Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Mitt’s positive campaign continues

Mitt’s positive campaign continues

in Nevada with this mailer:

Similar mailers have been running for days.

I suppose Mitt will tell us that he only is going negative because Newt outspent him in Florida.

Who is it that can’t be trusted?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I “might” dislike Romney less if he were honest about himself, but he wallows in hypocrisy as he pretends to being pious. He pontificates and acts sanctimonious, but he’s a gutter fighter and has always been.

If Romney keeps this up, his support will keep eroding.

“The Florida primary has exposed some of Mitt Romney’s flaws. Romney appears to be losing ground, especially with independents….

“In a Washington Post/NBC News poll showed, 49 percent of the respondents nationwide held an unfavorable view of Romney, while only 31 percent had a favorable one,” the Times says.

“The same Washington Post/NBC News poll shows Romney’s favorability rating among independents cut in half. It’s now down to 23 percent from a high in the mid-40’s in November.”

Romney is utterly amoral and unscrupulous.

Romney is incapable of running a positive campaign because, like the schoolyard bully he is, Romney is the biggest kid (financially) who will only be listened to when he beats up and intimidates kids who can lead the games–because Romney can’t.

    stevewhitemd in reply to CalMark. | February 1, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Romney is utterly amoral and unscrupulous.

    Oh my. Lost our perspective, did we?

    Mittens may not be your preferred candidate, but if you really think this, you should read what Mitch Berg suggests at Hot Air.

    Mitt is not the anti-Christ. He’s not Barack Obama. He’s not David Axelrod. He’s not Richard Nixon. He’s not Barbara Boxer, or Maxine Waters, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or any of the other people who’ve been driving our country off the rails.

    He may not be your preferred candidate, I get that, but come on, folks, if you really think this, are you just going to stay home if he’s the eventual nominee? Let Obama win by default?

    None of the current Pub candidates are so wonderful that we should vest our whole lives into them, and none of them are so bad that we should take our ball and go home.

Oh come on, Professor. This is heavyweight, professional, presidential politics.

As the political saying goes, it ain’t beanbag.

Of COURSE Mitt is talking smack. That’s what you do when you want to put away an opponent. Mitt wants this over, and he’s going to keep hitting until it is.

I actually am encouraged by this: one fear I had about Mittens was that he was too nice. But all the ‘negative’ press about his behavior now and in 2008 reassures me that if he’s the Pub nominee going up against Bambi in the fall (more importantly, going up against Axelrod, Plouffe and Jarrett), he’ll be able to stand his ground and counter-punch. McCain never was able to do that.

By the way, in case you hadn’t notice, Newt also talks smack, as witness the ‘kosher’ ad yesterday. No problem, no harm, no foul, that’s just the way it goes in the heat of a campaign.

Anyone think that the Obama people are going to be nice in the fall?

    CalMark in reply to stevewhitemd. | February 1, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    …but when Newt even asks questions about Bain, he is shouted down for being “anti-capitalist.”

    As for the whole “kosher” thing, it sounds like some renegade campaign idiot did it. The Newt we saw last night did not look like a guy who had authorized that.

    Finally, Mitt will not do this to Obama. No “centrist” Republican has EVER taken it to Democrats this way. McCain ’12 and Dole ’96 rolled over; McCain ’10 spent $20M trashing a GOP primary opponent while both are absolutely trashing Newt this year.

      stevewhitemd in reply to CalMark. | February 1, 2012 at 1:18 pm

      Newt ‘asked questions’ about Bain in a way that suggested a disdain for capitalism. That’s how it came out, so that’s why he was hammered. There were ways to bring up the legitimate concerns about Bain without appearing to trash capitalism, but Newt didn’t do that.

      You may be right about the ‘kosher’ incident, but then that begs the question about who’s controlling the campaign.

      With regard to the fall, you can’t have it both ways: you can’t complain about Mittens being mean to Newt and then prophesize that there is no way Mittens will do it to Bambi. To the contrary, I think Mitt will: he really, really wants to be president. I think he sees Bambi as vulnerable, and I think Mitt will go for the throat. I’m encouraged by the fact that he’s willing to play hardball.

      In case it isn’t clear: I favor Mitt over Newt, but I favor either by a large margin over Obama.

        CalMark in reply to stevewhitemd. | February 1, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        But it’s OK for Mitt to lie about Newt?

        You Mittens are amazing.

          stevewhitemd in reply to CalMark. | February 1, 2012 at 1:51 pm

          No more so than for Newt to lie about Mittens.

          I understand the anti-Romney people are unhappy — your guy is losing, the guy you dislike is winning. I’d be some unhappy if Mitt was losing, but I’d still vote for Newt (or Rick) in the fall. I’d like to know that the Newt supporters will get behind Mitt in the fall if that’s the way it works out.

          CalMark in reply to CalMark. | February 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm

          First of all, I’d hold my nose and vote for Romney because Obama is fast becoming a dictator, while Romney is just a corrupt fool.

          That said, your snark about Newt supporters is precisely why a lot of people recoil. He’s trashing what we believe in and disassociating himself from Tea Parties, which not-quite-so incidentally are full of the Democrats/Independents that you RINOs so profess to love. Just the wrong kind, huh?

          stevewhitemd in reply to CalMark. | February 1, 2012 at 4:32 pm

          I guess I’m missing what I said about Newt that was ‘snark’.

          I have no problem with Newt’s policies, or the policies he’d implement. I agree with 95% of that.

          I’m concerned about what I see as a ‘flight of ideas’ in the man: he does seem to settle, he hops from thought to thought. I want a President with staying power who will focus on getting things done rather than rattle off a list of ideas. I’m not entirely pleased with his personality. He is pugnacious — that’s GREAT for a House Minority Leader, not so good for a Speaker, and terrible for a President.

          Again, if he’s the nominee I’ll vote for him.

    Rush Limbaugh pointed out yesterday that Romney won’t come out this hard against Obama. If he would do this now, instead of attacking fellow Republicans, he could win support. But right now Romney’s support among Independents is eroding very rapidly and will continue to do so the longer he continues this strategy.

    The worst thing that Romney has said against Obama is that he’s a nice guy but he’s in over his head. In the general, when the Democrats will predictably go after Romney for Mormonism’s recent racial past, do you really think Romney would bring up Jeremiah Wright, Alinsky, Bill Ayers, and so on in a counter-attack? Or Eric Holder’s Dept. of Injustice?

    And on the class warfare front, Romney won’t want to look like a rich scrooge against Obama so he’s not going to attack there either. Let’s also not forget the GOP memo that came out several weeks ago, advising GOP candidates not to attack Obama personally since he’s such a likeable guy. Since Romney is the GOP choice, their strategy will apply to Romney.

      stevewhitemd in reply to MadCon. | February 1, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      I’d suggest a review of Mitt’s election night speech in Florida. He took to Obama pretty well there. He says that the election is about the ‘soul of America’, and I like that. He didn’t launch the full-throated attack that Newt would do, but it seemed to work. He needs to repeat it about five hundred times.

      Will Mitt go after Rev. Wright, William Ayers and Saul Alinsky? Maybe, but Karl Rove and his Super-PAC will be happy to do it if Mittens doesn’t.

      We’re all so caught up in the minute-to-minute fight that it’s hard to look at the broader campaign coming up in the fall. Mitt is not un-armed. Obama is going to lose.

        I’ve seen that speech, it’s the same speech that he gave in New Hampshire. Half of the speech is good; but half is dull, uninspiring, and repetitious. There are no attacks against Obama except to say that he’s a failed president job-wise and economy-wise.

        I did hear the “soul of America” line which would be great if he would expand on it but he doesn’t beyond two lines. Is the soul of America just about jobs and economy or something more? He talks about jobs and the economy alot but doesn’t go beyond that. How do we get the “soul of America” back? By simply creating more jobs? What happens if there are more jobs before the election?

        The longer Romney uses the discredited ethics charge slander against Gingrich, the more people will be wondering about the “soul of Mitt Romney.” He needs to start attacking Obama now and stop the slanderous attacks on fellow Republicans. If he loves America so much, he needs to show us the love instead of showing us the hate for fellow Republicans.

          stevewhitemd in reply to MadCon. | February 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm

          Hard for him to start going after Obama full-time until he’s won the primaries. After all Newt has been coming after Mitt pretty hard (perfectly okay).

          First things first.

          By the way, Roger Simon’s critique of why Newt lost Florida is interesting: I’m not sure he’s 100% correct but it does seem that Newt does better focusing on Obama, and not Mitt. There might be a lesson in that for Mitt as well — retraining some fire on Obama now might help. Then again, I’m not a campaign manager, and Mitt hasn’t called.

          MadCon in reply to MadCon. | February 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm

          I don’t think it would be all that difficult going after Obama. Romney has plenty of money to run ads. Gingrich is not a good excuse as to why Romney is not attacking Obama forcefully and making a more positive case for his own campaign.

          Obama’s team is already on the attack against Romney, painting him as an out-of-touch scroogy rich guy with bags of money in offshore accounts whose Mormon church discriminated against black people as late as 1978. Romney isn’t helping himself at all with the conservative base or with Independents with his current strategy of “take out the Newt.” His “I love America because I believe in America” campaign isn’t showing the love.

        Karl Rove and his Super-Pac didn’t go after Wright, Ayers, and Alinsky in 2008? So why would they go after Obama for these connections this time?

          stevewhitemd in reply to MadCon. | February 1, 2012 at 1:56 pm

          Because their Super-PAC, as it’s run today, was illegal in 2008.

          It’s the recent SC decision granting corporations the rights of speech, etc that allow them and their owners to put money into campaigns.

          That’s why these PACs are flush, and why they’re spending money. That’s why I think Rove will go after Obama this fall. Rove hasn’t been shy so far.

          MadCon in reply to MadCon. | February 1, 2012 at 2:05 pm

          True the Superpacs were illegal in 2008 but that shouldn’t have stopped Rove or McCain from telling the truth about Obama.

          When has Rove said anything tough yet about Obama? Because I haven’t heard anything hard-hitting. I just see him constantly on Hannity with his white-board, talking strategy.

Mitt spells J-E-L-L-O;
Mitt can’t be elected.

Henry Hawkins | February 1, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Remember the thematic point made in countless mafia books and movies wherein two opposed gangsters are at a ‘sit-down’, one complains about a hit the other did on a compatriot, and the hitter reminds him, “hey, that was business, nothing personal…”? That idea is not unique to organized crime. It is part and parcel of organized business as well, though the ‘hit’ is a financial death. It is an ingrained part of the business ‘ethos’, a term I use hesitantly, that ends justify means. You identify your market(s), target your market(s), and eliminate your competition by any means necessary.

A business background can be very helpful to anyone holding office, and this is one of Romney’s putative strengths, but unlike many businessmen and women before him who’ve entered inot public service, it is increasingly apparent that Romney cannot separate the two, cannot readjust away from the business (non) ethos and retool for an entirely different magistracy wherein only the absolutely cynical and morally bankrupt would support the idea that the end always justifies the means.

In short order, this will become more apparent and sit less and less well with the people Romney purports to lead, and will only further cement the image of a bloodless and soulless countenance already accruing to the man.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    “You identify your market(s), target your market(s), and eliminate your competition by any means necessary.”

    You need to get away from the television. What a load of crap.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm

      OK. And I’ll ignore my resume of 27 years in business. It is precisely what I do. ID my market, target it with advertising, direct mail, etc., and constantly work to increase my market share, often putting smaller agencies out of business.

      But I defer to your greater expertise in what I do.


        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | February 1, 2012 at 1:40 pm

        So… YOU are unethical by competing…???

        You said, “…by any means necessary”. Is that how YOU act? Without any “ethos”?

        Or are you ASSuming you are better than other people in business?

        See…??? A load of crap, any way you cut it.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2012 at 2:33 pm

          Wow, that’s pretty revealing. Did you even read my post?

          “So… YOU are unethical by competing…???”

          Nowhere did I say competing is unethical. Straw man argument.

          “You said, “…by any means necessary”. Is that how YOU act? Without any “ethos”?”

          I act within the law. It’s the ethos. Duh.

          “Or are you ASSuming you are better than other people in business?”

          Oh, absolutely. I am demonstrably better. In my market, I am the leader by 5:1 in terms of market share, gross receipts, net profits, quality of product, reputation, etc. It all provides a very good living to 34 families, plus my own, of course, and I’m very proud of that. This is a negative to you? Now that’s revealing. Maybe you’d better Occupy one of my offices, try to put a stop to such rampant capitalism?

          “See…??? A load of crap, any way you cut it.”

          This is the ‘wow’ part. You think you’ve won something here, beyond the grand display of your ignorance.

          Go back and read the post. For your benefit I boil it down to 6th grade level, even typing s-l-o-w-l-y so that you may grasp it:

          What serves well in business does not translate easily into politics. Romney is applying business ethos (ends & means? do we need to explain that to you as well?) to politics and his favorable ratings will drop the longer he does so, because it reveals he cannot separate the two, i.e., the bloodless, soulless Romney is the actual Romney.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm

          Yeah, I read rather well…

          FIRST, you evoke the Hollywood shibboleth of Mafioso being “just good capitalists”, which is utter BULLSH!T…

          “That idea is not unique to organized crime. It is part and parcel of organized business as well, though the ‘hit’ is a financial death. It is an ingrained part of the business ‘ethos’, a term I use hesitantly, that ends justify means. You identify your market(s), target your market(s), and eliminate your competition by any means necessary.”

          Business people DO NOT eliminate their competition by “any means necessary”.

          You say you use the law as your ethos? Pretty damn weak limits, I’d say. The VAST preponderance of business people I know are a LOT more constrained by ethics than by the law.

          You reinforce that crap with…

          “…cannot readjust away from the business (non) ethos and retool…”

          So, I say again…a load of crap.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | February 1, 2012 at 3:34 pm

          Please quote where I said the mafia are good capitalists, so we can be sure you haven’t merely reinterpreted it that way so you can refute it.

          Yours is all pure straw man argumentation. you’re an empty vessel on this one, my friend.

Oh, I think we CAN trust Mittens.

It is WHAT we can trust him to do that leads me to oppose him.

He is a BIG GOVERNMENT guy. It is apparent in his latest gaff.

I think about 1/2 of the new posters on this site are really trolls working for the DNC or Obama and are just sewing hate and discontent. Their comments sound like the comments seen on Democrat Underground or the comment sections of most papers.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Anchovy. | February 1, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    One of the problems with an expanded user base (over 3500 now) comes the risk that people are not who they pretend to be. I’m not sure there’s a good answer to it, except that when it has been obvious, I will cut people off. (added) Power Line uses Facebook as its comment system, which increases the likelihood of real commenters, but it also forces people to disclose their real names, which would make a lot of people uncomfortable.

American Thinker demolishes Team Romney’s claims of moral equivalence with Gingrich on negativity. It provides a breakdown, timeline and anatomy of the negative advertising and message.

delicountessa | February 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm

Looking at it from another perspective; if Newt can’t overcome Romney’s money and negative campaigning, he’d never have survived what the LSM, DNC and Obama would throw at him in the general. I am praying he can come through and be the nominee, obviously because Mitt and Obama are like twins separated at birth. In a way, Mitt would scare me more if we managed to get the Senate and keep the House because it’s far less likely the R congress would even attempt to keep him on the straight and narrow.

    stevewhitemd in reply to delicountessa. | February 1, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    To the contrary, a tea-party inspired Pub House and a Pub Senate is the best guarantee we have that Mittens (or any Pub president) doesn’t stray too far to the center-left. As a wise man once said, “trust but verify”.

    Professor Jacobson is absolutely correct in pointing out that the down-ticket elections are key. My own congressman (Kinzinger in IL) is in for a fight and I’ll be walking the pavement for him this fall as I did last time.

    There are a number of Pub candidates for the House and Senate who will benefit substantially from small donors. When the Professor puts them forward we have to be able to respond.

    To the Professor: please keep pointing those candidates out to us. It’s a big help!

    Fighting off lies from your own side is much harder, because even though the candidates are competitors, they’re presumed to be on the same team. That gives extra weight to negative accusations, especially if carpet-bombed ceaselessly.

    There’s a fallacy that says Romney’s scorched earth against his own party proves (against all historical precedent for candidates like him) that he’ll be just as tough on Obama. Saying that Newt couldn’t compete with Obama if he can’t overcome Romney’s negativity is just the other side of the ridiculous argument.

    FACT: Even though the entire country loved Eisenhower, he had a VERY tough time getting the nomination in 1952. Winning your own party’s nomination is often harder than winning the general election.

Trump Card: What we need right now is for Donald Trump to stop blowing his own horn, get off of his high horse and back a candidate who has a proven track record of creating actual Hope and positive Change – Newt Gingrich. Newt’s presidency would be exceedingly helpful to the RE marketplace and by extension, the Donald. And, the Donald could be VP and still do his show – he could fire an Obama czar every week.

Gingrich has been turned into every other politicians “bogeyman” on the disaster of FNMA and Freddie Mac and HUD scandal, the same way he has been turned into every other politicians “bogeyman” on ethics scandal (even though the ultimate authority the IRS vindicated him).

At least here he is called a “consultant”.

“On a side note, ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich joined Freddie Mac as a consultant during 1999.”

How about we hear something about Mitt?

    CalMark in reply to CWLsun. | February 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm

    Hopefully, Newt is nominated and elected President.

    If he is not, Newt will be vindicated by objective history as a transformative figure, for 1994 and his legislative agenda. People like Romney–and Dole, and Rove, and all the others–will be seen as unprincipled cannibals. If they are remembered at all.

The Obama-Biden reelection campaign, which just announced it banked $224 million in 2011, is stepping up fundraising as it steels for an expected fall “smear” machine from GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

In an email to supporters this morning, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina warned that the Republicans will have a fat bank account to tap for negative ads, something both Romney and Newt Gingrich did in Florida.

“They’re going to try to spend and smear their way to the White House,” Messina said about Republican groups and candidates.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Neo. | February 1, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    And there isn’t anyone who would know more about a campaign of smears than the leadership of the Obama campaign…

Let the vetting continue, is all I say…until the rocks are turned over.

“Here’s another good prank Malt and Romney could pull off together: Have Romney invest heavily in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then turn around and start bashing those GSEs, and Newt Gingrich’s role in working for them. Then, when he’s called on his investments, have him claim that he didn’t know about them because they were in Malt’s formal blind trust. Except they weren’t! Romney knew about them. Hilarious!”