had passed it to Newt Gingrich.
I don’t say any of this to defend Newt. Rather, I’m pointing it out as an illustration of the pathetic absurdity of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

Do you like that comment? It is from the Daily Kos. http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/he-who-must-be-destroyed-palinization.html

    wodiej in reply to EBL. | January 30, 2012 at 5:33 am

    He’s desperate. He knows most conservatives hold Reagan in high regard. He can’t possibly say he ever has so he can’t let people think Gingrich did either.

Anyone ever noticed that Matt Drudge/Drudge Report doesn’t have a Twitter account? He can dish it out but he can’t take it. Coward.

Anyone think the Romney campaign will be this driven during the general campaign?

We are too stupid to decide on our own! Angelo Codevilla has thus described America’s Ruling Class, made up of both political parties. As a result all of the control over our future resides with these faceless bureaucrats and politicians and Codevilla warns:

Dissent from the ruling class is rife among the American people, but occurs mostly on the sidelines of our politics. If there is to be a reversal of the ongoing defeats, both foreign and domestic, that have discredited contemporary America’s bipartisan mainstream, heretofore marginal people will have to generate it, applying ideas and practices recalled from America’s successful past.

The only organizational vehicle for wresting control from establishment pols is the TEA Party, but enlisting a thousand different groups and millions of free thinkers to miraculously pull this off for this election cycle at this late date is but a pipe dream.

Gary Johnson will likely get my wasted vote unless the lightbulb goes on among voters that all the bizarre ups and downs among Republican candidates during this primary results from the string-pulling Ruling Class puppetmasters hunkered down safely and anonymously behind the curtain.

    Here is Codevilla’s seminal article about the ruling class.

    IMHO the ruling class wants the voters to be either pavlovian partisans or apathetic. Things are set up—perhaps deliberately, perhaps in an emergent sense, perhaps both—so the upper caste benefits from the country’s decline. Like wise guys everywhere, they believe the bill won’t come due for them personally.

    CalMark in reply to gad-fly. | January 30, 2012 at 12:26 am

    The Establishment has been firmly entrenched since the New Deal. That’s 80 years.

    The Tea Parties have been around since 2009. That’s 3 years.

    Time is short, and things are very bad. However, they’ve got a lot more power, money, and influence than we do. We just have to stay focused and strong. Calm, cool, and steady – with some ruthlessness to go after them where necessary – wins the race.

    Bottom line: they are ruling without the consent of the governed. That will not continue. Fairly soon, I believe we will destroy them. They will try to destroy the country in their death throes out of spite. So be it. It is better to face tyranny strongly than acquiesce meekly to slavery.

Conservatives who respect each other but despise Romney can’t coalesce around one “ABR” candidate.

The Establishment makes no bones about despising conservatives and the Tea Party.

Question: How is the Establishment going to convince conservatives to unite around Mitt “ABO” Romney?

    Darkstar58 in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 12:57 am

    The ironic thing is that many of us “ABR” types were not anti-Romney in the beginning, he was just our least favorite of the Conservative Candidates.

    Now however, with the Romney Campaign and Establishment blitzkrieg being perpetrated on Newt having so much over-spray as to hit us all on numerous issues, well…

    Mitt Romney could have just ran a campaign, winning some states, losing others, and likely ended up with the nomination – everything would have been fine and we likely would have held our noses and voted for him much like we did McCain. His inability to accept even the smallest of defeats and desire to lie, slander and smear anything in his way to win all states as quickly as possible at all costs though…

    Well, apparently he decided he is better off securing the nomination as quickly as possible, even if it meant he would continue on without the votes of the enthusiastic base he trashes on the path. (which having such an extreme Liberal record, I guess its semi-understandable he was fearful of that coming out and eventually leading us away from him anyway; but still it’s showing that he takes us for granted like possibly no man before him)

      CalMark in reply to Darkstar58. | January 30, 2012 at 2:57 am

      Actually, I think Mitt Romney would have been soundly defeated in a normal campaign season. Thus, the Establishment has accelerated things. Why they’d run someone like Romney is a mystery, but it’s “his turn,” and (I guess) better Obama than a conservative.

      Romney is no longer “Not McCain” ’08; he is “McCain ’12.” That means he’s being scrutinized a lot more closely.

      But even the Establishment can only keep the lid on Romney’s past for so long. For an unscrupulous character like Romney, negativity works only in the short run; in the longer run, people learn about the guy and it backfires. The Establishment sees it happening, and they’re desperate to end the process ro Romney is cooked.

      That’s why the “It’s over by Florida” pronouncement. People are starting to ask questions (for example, Why is Bain off-limits?)and Romney’s past is oozing out of the cesspool, despite hysterical damage control by everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Drudge.

        wodiej in reply to CalMark. | January 30, 2012 at 5:21 am

        I think alot of the reason the establishment runs moderates is because they don’t want to have to really abide by the conservative platform. They want to spend money and line their pockets, get pork projects for votes just like the Democrats do. Gov. Palin did conservatives a great favor by exposing and setting the narrative on crony capitalism.

    Excellent.

    I have asserted all along that, like everything else, the polls are rigged for Romney.

    Between Monday and Wednesday, less than 3 days, a 20-point swing sent Gingrich from +12 to -9. Huh?

    Reality: Gingrich is drawing huge crowds, creating buzz (like or hate his Space comments–he’s defining the Space debate), getting lots of very good endorsements (Cain, Palin, West). Romney is allegedly ahead by huge numbers, but dumping money into the race.

    Maybe, as his camp says, Romney is spending big for a huge victory, to “destroy” Gingrich, i.e., for February momentum. (That means it’s not over yet.) Or maybe it’s rationalization for Romney spending enormous amounts when he’s so far ahead–because he isn’t.

    Remember: many polls said SC would be a toss-up. Gingrich won by 12.

    My gut instinct is that Romney is winning big by the filthiest tactics imaginable. There’s really very little we can do about it at this point.

    thanks for the update. Very encouraging.

Why are Floridians capitulating so completely? And why hasn’t Rick Santorum captured the conservative imagination?

Who does T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII support?

Re: all the analyses about whether it is better to remove Obama, or keep Obama in so Conservatives can start afresh.

Bob Krum (at http://www.bobkrumm.com/blog/?p=2358) has this prediction:

“20. President-Elect Romney will immediately let down his base by the nomination of a major financial industry insider as Treasury Secretary. This will be the first of many disappointments that will follow in 2013.

Bonus prediction which will take years to see if it comes true: 2012 will be the last year that a Republican is ever elected President.”

So maybe getting Romney in would be a good thing: it might well destroy the Republican Party. Certainly it appears that that is something that Conservatives/Tea Partiers should devoutly desire.

Oh sure. If our preferred candidate doesn’t get the nod we’re going to pout, not vote, and take a chance the wrecking ball in the white house will get four more years. Absolutely. Completely rational. Keep pushing that narrative, you know the msm will be running wild with it as soon as we have a nominee – no matter who it is. Maybe it will come true and you’ll get to say “told you so.” Then it will all be worth it. And maybe Barry will get to appoint another leftist nutjob to the SCOTUS. Won’t that be fantastic? Think of the fun we’ll have blaming Romney! I’m not thrilled with Mitt or Newt, they’ve both made asinine moves imo, but nothing will keep me from casting a vote against Obama in Nov.

    Darkstar58 in reply to hglaske. | January 30, 2012 at 1:04 am

    “And maybe Barry will get to appoint another leftist nutjob to the SCOTUS.”

    3/4 of the judges Romney appointed to the MA courts were Liberal or Activist-minded Independents (leaning Gay Marriage and Pro-Choice). He bragged “(I have) not paid a moment’s notice to nominee’s political leanings.” and talked about the need for “diversity” to be present. Similarly, he appointed Activists to his cabinet (including Gay-rights, Pro-Choice and Environmental)

    So I guess I’m saying I’m not sure how replacing Obama with Mitt will ensure the SCOTUS stays clean of bad judges.

    WoodnWorld in reply to hglaske. | January 30, 2012 at 3:10 am

    hglaske, Well done. You just said in a single, concise paragraph what I have been attempting to say in, well, more than that.

    There is absolutely nothing that is going to keep me from voting against this administration this Fall. Anyone who will actually sit this one out, and also claims to be a “real” conservative, is either: immature, ignorant, angry, or all three.

The Wigs disintegrated because the party could not decide how to deal with the central crisis that the nation faced at the time.

If the Republican party cannot, then it to will be replaced.

    With our corrupt and out of touch ‘elite political leadership’ in DC, perhaps it IS time to start a new political party based upon fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility (as opposed to the collective/statist model).

    I will not vote for Mitt Romney. He’s the wrong candidate at the wrong time. This field of presidential candidates has been the weakest in 70 years. None of them have the character or strength of will that will be needed to make the fundamental changes this country needs in order to survive.

    Rich Vail
    Pikesville, Maryland
    http://thevailspot.blogspot.com

      memomachine in reply to Rich Vail. | January 30, 2012 at 3:04 pm

      Yeah pretty much. The reality is that there is a still hidden struggle for control of the GOP. The establishment Republicans (Romney, Bush, Dole, etc) still have control but fear losing power to the unwashed conservative masses. They need conservatives for the activism, energy, money and votes. But they hate that need.

      What I see now with Romney, his superpacs and the full court press by the establishment Republicans in their attack on Gingrich is an expression not just of that need or even the hate for that need. But a desire to stamp out any possible challenge to their power.

      Only problem is that the existing fractures in the GOP are now being made immeasurably worse. Add to that the various efforts to undermine or eliminate existing conservatives from positions of power or authority. Anybody can see the writing on the wall.

      Frankly I see Romney winning the nomination but uncertain about winning the general election. However the GOP will be judged by Romney’s performance. If he doesn’t win the general election then the whole “electability” nonsense is dead and any “conservative” who tries pushing that will watch as their credibility dies a painful agonizing death. If he does win the general election and governs as he most likely will, a tamer version of Obama. Then again the GOP loses credibility and even more conservatives will declare themselves independent.

      Personally I figure the day of reckoning will likely be in the 2014 mid-term elections. That will be when the fractures will really come into focus.

I can’t stand Romney!!!!! This guy will literally destroy anyone who gets in his way of becoming President. This seems so obvious to me and I cannot understand how Floridians can have him leading in the polls. He will never repeal Obamacare and that will be a complete disaster for all of us.

I can’t stand Romney!!!!! This guy will literally destroy anyone who gets in his way of becoming President. This seems so obvious to me and I cannot understand how Floridians can have him leading in the polls. He will never repeal Obamacare and that will be a complete disaster for all of us.

Given what I have seen from the Republican elite / establishment (call it what you will) to this point, I am leaving the Republican Party. I am disgusted beyond measure. I will cooperate with the Republican Party where it is in my strategic interest as a conservative, but I think it now two years beyond time for the Tea Party to start actually turning into a third party, running candidates at the local level to build up strength. Whatever else this primary has taught me, it is that the Republican Party does not represent my interests.

Romney has seven documented lies (so far) in the second Florida Debate alone. (CNN, Jacksonville 1/26/12)

1. He denied accusing Newt of exaggerating/lying about his part in Reagan’s administration only three days before on Monday night in Tampa.
2. He lied about his own ‘ghetto language’ ad that bore his voice
3. He claimed all his business was run by a blind trust, a tactic that Mitt himself called ‘the oldest ruse in the book’ in a previous campaign.
4. He said he voted for republicans in the past when there was a republican to vote for, but if you look back at the Gingrich ad exposing his lies, it turns out when George H.w. Bush and Buchanan were running, he voted for a liberal democrat.
5. He denied the cost of Romneycare to taxpayers in Massachusetts. “Half of those people got insurance on their own. Others got help in buying the insurance.”
False. In fact, 98% of the additional people insured after Romneycare was passed have it paid for or subsidized by the federal government or Massachusetts government. Of the 412,000 additional people who had health insurance in 2010 who did not have it in June 2006 (pre-reform), only 7K of the 412K (1.7%) had unsubsidized health insurance. The rest were covered through Medicaid, Commonwealth Care, or a program of subsidized care for the unemployed.
6. He denied the impact of Romney care on citizens of Massachusetts. Romneycare has increased the price of healthcare premiums for every citizen of Massachusetts. Premiums have increased by 55 percent since Mitt Romney became Governor, a rate 13 points higher than the national average and the third highest growth rate among the states.
7. He said he lowered taxes in Massachusetts 19 times. Yet he raised fees and corporate taxes twice. No wonder Massachusetts was rated at the bottom of all the states (47-49th) in job and business growth.

Romney’s departures from reality and truth are so frequent, they are disturbing…seemingly pathological.

Other LIES and liars:
Romney continues a smear/character assassination campaign by perpetuating the lie that Newt was guilty of the congressional investigation though he was exonerated.
Romney is covertly lying by using the media such as Drudge, Coulter, Town Hall and other media resources to spread and perpetuate lies, innuendo and prejudice to shape popular opinion against Gingrich. Turns out, Romney’s Bain Capital owns the company that owns Drudge. Who or what else does Romney own? We have watched stories ‘appear’ around the media in concert…like a coordinated military attack…using the same negative descriptors and slogans. The media has become nothing more than a paid political tool.

As ‘Judge Janine’ interviewed Sarah Palin on Fox News, the smirky smile, snide innuendo, false assertions she used were similar to the snide facial expressions and comments Glenn Beck used when interviewing Newt. This ‘Judge’ has as little respect for the truth as Romney – she asked Palin, “So Newt is planning to make the moon the 51st State?”

This week, we Floridians watched FL Attorney General Pam Bondi sell her soul on the air this week. She has been hired by the Romney administration task force to implement Hillarobamneycare. This is scandalous. She has sold her advocacy for the people of Florida as well – She cannot fight Obamacare with one hand while approving it with the other. She is obviously another liberal pretending to be conservative – like Romney.

Hope these people with no integrity, joining Romney in his campaign of lies, who sell America and its constitutional principles down the tube, are going to get paid well.

Romney and/or Soros have invested enormous amounts of money in attaining power…more evidently than Obama has ‘invested’ in green businesses (crony money laundering schemes) that have gone bankrupt in less than two years.

Why? What do they want? To get richer? To make their names admired or feared? To get their way? Control?

OR IS THERE SOMETHING BIGGER GOING ON?

Is the plan to eventually dissolve the US into a single global economy, government, religion, society, etc.? Is this what the big global players, Ted Turner, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Soros and the big time Goldman Sachs, FED, IMF crowd are working toward? Will they create a gradually-increasing global crisis and then say they can only ‘solve’ it with their globalist solution?

May the Lord have mercy on America and the world with Soros, Obama and Romney and their various puppeteers in charge.

A final comment (please forgive 3 in a row)

An active Republican Party worker in Virginia, has said that Romney and his people have estranged Republicans in Virginia WITH THE SAME TACTICS we have seen in Florida and nationally:

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2012/01/29/republican-establishment-out-to-get-allen-west/comment-page-1/#comment-884413

I’m just one person, but I don’t think I’m alone in feeling nothing but disgust towards Mitt Romney. If Romney’s the nominee, I’m sitting at home on election day. Because if that’s the only choice besides Obama, the country’s already gone over the cliff and will soon land right next to Greece in the ash-heap of history.

I’m still not sure I can the lever for a candidate I do not respect. What is conservative without values? How then can Newt be our our standard bearer (Romney aside)?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend