Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Blaming the victim

Blaming the victim

John Hinderaker at Power Line lays the blame for an eventual loss to Obama primarily at the feet of Newt:

Nevertheless, if you are a Republican, the vibes are very bad. The presidential primary season has turned into a disaster, in my view. Mitt Romney has shown a discouraging inability to appeal to the party’s base, while the race has damaged both Romney and the party. Newt Gingrich, in particular, sacrificed the party to his own ego by launching left-wing attacks against Romney. Gingrich is gone as a Republican contender, but we will see more of him in the fall, in Obama ads. What a swan song for someone who once led the conservative movement!

This narrative has it backwards.

Newt started out positive, and tried to stay positive as Romney, his SuperPAC and his supporters in the conservative media savaged Newt in Iowa (and later Florida) with what David Limbaugh appropriately called “relentless, unmeasured scorched-earth savagery.”

None of the people engaged in Romney’s strategy of crazy cared a bit about how the attacks would hurt Newt if Newt became the nominee.  Now they complain that Newt hurt the party by attacking Romney’s Bain record; and by so doing they have conflated capitalism, free markets, and the Party with the Bain model, which will do far more damage than anything Newt ever did.

Even Peggy Noonan gets it:

The Romney campaign is better at dismantling than mantling. They’re better at taking opponents apart than building a compelling candidate of their own.

I’m not ready to write off the general election, regardless of who the nominee is.

But if you are looking for blame, look straight at the Romney campaign.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Newt’s speech today at CPAC should be interesting.

We need a positive message, and I think from the previews he may provide it.

    Tamminator in reply to Ragspierre. | February 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    He kicked it out of the park. AMAZING speech.
    And he didn’t mention the “R” word once.
    He went after Obama.
    Lots of standing ovations.
    Damn, that was good.

StrangernFiction | February 10, 2012 at 10:45 am

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/rasmussen-tracking-obama-with-ten-point-lead-over

Look what you’ve done Newt. You and your principled conservative supporters. Hope you all are happy.

/s

    That’s the Obama who is running away form his record

    Romney is getting vetted as the process has progressed. I think he has no way to beat Obama because he authored Mass. coverage first healthcare and passed it with the help of Ted Kennedy.

    Gingrich has a way forward with his 21st Century Contract with America. The debate in Arizona will have the focus of a conservative message to rally around.

    Yes, I am happy about that.

Someday you’ll have to give up the “Newt tried to stay positive” meme, Professor. This is politics, for heaven’s sake. Do you honestly think that even in a Romneyless field that Gingrich was going to stay relentlessly positive (as he claimed)? That “angry Newt” would never surface?

And even so, Gingrich has handled the attacks very poorly … responding with his own “pious baloney” and distortion-filled advertising.

I’m not making any excuses for what Romney does/did, but you need to stop gilding Gingrich.

    Neo in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Yeah. Newt should have stayed positive and had his SuperPAC call Mitt a little cockroach.

      Astroman in reply to Neo. | February 10, 2012 at 12:50 pm

      “Let’s face it,” Newt’s gonna be the nominee.

      Newt sat on the global warming couch with Nancy Pelosi.

      Newt endorsed a federal healthcare mandate.

      Newt is for local amnesty panels.

      Newt isn’t as smart as he (or you) thinks he is.

        Valerie in reply to Astroman. | February 10, 2012 at 2:09 pm

        If your statements were true, I’d agree with you. But, I’ve done my homework.

          Astroman in reply to Valerie. | February 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm

          OK, Valerie, which of my statements aren’t true?

          That Newt didn’t foolishly boast he had the nomination locked up before a single vote had been cast? That is definitely true.

          That Newt didn’t sit on the global warming couch with Nancy Pelosi? That is definitely true.

          Shall I continue?

          Ironically, I have continued to make a number of predictions in the comments on this blog that have come true, even while y’all continue to give me thumbs down.

          It isn’t because I’m so smart, or y’all are so dumb, it is because I can put aside my feelings and make an honest assessment of things. I think a lot of y’all have gotten caught up in election hysteria. The antidote to that is to realize that none of these guys is the Messiah, they are all just politicians. Y’all are losing your objectivity.

          For example, even though I can’t stand Newt, nevertheless I accurately predicted Newt would beat Romney in SC, and that he wouldn’t need Perry to step to do it – back when everyone was afraid Romney would take SC. (Perry stepped down and endorsed Newt, but that wasn’t the difference, as Newt’s lead over Romney was greater than the numbers of Perry’s supporters.)

        Zelsdorf Ragshaft III in reply to Astroman. | February 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm

        Romney conspired with Edward M. Kennedy to install healthcare in Massachusetts. Which caused more harm? Sitting on a couch with a witch or collaborating with the devil?

          I was going to drop in the obligatory joke about sitting on the couch with a witch every night, but she’s.. right.. behind me.. as I type.. holding her broom.. baseball bat style…

          WHAP

Seems like most people are filtering events based on whether or not it helps their guy — only way to make sense of all the nonsensical things being said.

Newt is tough and smart, and he’ll keep being tough and smart. Every chance he has to get in front of people and speak he will remind them of that.

Apparently, the second and third posters here did NOT listen to the debates that took place before Iowa.

Facts matter, and Newt was the positive candidate, articulating conservative principles before the Iowa caucuses. He was polling at 35% at that point.

ROMNEY’S Super-pac went on the attack in Iowa and set out to destroy Gingrich, not to just delineate differences, but to DESTROY both Gingrich the candidate and Gingrich the man, all the while with Romney PRETENDING that he knew nothing. Sgt. Schultz never declared ignorance so well.

Romney is like the English king, asking “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?” (And,then, acting surprised and horrified at Thomas Beckett’s murder by his soldiers.)

Romney’s forces are the ones who began the negativity and continue it still. At his core, Romney is not a good man, no matter how he tries to portray himself- and the voters sense it.

    StrangernFiction in reply to AmandaFitz. | February 10, 2012 at 11:23 am

    The meme that Romney is a nice man is as preposterous as the meme that he is a conservative. He’s scum.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to AmandaFitz. | February 10, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Romney has been aided and abetted by the media, both the liberal and so-called conservative media which have shown their own true colors in this year’s campaign.

    Good to have the media, both networks and pundits vetted as well as the candidates. I’ll never see Ann Coulter or Drudge as ‘good guys’ again.

    In my case, you’d be wrong. I enjoyed “avuncular Newt” (as Krauthammer called him) in the early debates. In fact, I suggested to my wife that Gingrich could easily be a great running mate for one of the other candidates, maybe even Romney! Obviously that ship has sailed.

    I will go back to what I’ve always said about Gingrich: I remember Newt of the 90’s. I was around for it, and I don’t believe he’s changed. Angry Newt was under the surface waiting to come out. Romney simply tapped the boil.

    That’s not to say Romney’s approach was good or helpful or right. But this blog’s constant whitewashing of Gingrich’s own campaign troubles is embarrassing.

You have it exactly right professor! How soon they forget that Newt started out in the early “debates” refusing to say anything negative about his opponents; He concentrated entirely on Obama. Then came Iowa!

In identifying the persons responsible for this sorry state, let’s not forget the role the media organs and pundits of the Establishment played in it. A cover of Newt as “Marvin the Martian” or pieces by Steyn and the comments of Coulter and Kristol hardly can be said to be models of civility.
Romney’s super Pac fired the first shot when it became clear that his (Romney’s) message was not resonating with the base.
Now they want civility? It’s very tough to put the toothpaste back into the tube that you just smashed with your fist.
As the immortal philosopher Bugs Bunny once observed, “what a bunch of maroons!”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: “You can have Mittens, but without any help from me.”

I use to read Powerline – glad I stopped.

“Michael Henkins, at Flopping Aces:

Romney supporters are always sure to let you know how much more money Romney has then his opponents. What is amazing is this one statistic. With all the resources Romney has to gather in funds there is one statistic he loses to Gingrich… Of what the OpenSecrets.org defines as ‘Small Individual Contributions’ Gingrich took in $6,260,961 compared to Romney’s $5,232,273. Not a huge lead that Gingrich has over Romney at first look. What is significant is the percentage of the total amount that these contributions are relative to the total amount of money raised by each candidate. For Gingrich Small Individual Contributions make up 49% of the total rose. For Romney, only 9%.”

http://tinyurl.com/6s4upxf

“Jena McGregor, at The Washington Post:

Newt Gingrich gets a lot of credit for his smarts… But intelligence alone is not enough to attract followers. What inspires Gingrich’s supporters is not just his ideas but the way he wraps them in narratives about the past and the future. Gingrich peppers his remarks with historical references, makes grand statements about where the country is headed, and launches into didactic but accessible explanations of everything from foreign policy to the deficit. He talks like someone who believes he can change the world—and he apparently does—causing those who support him to feel they are part of something of significance, something much bigger than themselves.”

“Susan Duclos, at Wake up America:

Seems ironic that Mitt Romney is going after Newt Gingrich using ethics charges that he was exonerated from by using questionable ethics of his own.”

Hey Professor, you were also mentioned here:

“William A. Jacobson, at Legal Insurrection:

Santorum cannot be considered the designated not-Romney until he proves he can win or at least do very well in big states with binding primaries where everyone competes. In other words, let’s see how Santorum does on Super Tuesday. Then we can talk. As for Newt, he’s still hurting from the almost $30 million in negative ads run against him in about a 45 day period starting in December in Iowa, as well as the conservative media and political establishment pile on… Romney has been slowed by Santorum, giving Newt some breathing room as Romney of necessity will have to turn at least some attention to stopping Santorum. Newt needs to prove himself on Super Tuesday. As for Romney, his completely over-the-top attacks on Newt hurt Newt, but… A lot of people are disgusted with the way Romney has run his campaign, and it forced powerful voices like Sarah Palin and Mark Levin to speak out against the smears. I’m not sure Romney can carpet bomb Santorum successfully the way he carpet bombed Newt — the Republican electorate will not stand for it again. Romney will have to find a more subtle way to take down Santorum. Maybe Romney should start thinking outside the box, and convince people whey they should vote for him not just against others.”

Newt Certo!

Pointing out that Romney started the mud slinging is hardly ‘gilding’ anyone. Your argument is disingenuous at best. There is no indication that Gingrich or Santorum would have gone negative in the absence of the Romney camp onslaught.

Never mind that Romney and his surrogates have persisted with their plainly dishonest misrepresentations of both of those candidates (strange that they haven’t attempted to slime Ron Paul so directly or publicly – Lord knows the material is there.)

And Hinderaker is dead wrong about who has wrought the most damage upon the party – it is Romney with his obviously reflexive left-knee jerks whenever hard pressed, coupled with his inability to plainly articulate conservative ideals in a consistent or credible manner.

The Powerline boys, like the NRO boys, are pretty much impressed with themselves. The classic hallmark of a Romnibot is to blame the victim for anything Romney does.

Time to call Curtis LeMay Romney on the carpet (bombing).

Of the current field of candidates, Newt’s my man. I’ll back Santorum, with reservations. If Paul comes up from out of nowhere, I’ll take it as a Sign and get behind him, even though I foresee a lot of problems with a Paul campaign.

But if Romney wins the nomination, screw it. #writeinSarah. I will.

I do agree….. If Mittens end up with the nomination the nose holding that it will take when voting will be amazing…..

Gingrich and Santorum each have positive records on which they can run without needing to demonize opponents. Romney cannot, because he insists on declaring himself a ‘conservative’ and little about his record says ‘conservative’ other than five years of soundbites of Romney claiming he’s conservative. Since Romney’s actual political record and his claim to be a conservative are mutually exclusive – to illuminate the former is to eliminate the latter – he has no path to victory except by the personal destruction of each and every opponent. It was true in 2008 and it is true again in 2012. This time round he has much more experience at demonizing opponents.

So now they know that they are going to lose if Romney gets the nomination but, they hate conservatives so much, they’d rather sacrifice their country’s future and the future of their party just to stick it to us?

And these kamikaze RINOs are supposed to be the smart ones?

myveryownpointofview | February 10, 2012 at 12:05 pm

My opinion of Mitt:

Romeny has bared his soul, showing no vision – only derision.

When has he presented his plan for a path forward? When has he REALLY gone hard after obama?

No, all he has done is behave boorishly. He is a small, mean man with a lot of money.

via RealClearPolitics, Rasmussen’s most recent national polling (2/7-9) shows the following:
– Obama +4 over Santorum
– Obama +10(!) over Romney (the electable one)

Rasmussen from 2/6-7 shows Obama only +3 over Gingrich.

So of the three major Republican candidates, the national Rasmussen polling shows the Inevitable(!), the Electable(!) Mitt Romney performing by far the WORST in a one-on-one matchup against Obama.

Sadly, John Hinderaker is a used-to-was. Another Minnesota pseudo-conservative cozying up to bigger rather than leaner government.

I tried to leave the following comment at PowerLine but the module would not work. I’ll repeat it here – This is a response to Hinderaker and NOT to Prof. Jacobson whom I admire! 🙂

“I’ve read all of the comments here and am amazed that no one has mentioned what I think is the most salient point of 2012. Whether one is pro or anti or meh on the tea party, it was their enthusiam that led them to the polls in 2010. If Republicans want to keep the House and have any chance of winning the Senate, they better heed the statistics that are staring them in the face.

“The base is NOT voting. Turnout is down by double digits — above 25% in some states — from 2008. They are not going to vote for Romney in the primaries. They gave it a whirl in Florida (and 20,000 or so voters turning out in Nevada is almost laughable) and gave Romney a win. The next Tuesday, the base woke up and gave Santorum 3 wins. Santorum has won 4 of 8 contests. Romney has lost 5 of 8.

“The tide is turning. The economy getting better even the littlest bit seems like huge strides to most people who are out of work. BUT Obama chooses to play games with social issues. He has made a mistake with this contraception/steralization issue and left a door open and reminder that social issues are still important issues. Even more, he has assaulted the Constitution and given an opening to show how he has been doing this in many ways throughout his term in office.

“Meanwhile, all Romney can do is fling mud and tell people he saved the Olympics. With a down economy, the management factor seems more important but Obama will do everything in his power to juice the numbers from now til November — and if people keep falling off the rolls, the unemployment number will go down even though fewer and fewer people are actually employed.

“Santorum is not a one-dimensional candidate and he is much more conservative than Romney has ever been. But first and foremost, he excites the base. The condescending comments that the base has no skin in the game are uncalled for. There is plenty of money floating around to run the Super PACs and other orgs and to fund a candidate. There is NOTHING in the world more important as far as skin in the game than those that will move their 2 feet to the polls and pull the lever for the Conservative candidate. The base will do that — but many more will do it and do it more energetically if there is a true conservative they can get behind. In the end, even if Obama wins, those extra votes will help ensure we hold the House and probably take the Senate.’.

    Santorum is exciting the base? Voter turnout in those 3 states was all down and in Missouri, Gingrich was not on the ballot. I wouldn’t say that is a mandate for exciting anyone.

I just listened to Ann Coulter speak at CPAC.
Apparently, we “right wingers” are stupid, and we must accept Romney because he’s the only guy that independents will vote for.
Really, Ann?
Do you think independents are all fully employed in this economy? Do you think independents aren’t losing their homes to foreclosure? Do you think independents are so stupid that they don’t notice that they are going to be forced to buy an insurance policy that pays for abortion whether they like it or not?

Keep up the condescension, Ann.
You’re starting to sound just like a progressive.

It’s sad that there’s so much anger out there that we have to now accuse John Hinderaker of no longer being a conservative. (Or Ann Coulter. Or Matt Drudge. Or fill-in-the-blank …)

I’ll tell you this: if Hinderaker is no longer a conservative, then the conservative tent is so small that it’s in danger of no longer existing. If you think you win votes by constantly excising people from the movement because they support someone you don’t, get used to the minority.

And I’m sure this is all Romney’s fault, right, Professor?

    wodiej in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Ann Coulter is NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Saying she is doesn’t make it so. She is friends w Bill Maher-do you know who he is?? He is one of the most vulgar, sexist, hateful, left wing people in Hollywood and he is also one of Coulters’ good friends. She first said if Romney was the nominee Republicans would lose. Now she acts like we can’t win without him. At the very least she’s a hypocrite and a hateful, mean spirited one at that.I don’t want her on my side.

    Jake Blues in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    And who shrunk the tent? It sure as hell wasn’t the Tea Party. Face it: Coulter, Drudge, NRO – they are now the mainstream pundit class and they have decided they know better than the rest of us. You go ahead and keep supporting them, I’ll move on to other sources that don’t talk down to me.

    Tamminator in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Where in the post did the Professor say that John Hinderacker is not a conservative?

    Ann Coulter has utter disdain for the tea party movement and anyone who disagrees with her.
    I find her disgusting.

    But you keep go ahead and keep excising US from the tent, Ryan. That scorch and burn policy is working SO well for Romney that I’m sure it will work for you as well.

    Hope Change in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Ryan, your comments here are all about how wrong someone else is. What do you think is the best way forward?

    To let you know how it looks from my point of view: Ronald Reagan said he didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him.

    I didn’t leave John Hinderaker. John Hinderaker left me.

    And it is a terrible loss to me. I love John Hinderaker’s writing and brilliance. John has a brilliant mind with dazzling capability. I miss reading him. He was one of my go-to guys for current events and politics. Sharp, sharp, sharp. Entertaining, insightful. Now, no more.

    It’s like a dear friend has developed a mental illness.

    I keep hoping he’ll snap out of it.

    The people I know who used to read him are so angry and disappointed, they rarely read Power Line at all anymore.

    I stopped reading Power Line months ago.

    Tragic loss for me.

      Hope Change in reply to Hope Change. | February 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      About John’s criticism of Newt. As I’ve said, if Newt is the nominee, I believe Newt will win a decisive victory in the general election.

      Newt is planning an American campaign based on the big issues that almost all Americans agree on. — Newt is saying, if you want paychecks for your family rather than food stamps, join us; if you want a balanced budget, join us; if you want manufacturing to return to America, join us; I’ve done it before, more than once; we can do it again, join us.

      I suspect that John Hinderaker sees that Romney hasn’t caught on and isn’t likely to catch on.

      Newt provides by far the best, most competent, safest alternative to Romney. So in that sense, John is right to blame Newt.

      I think the forces of the Establishment (and it is crushing to me to see John Hinderaker allied with them) wanted to get Romney in. “Inevitable, inevitable, inevitable.” And they wanted this to happen without any viable alternative, BEFORE the TEA Party and the average American could have a chance to get to know Romney and see what Romney’s real record is.

      Newt is certainly one of the biggest reasons this didn’t happen. So in that sense, John is right to blame Newt.

      Now it’s not clear what will happen. And it’s clear, since the midwest crushing defeat for Romney vis a vis Santorum, that Romney probably really, really, really might lose the general election. Because those nominally on Romney’s side — those of us who are constitutional, conservative, libertarian, republican, whatever the label, AREN’T on Romney’s side, because Romney’s not really on OUR side, and we know it.

      So John Hinderaker sees the writing on the wall. And he needs to blame someone. And he can’t blame Romney. And really, it probably is Newt who threw the spanner into Romney’s election terminator money machine.

      The weird thing is, I know that John Hinderaker loves this country and loves our freedoms as much as anyone. So why he would think Romney was a viable or good choice in the first place is a huge mystery to me. This whole “appealing to the moderates” has been tried before. It doesn’t work. I think John knows that very well.

      It’s become clear through this process that Romney is not a strong candidate. Maybe Romney would have done better if he had stayed a Democrat. Yes, Romney very well might lose to Obama. Seeing that Romney turns out to be a not-strong candidate must be very hard for anyone who was hoping Romney would just sort of glide into the nomination before The People had a chance to take a look at him.

      But John is wrong in one part of his analysis. It’s not about the general election. Because it’s likely that Romney will not be in the general election. It’s likely that Newt will actually be the nominee. And if Newt is the nominee, we’re going to win, IMO. Big.

      And if that happens, IMO, everybody is going to win, because American will go back to work. And back to the moon. And back to manufacturing. And back to the Constitution.

      My preferred candidate isn’t in the race, so I’m unhappily left to choose among what’s remaining. I have reluctantly concluded that Romney is the best option of the 4 for beating Obama (the dreaded “electability” argument), but I’m not happy about it. Which is why I characterize myself as more anti-anti-Romney than pro-Romney (and, I guess, why my posts have the tone you’ve noticed).

      I like big-tent conservatism, and since you brought him up, so did Ronald Reagan. He united factions with different priorities and sometimes deep disagreements. I don’t like people running around dictating who is permitted to call themselves a conservative.

      Hinderaker is on our side (as is the Professor, see?). If you think he’s “left you” then maybe you should take a second look in the mirror.

    Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Ryan, you can’t call yourself a conservative and support Mittens, because Mittens is NOT a conservative. Since when is raising the minimum wage to index for inflation a conservative idea? Since when do conservatives use terms like “safety nets,” or “social justice.” ???

    And when have you heard a conservative’s campaign talk like this: “They like preachers,” the adviser said of the tea party demographic. “If you take them to a tent meeting they’ll get whipped into a frenzy. That’s how people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich get women to fall into bed with them.”

    And you wonder why I hate Mittens. Calling me a whore who likes “preachers?”

    Ryan, you can vote for Mittens under the false “electability” argument. But if you were a democrat and you had to pick the perfect caricature of a “rich 1% out of touch banker type” for Obama’s class warfare campaign who would you pick?

[…] Loser Mentality Posted on February 10, 2012 9:49 am by Bill Quick » Blaming the victim – Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion John Hinderaker at Power Line lays the blame for an eventual loss to Obama primarily at the […]

This is the Saul Alinsky method Romney used and anyone who would support him for using it needs their head examined.

So what that Gingrich is not the second coming of Christ and wasn’t bathed in holy water-who cares? People act like because Santorum lives a very conservative lifestyle, that makes him the best person to revive the country. Where is it written in stone that being conservative automatically makes you a financial genius, a leader who can bring people together, and has the forward thinking vision for this country? Nowhere is that written because it’s not true. Gingrich has always been a fighter and faced and conquered adversity while Santorum has led a basically quiet, comfortable and structured life. That’s fine for him but not for PRESIDENT. People are getting hung up on this old stuff from Gingrich’s past. We all have a past. Move on.

Looks like Santorum is the flavor of the month.

Rassussen has Santorum 4 points behind Obama, with Romney 10 points back.

Subotai Bahadur | February 10, 2012 at 1:24 pm

Wraith | February 10, 2012 at 11:51 am

I agree with your sentiments about Romney. I will accept either Newt or Santorum.

However, I am waiting till Saturday night when Sarah speaks to CPAC. It is possible that she will give some indication of her own plans that will influence my choices in the future. Given that neither Conservatives nor the TEA Party are wanted by the Republicans, if she goes her own way, I will follow.

That said, if she stays in the Republican party for now, and Romney is the nominee; it is proof positive that the Institutional Republicans are absolutely determined to lose the presidency in order rid the party of Conservatives. The presidential race is lost, and our efforts need to concentrate on electing Patriots [which does not equate automatically to Republicans] to Congress.

That still leaves the presidential moment of truth in the voting booth. Any write in, even for Sarah, will not even be counted in most states due to election rules about affidavits needing to be filed before the election. Still, I understand it, and if I had no other choice, I would write in too.

But we have a presidential vote option that will hurt the Democrats, just not immediately. The Green Party fringe consistently votes for Democrat candidates because they do not have the funds to run a nationwide campaign for their own party. Let’s say that is 1% of the Democrat voting bloc. If those of us who are disgusted by Romney vote for the GREEN party candidate for president, and we can push the Greens over the vote threshold for Federal funding; it means that in any putative future elections after November [and I am not an optimist about that] that the Greens will run more of a separate campaign and the Watermelons will vote for their own party instead of the Democrats. This will split the vote of the Left, with the votes of the Greens being functionally wasted.

A vote for Romney will not only be wasted, but will support the Institutionals and encourage them to keep forcing candidates like him on the country. If we still have elections after Obama wins again; at least a vote for the Greens in November will have a chance to have a marginal bad effect on the enemy.

Subotai Bahadur

Ryan, what world do you live in, and what site do you think your on. If you want to keep touting HOW WONDERFUL MITTENS IS, go to NRO, Townhall, well pretty much any ESTABLISHMENT media, there your complaining might matter.

AND I LOVE THE CONDESCENDING WAY YOU SAY “It’s sad there’s so much anger”, talk about pious baloney. Like Romney didn’t intensify the anger with 30M worth of distorted, out of context and some just plain bald faced lying ads, mailers, etc. (I’m sure he’d skywrite them if he could).

Anger? Why gosh, what gave you that idea? ALL TRUE CONSERVATIVES (Tea partiers, Repubs, even some Dems who finally stopped drinking the kool-aid -probably due to being thrown out of their houses since no jobs are around)are truly OUTRAGED over the deficit, amongst many other things going on in Govt. today. We know it has happened due to both parties being BIG GOVT. SPENDERS. Repub. big govt. spenders are usually democrat lites, with a few votes being conservative (just enough to get them back on the Repub. ticket). OUR TENT BY THE WAY, HAS EXPANDED – many more true conservatives today, about 3/4’s of the party. Before this primary, Repubs. were increasing, not decreasing, but it is almost all tea partiers that are new. Amazing, but 3/4’s of the party DISTRUSTS & LOATHES ROMNEY, not just beacuase of this primary, but also because of 2008 AND HIS MANY QUESTIONABLE DECISIONS MADE WHILE AT BAIN. Even if we took his Bain experience away, as a “Conservative” repub. his experience shows he was WAY LEFT OF CENTER. MA is a mess now. But just like IL, when the Dems or RINO’S (as in Mitt’s case)do their I’ll wash your back if you wash mine, the TAXPAYERS are the ones that get screwed. Romneycare made only Romney & many of his Associate very rich (look it up – lots of shady dealings that were pro Big Insur., and others that Romney was in bed with). Romneycare alone disqualifies this guy in my book to even be in the party. Moderates in general make me think (charlie brown) wishy-washy until I see the green. Then they find a position. How many times has Romney had to use one of Gingrich’s ideas during a debate or said I agree with Newt? Quite a few. Your guy has no ability to debate, can’t stand on a conservative record, doesn’t probably even know what a true conservative is. THIS GUY IS “OTHER PEOPLES MONEY”. His own bank account & ego is why this guys running. Also he’ll be very cozy with all the people who want “THE SAME OLD WASHINGTON” to continue.
The only one out there willing to buck the system is NEWT. He’s the only one with the experience in this area. I personally put Rick S. as a moderate when it comes to Big Govt. spending. Yes his religious views, and I am Catholic, also give me a reason to pause – He’s been very vocal on things that will piss off the Independents.
God give us Newt, or we will lose either way with anyone else in this pack.

    Tamminator in reply to ThreeputtinIL. | February 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Love your rant, Dude.

    Hope Change in reply to ThreeputtinIL. | February 10, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Tamminator | February 10, 2012 at 2:05 pm
    Love your rant, Dude.

    Me, too!

    I don’t recall ever saying “HOW WONDERFUL MITTENS” is; and in fact, I’ve criticized his approach. And it is indeed sad that conservatives are at each others throats instead of Obama’s. But I suppose that’s politics.

    I’m glad you discovered your caps lock key.

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Anyone that is supporting Mittens or thinks Mittens is a conservative, IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE.

      You can’t redefine conservatism to make it fit Mittens.

      Tamminator in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 4:10 pm

      You’ve missed the whole point of the Professor’s post, Ryan.
      A conservative blogger is blaming Newt for Romney’s attacks.

      I’m voting for anyone but Obama, but like Santorum supporters and Paul supporters and New supporters, I put the blame for the vicious hyperbole where it belongs: on Romney.
      He started it, and now that people are fighting back, you and people like John Hinderacker want to blame THEM.

      You’ve attacked people this entire thread, and now you’re trying to pull a Romney and act like you’re not the nasty guy. Gimme a break.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ryan. | February 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm

      Ryan: “And it is indeed sad that conservatives are at each others throats instead of Obama’s.”

      We await the day you see yourself in that indictment. Your approach here – to which you are welcome – is to go after people here who simply don’t see with the crystal clarity you believe you possess. Few here are as guilty of your charge than yourself.

In a year where the GOP is facing a very unpopular president, so unpopular that he is driving his liberal base to register as unaffiliated independents, a year where the Tea Party brought much enthusiasm and energy to the table, the GOP establishment chose to instead war against conservatives and cram yet another big government liberal down our throats. We should be having a big year with big turnout but instead we are frustrated and deflated.

If the low turnout in primary voting doesn’t improve dramatically, there will be a big Obama win in November. Rombama is clearly not the guy to do this and neither is BJ Gingrich.

    Hope Change in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 10, 2012 at 3:15 pm

    You continue derisive, Pasadena Phil. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But all you do is call names.

    Newt has a plan that is sweeping and is intended to appeal to the vast majority of Americans who want a better life for there family, American manufacturing, lower taxes and higher tax revenue (the Laffer Curve), jobs, innovation, the leading edge in technology — and so much more. It’s in the speeches. It’s on the website. Everyone who wants to can go an DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES on the merits.

    You dislike Newt and so you refuse. Ok. Fair enough. But you remain unaware of the scope of Newt’s proposals. Your criticisms are not based on the merits of Newt’s proposed solutions.

    Coming here, where the blogger has endorsed Newt, and calling Newt names, is not persuasive.

    — Certainly not persuasive to me, for example, because I am eager to have the American People have a chance to restore our country. And I have clear, delineated facts for what Newt is proposing, with which to support my choice.

    And to counter that, you call names. You may not agree on the merits, but we have no way of knowing.

    It’s not effective. It’s not persuasive.

    At this moment, it still seems to me that I would be genuinely interested to learn more about your concerns as an American and what you would like to see us do to improve the future.

[…] cropping up right in the middle of CPAC. I noted the following piece by William Jacobson, titled laying the blame. In it, he appears to take exception with an equally dismal outlook coming from Powerline. First, […]

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm

[A] Romney adviser was more derisive of the Anybody But Mitt Republicans.

“They like preachers,” the adviser said of the tea party demographic. “If you take them to a tent meeting they’ll get whipped into a frenzy. That’s how people like Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich get women to fall into bed with them.”

Calling conservative women like myself whores, that above is why I will NEVER ever vote for Mittens. Not even McVain insulted conservatives at the level Mittens and his campaign have.

    Hope Change in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | February 10, 2012 at 3:02 pm

    Did a Romney campaign adviser actually say that? Raquel Pinkbullet, do you have a link?

    Romney’s campaign is simply not conservatives. They’re not even Republicans. It looks like they’re not even decent human beings.

    The romney campaign advisers are like Leftists. This is the way the Clinton people talked about the women Clinton consorted with. Remember the vicious remarks? I hear they call it “sluts and nuts” when they attack their political opponents that way. Contemptible.

    Newt talks about this, the scorched-earth consultants, in “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH.” Newt describes how the consultants and the campaign finance laws converge to create a perfect storm of campaigns about nothing.

    — Nothing but vilifying your opponent. Then when they get elected, the candidates who got elected using these bitter, low consultants, have no agenda, have no plan. They cannot govern. They have no mandate, no platform, no vision, no popular support.

    The consultants send them out to do more fundraising, for the next election.

    NO WONDER OUR GOVERNMENT IS IN SUCH A MESS.

    Did you see the comment on the tip line from georgiagirl_pam about her conversation with Josh over at the RNC?

    We must restore our nation. IMO there is only one candidate who gets this and has a plan to address the scope of restoration we need, and that is Newt.

      Raquel Pinkbullet in reply to Hope Change. | February 10, 2012 at 3:28 pm

      I completely agree with you Hope Change, I just read georgiagirl_pam’s comment on Tip Line. Wow absolutely disgusting. But this is what the RNC has become. Remember the RNC supported Crist over Rubio, and Arlen Specter over Toomey, and Lisa Murkowski over Joe Miller, to name just a few.

      If we don’t take back control of the GOP from the “moderates” and “establishment hacks,” the GOP will go the way of the Whigs. And that might be a good thing at this point.

      If the GOP establishment and squishes shove Mittens down our throats. I am voting Constitution Party. No more holding my nose.

    That is absolutely disgusting. Did he say that at CPAC? That’s worse than Ann Coulter calling us “right wingers”.

    Wow, keep it up, you moderates. You sound more and more like liberals every day!

Raquel Pinkbullet | February 10, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Yes Hope Change. A Romney adviser actually did.

Here is the link: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AC7D3B54-3A1A-4401-9CBA-87DAB16C3C15

Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | February 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Romney cannot win in the general as he has no support of the conservative base. Because he is not a conservative. Santorum cannot win in the general because he is a one note pony. He has no vision and has not said what he can or will do to reduce the size of government. He would not know how anyway. Only Gingrich has the plan, vision and ability to both defeat Obama and implement his plan

Thanks for posting this, professor. I gave up reading powerline when he savaged Sarah Palin. Hinderaker fits right in with the mittbotts.

And congrats on your award. Much deserved recognition.

Dear Professor Jacobson,

Thank you for your comments about John Hinderaker’s PowerLine post. I was simply appalled when I read the “Is 2012 Slipping Away From the GOP?” post about the conservative electorate losing sight of the goal of defeating Obama. Hinderaker’s column is sour grapes at its very worst. How can a savvy, high powered corporate lawyer like Hinderaker fail to understand that in human affairs, and particularly in politics, what goes around comes around? Worse yet, I was struck by how it is the same sort of “winnerist” baloney peddled by Markos Moulitsas. For true conservatives, politics is about principle. I don’t know what John Hinderaker was thinking – and I’m a longtime reader of PowerLine.

Yours truly,

ThOR

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend