Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Super Open

Super Open

Some links I’ve been collecting:

  • with friends like these:
  • Post Defeat Planners (2008).  “Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign  staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen.  John McCain and Gov. Sarah  Palin’s bid for the White House, have been involved in  spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her  standing after the election. “Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she  won’t be the first, not even the third, person people will think  of when it comes to 2012,” says one former Romney aide, now  working for McCain-Palin. “The only serious candidate ready to  challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He’s in  charge on November 5th.”
  • Rick Santorum: Sarah Palin May Be Skipping CPAC Due To Lack Of ‘Financial Benefits’ (2011):  “Former Pennsylvania Sen. and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum provided a questionable analysis of Sarah Palin’s decisionnot to attend the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend, saying that it might have something to do with the former vice-presidential candidate’s priorities being focused on engagements that promised more “financial benefit.””I have a feeling that she has some demands on her time, and a lot of them have financial benefit attached to them,” Santorum, who will be at CPAC, told conservative commentator S.E. Cupp on a radio program Tuesday, according to Politico.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

listingstarboard | February 5, 2012 at 8:24 pm

OMG My heart is officially broken–Clint Eastwood shilling for Detroit and Chrysler. I think I am going to be sick.

That link to the Bruce Bartlett article about GOP insiders already preparing for a loss to Obama is a must read. Sample quote.

“Obama’s chances for re-election are starting to look so good that Republican insiders are already considering what it will mean for 2016.”

That’s what happens when a party, I mean exclusive club of liberal GOP elites, tell us who we have to vote for because that liberal Democrat is the most conservative and “electable” candidate running.

LO3E in 2012.
GOP = RIP

    Windy City Commentary in reply to Pasadena Phil. | February 6, 2012 at 12:25 am

    All they do is think ahead on how to start planning for the next election loss. It’s almost as if the party is now being led by closet Democrats.

    Makes me sick reading it. I’m convinced more than ever the stupid party deserves to go the way of the dodo. It’s high time the Tea party made itself an official party in all of the “57” States.

    Short of open and armed rebellion FOR a restoration, I have no clue how the country survives another generation. And then the question comes; a restoration of what? Because after the fact, liberals, progressives, socialists, etc.. would still be our neighbors, bosses, teachers, and so on. We’re really talking about part of the country seceding and establishing a new, constitutional government.

huskers-for-palin | February 5, 2012 at 9:22 pm

From the article:

(snip)

The establishment may try harder to cultivate a winner for 2016 from among the crop of Republicans that flirted with running this time but chose not to run for one reason or another. These include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. Also, by 2016, some of the party’s rising stars such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida or Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal may be ready for prime time.
****************************************************************

Ahem….Establishment “cultivation” is akin to the same-old, same-old just different packaging. Take the above list, put a dog collar on them and tell them to “talk a good game” but once they stray, CHOKE THE CHAIN.

Notice that Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Scott Walker et. al weren’t mentioned. That’s because they won’t take the leash.

The Conservative base and Tea Party can smell a rat and if the GOP establishment tries to pull out a Trojan horse, they’ll simply stay home or work on House/Senate/State races to build up league of their own. More yet, they might try to set up an infrastructure of their own much like Regan did (1976-1980).

The Newt/racist link goes to the Obama/jobs article.

Does anybody have any idea of Obama is actually any good at golf? No…. not a political question. I was just wondering.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Anchovy. | February 5, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    I have some sort of young leftie champion golfer in the family. This person gets invites to Florida etc

    Apparently it is some sort of handicap -as in physical disability in golf.

    However this kid certainly does not look like a chimpanzee when they write.

    So i am guessing Obama is really really unco.

      I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Anchovy. | February 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm

        What sort of answer were you looking for?

        Like everything else his handicap is sealed. It is highly likely he is not very good – otherwise he would be boasting.

        Otherwise some lefties are quite co ordinated but on the evidence of how Obama cramps up & writes with his elbow crocked -he is very un co ordinated.

        However there are special tournaments for left handed golfers.

        Obama is no Greg Norman (also a leftie ).

StrangernFiction | February 5, 2012 at 9:53 pm

Conservatives don’t write articles entitled, “Three Cheers for Romneycare.”

1. From the GOP Insiders link: However, while almost all Republicans believe that Obama is easily beatable and many believe that any Republican can beat him, political pros are more sanguine. Ahhh, shouldn’t that be ‘less sanguine’…unless the author considers a Republican defeat desirable?

Freudian slip?

2. Like author Bruce Bartlett, I regularly caution that it takes a perfect storm to dislodge an incumbent President. That doesn’t mean I’m rooting for Obama.

3. The piece’s failure to mention Jeb Bush for 2016 is a gross omission IMHO. Bartlett is a strong critic of George W. Bush. While I share his low opinion, I suspect he has let it affect his objectivity about Bush and maybe about more than Bush.

Still worth pointing out that Romney’s quote about “the very poor doing fine” was NOT a gaffe. He didn’t “misspeak” as an article at CNN stated. His alleged “gaffe” on CNN after winning Florida used almost the exact same wording he had used back in October. AND, the problem isn’t that Romney doesn’t care about the poor, it’s that he defines the problem like the Democrats do and embraces the same solutions as the Democrats do: more subsidies and automatic increases in the minimum wage).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/romney-in-october-the-people-who-need-help-most-are-not-the-poor/2012/02/02/gIQAqb46kQ_blog.html

Also, it’s not getting a lot of mention, but I’m still stunned that Romney has gone on record as embracing statehood for Puerto Rico. Since when has this been a Republican goal?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/romney-pledges-statehood-process-for-puerto-rico-112576.html

As mentioned before, the more Mr. Romney wins in the primaries, the more his sleazy methods depress the Republican base … and now it’s just starting to dawn on his corps of raucous claquers at NRO and Lucianne that Mr. Romney simply can’t win this coming Fall without the Tea Party types that he’s repeatedly gone out of his way to marginalize.

OK, Jonah, Rich says you’d better order in an extra five cases of smelling salts … the boys at NRO are really going to need them come this November.

Who in God’s Name Is Mitt Romney?

Like Romney’s evasions about his private finances, his conspicuous cone of silence about this major pillar of his biography also leaves you wondering what he is trying to hide. That his faith can be as secretive as he is—Ann Romney’s non-Mormon parents were not allowed to attend the religious ceremony consecrating her marriage to Mitt—only whets the curiosity among the 82 percent of Americans who tell pollsters they know little or nothing about Mormonism.

Weeks before his death, Christopher Hitchens, no more a fan of LDS than of any other denomination, wrote that “we are fully entitled” to ask Romney about the role of his religion in influencing his political formation. Of course we are. Romney is not merely a worshipper sitting in the pews but the scion of a family dynasty integral to the progress of an ­American-born faith that has played a large role in the public square. Since his youthful stint as a missionary, he has served LDS in a variety of significant posts. The answers to questions about Romney’s career as a lay church official may tell us more about who he is than his record at Bain, his sparse tenure as governor, or his tax returns.

The questions are not theological. Nor are they about polygamy, the scandalous credo that earlier Romneys practiced even after the church banned it in 1890. Rather, the questions are about the Mormon church’s political actions during Mitt Romney’s lifetime—and about what role Romney, as both a leader and major donor, might have played or is still playing in those actions. To ask these questions is not to be a religious bigot but to vet a candidate for the nation’s highest job. Given how often Romney himself cites his faith as a defining force in his life, voters have a right to know what role he played when his faith intersected with the secular lives of his fellow citizens…

    WarEagle82 in reply to janitor. | February 5, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    It is interesting how Romney cites his faith and as he has taken personally advantageous political stands on both sides of sensitive issues when it suits his purposes.

    If your faith doesn’t inform your positions, exactly how does his faith serve as “a defining force in his life?”

    WoodnWorld in reply to janitor. | February 5, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Lol, oh man. Now we really want to hear what George Soros, CBS, the NYT and Frank Rich have to say? This is great. A cherished moment in the conservative movement. Since when have we ever listened to any of these clowns? Are we so desperate to be right that we will even take our weapons from our enemies’ hands and use them on ourselves? Apparently so.

      WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 5, 2012 at 11:22 pm

      “We hate the MSM!”
      “I can’t stand liberal pundits!”
      “The media is against us, in the tank for the Democrats!”

      “Unlessssss, of course, they start taking a swing at the right guy… then, perhaps, THEN they will have some conservative utility!”

      See, and I thought the conservative voices were doing a perfectly adequate job stirring the pot, agitating against one another. Nope. We need reinforcements from the LEFT. “Bring in the professional smear merchants!”

      You can’t make this stuff up.

        William A. Jacobson in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 5, 2012 at 11:55 pm

        I think it’s worth hearing what the other side has to say; some of the points in those articles make sense. And save the sanctimony, Mitt Romney used Nancy Pelosi’s blackmail in his ads suggesting she had secret info. on Newt — even after she admitted she did not. But Mitt kept running the ads anyway.

          Sure it’s worth hearing what the other side has to say, WAJ. But are you seriously comparing a willingness to ‘see both sides’ to haphazardly pasting links to weak anti-Romney articles by hysterical, discredited lefties who’ve probably agonized much more over which far-left Dem primary challenger to back as they have which Repub candidate to crap on in the service of the Dem establishment?

          If you really thought Rich & Co. had valid points, you would’ve QFT’d the quotes instead of just endorsing all their drivel with simple links.

          And good luck with your Newt Gingrich = High Road meme. Visit the real world much?

          It’s a sad state of affairs (more for America than for you) if you and the LI faithful are incapable of seeing how big of a bag of rat droppings Gingrich the person will be seen as by the voting public if the left is able to nominate him with the assistance of useful non-idiots like you.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to Pythias. | February 6, 2012 at 8:41 am

          Interesting that Romney supporters are beginning to sound like Obama supporters. Now you are going to tell others what they can link to? And thanks for the charm offensive.

        Juba Doobai! in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 6:13 am

        “Audi alteram partem.”—Felix Frankfurter, SCt Justice.

    In 1997, Salt Lake City was chosen as the site for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Utah’s Mormon Senators and Representatives (all five) began a campaign to get Federal tax support for transforming the Salt Lake Region. Over the the next five years, $2 billion was spent to build roads, resorts, venues and to operate the games. The Mormon influence was deliberately kept secret. For example, the Sports Illustrated article, entitled Snow Job, which exposed the travesty, mentions the word “Mormon” but once in eleven computer pages.

    For whatever reason, no one points out that the LDF membership , which represnts 60% of the state’s residents, elects Mormons to 80% of Utah’s political offices. One could argue that Mormons are Republican but the Olympics indicate that there is another agenda.

    Why was Romney chosen to take over the SLOC? As a Mormon, his actions for the betterment of the church are obvious because he kept offering up the LDS screed that these were not the Mormon Olympics. But another view surfaced at the Salt Lake Tribune and other media outlets.

    Salt Lake City bid boosters, many of them Mormons, spent millions on gifts, scholarships and cash payments to International Olympic Committee members and their relatives to get the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. A church spokesman bristled when questioned by reporters about this apparent bribery. “Nobody calls the Vatican and asks why most of the Mafioso are Catholic,” he told The Washington Post. However, supposedly devoted Mormons engaged in influence peddling didn’t look good for the church. KTVX reporter Chris Vanocur who broke the scandal put it this way, “My argument is no, not the most moral people, but maybe the most self-righteous.”

    Mormonism seems to require a commitment, especially among its chosen leadership, of which Mitt Romney is one, that the church gets first place at the trough with commitments to the LDS doctrines ranked first.

      I’m about as far from being a Romney fan as you can get (see my other posts on this site to verify), but to me this is just a “more pigs at the trough” story and doesn’t really represent anything peculiarly Mormon. It’s not at all unexpected to see Utah’s government officials shoving their way in to get at the government teat.

      At most, it’s a story that says that Mormon’s are corruptible just like everybody else, in spite of what you might glean from watching “Donny & Marie” reruns. See also “Reid, Harry”.

Hey, I’m fired up about Romney! I am DEFINITELY going to the Virginia GOP primary to vote for Ron Paul!

    McCoy2k in reply to WarEagle82. | February 6, 2012 at 12:51 am

    That should be the slab in the face Mitt Romney deserves. Pity that the slap has to be administrated by voting for Ron Paul.

    The beauty of the Virginia primary is that it will be Romney against a single non-Romney. I wish it was a less-problematic non-Romney, but the Yay or Nay aspect of it is interesting.

The Last Tradition | February 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Thanks William for the linky love for Battle of GOP Blondess and Warren Buffet and Taxes. I hope your readers will visit TLT often. Also, I hope Jim Hoft doesn’t get too sore at me. I respect him as a blogger but this rift is getting out of hand. We need to be united to defeat Obama the same way Obama and Hillary united to defeat McCain.

Byron York is one of the few journalists actually doing good analysis and covering important issues in the primary campaign. Low turn out for the front runner is important when his main claim to the nomination is being electable.

@IanLazazran also has good analysis. For example, he thinks Newt should have gone on the attack after SC win and not try to be good guy and praise opponents. Now Romney campaign has painted any negative attacks by him on Romney as proving Gingrich is desperate whereas Romney negative attacks on Gingrich are business as usual and had nothing to do with Romney’s big loss in SC.

If anyone still does not know, the following documents define American conservatism:

The Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed

The United States Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The rest is compromises, which denigrate individual dignity and devalue human life. The same nonsense which demanded the original compromises. The same nonsense which justifies selling of indulgences and votes in exchange for promises of instant gratification — the cause of our current crisis and others throughout human history.

That said, I don’t know which is worse. Is it dreams of physical, material, or ego instant gratification that is the principal source of progressive corruption?

Windy City Commentary | February 6, 2012 at 12:40 am

Back in December, I thought Republicans were pretty confident about our chances to beat Obama. We had still had Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann out there campaigning, and after Cain was sacked, Newt started leading in the polls. Still, the candidates were taking to Obama and it looked like he was going to be a one term President.

Then, in mid-December, National Review decided that for no reason that had anything to do with Gingrich’s current campaign, they had to destroy him. Romney and Paul ran negative ads against Newt, because they are candidates competing against Newt, and that’s normal. What isn’t normal is for a “conservative” publication to take a mainstream Republican; a former House Speaker no less and target him for defeat.

It continues on and on. Whenever Newt does well, National Review fires at him again with another hit piece. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/289159/gingrich-and-reagan-elliott-abrams

I re-read their first hit piece on Newt from back in December. It is a pretty weak piece.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285787/winnowing-field-editors?pg=1

I encourage you to read these hit pieces. These 2 pieces have probably generated most of the negativity toward Newt in the new conservative media. Let’s not forget that George Will called Newt a Marxist. We should not allow these people to have their way this year.

“I think it’s worth hearing what the other side has to say…”
-Oh, I do too. Certainly wouldn’t want to be biased. Funny, these libs don’t seem to be tearing into anyone else these days? They attack him because he’s such a liberal too. It’s because he is the one they *really* want to go up against.

“And save the sanctimony, Mitt Romney used Nancy Pelosi’s blackmail in his ads suggesting she had secret info. on Newt — even after she admitted she did not.”
-No sanctimony needed Professor but the “he does it too” line of reasoning doesn’t mean we should stoop to using our real enemies’ tactics against our temporary enemies.

I love you man but I, for one, will be very happy when the primary is over and this blog gets beyond it’s anti-Romney phase. It’s not bringing out the best in us.

    Say_What in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 5:34 am

    I don’t plan on getting past my anti-Romney phase. And when a candidate has managed to turn off a lifelong Republican like me (and my family) who would now welcome a third party, I’d say he’s done politically. Here’s some future history: Romney will become known as the man who destroyed the GOP.

      WoodnWorld in reply to Say_What. | February 6, 2012 at 9:56 am

      “I don’t plan on getting past my anti-Romney phase.”
      -Barack thanks you for your intransigence.
      “Republican like me…now welcome[s] a third party…”
      -Hey, best of luck with that! It’s always (read, never) worked so well for either the third party or the party they came from in the past. Again, Axelrod thanks you for your determination to stick it to the man in spite of the overwhelming body of evidence mathematically proving its fruitlessness.

      “I’d say he’s done politically.”
      -Well, if you say so…

      “Here’s some future history: Romney will become known as the man who destroyed the GOP.”
      -How about some past history? According to many of the sages here and elsewhere in rabid anti-Romney/Mormon land, he would never (EVER) get to where he is now. He was DONE after 2008, would never win Iowa, would never get more than 30% of the vote, would never beat Newt in a debate, would never have the spine to hit hard (and often), would never be able to organize a campaign without the grassroots support etc. etc. ad nauseum. There was a point when I thought many of you might know what you are talking about, might see something I don’t. Those days are long gone so, please, forgive me if I don’t accept your “future history” fortune telling in relation to the fate of the GOP.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 8:47 am

    There is no anti-Romney phase, because I’m not anti-Romney. But I’m also going to continue to speak out against his conduct in the campaign, and speak up about his weaknesses as a candidate.

Is it just me or is Santorum looking smaller and smaller these days? Not simply as a candidate, but also as a man?

Sowwy, the big news, tho Clark county is having trouble keeping the signal fires plumped with tumble weeds, is turnout cratered.

Down about 20% in toto, the Mormon turnout was halved.

Guess evil McVain on the back of ChimpyMcHitlerBurton with the evil Military Complex in his pocket was a bigger ticket than Duffer-in-Chief.

You’ve lost GOP. Get used to it.

“when … this blog gets beyond it’s anti-Romney phase”

That will happen when the MSM gets beyond its Pro-Romney phase.

When my home page opens I get all the Romney talking points I need from the news aggregators. I don’t like having them regurgitated on the blogs I read.

The other side of the story is important to me and there aren’t many places where that can be found nowadays. Especially where the discourse between the ‘combatants” is civil, as well.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Jack Long. | February 6, 2012 at 9:35 am

    Yeah, it’s one of those funny things that always seems to happen in a primary. As a Republican candidate starts to win, as they become more likely to win the nomination, as other candidates either drop out, implode or completely lose both their cool and their bearing, I know this is going to sound crazy, the Republican writers tend to become MORE (<–not less, see what I did there?) supportive of said, successful candidate.

    At the risk of sounding either supportive of Romney or like a Democrat (whatever) I think a Republican/Conservative (whatever) tearing another Republican/Conservative (whatever) apart because their chosen candidate is seemingly incapable of doing the same with any level of effectiveness and/or without sounding like a whiny child in the process, and using Democratic smear merchants to do so is more of a Democratic/liberal move than it is a Republican/conservative one.

    I keep reading these, admittedly hard-hitting, pieces and the howling responses they engender here and there is just one thought that keeps playing in my mind, over and over again: "You KNOW who this helps don't you?" It's not Newt. Certainly not Rick, who should have moved over months ago so Newt can do what he needs to do without Rick in the race but, in spite of his brilliance, is incapable of doing on his own. It's not the primary process, unless I missed the day where we
    learned the best way to clean Ugly is with More Ugly and it's certainly not the Conservative Movement, as so many of you are now convinced it is your moral duty to stay home if Romney becomes the nominee.

    No, these pieces help BARACK OBAMA and the Democrats most. Intentionally or not, they are driving a wedge between us and are causing potentially irreparable damage at a time when we need every man, woman and 18+ year-old "child."

      William A. Jacobson in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 9:38 am

      Sorry, but Romney and his supporters have lost any credibility complaining about how criticisms help Obama. Not after all the nasty things they said when Newt was the frontrunner in Iowa, or after Newt won South Carolinal. One could write a book with nasty anti-Newt quotes. Romney poisoned the atmosphere of this campaign season as he did in 2008. Look at yourselves.

        “Sorry, but Romney and his supporters have lost any credibility complaining about how criticisms help Obama. Not after all the nasty things they said when Newt was the frontrunner in Iowa, or after Newt won South Carolinal.”
        -With credibility or without, it is still true. It would be, and was equally so, when Romney’s supporters started taking battle axes to Newt for things they knew weren’t fair, or true. I still fail to see how we repudiate ugliness by embracing it? How decrying the divisive nature of what they did/are doing is mitigated by us compounding the effort…

        “One could write a book with nasty anti-Newt quotes.”
        -While true, and unfortunate, many of those quotes predate this election contest by many years, and the ones that don’t largely derive their inspiration from the ones that do. My point being, as admirable as the man is, he came, off-the-shelf as it were, with bulls-eyes painted all over him. Does any that make it right? No. But it does explain why it happened and, perhaps, should prevent us from taking the attacks on him so personally.

        “Romney poisoned the atmosphere of this campaign season as he did in 2008.”
        -At least we are getting somewhere and have admitted that there is more than enough poison to go around… this poison is unique though, it only works if we let it and thicker skin will always serve as adequate anti-venom. As far as 2008 goes, I think some of us may have a selective memory about what actually happened. I seem to remember Mitt Romney getting taken out at the knees in the last Florida contest. In fact, he was polling very high, was expected to win and had to eat a last minute media dump from McCain and Huckabee, one which permanently crippled him for both that contest and the rest of the primary. I know. I was there. “We” helped take him down last time. Did he stay above the fray before that? Hell no. But he DID graciously bow out when he knew it was over. I know. I was there. I gained a lot of respect for him after that CPAC speech. He could have dragged it out, could have made it bitter and nasty, all of the things we are accusing him of now. But he didn’t. He played nice and he got eaten alive.

        It may not be over for Newt. I *think* it is but I have, admittedly, been wrong before. Super Tuesday will be his last chance Professor, I think many of you know this. If he can’t turn it around (ermm, again), and it becomes increasingly obvious that Romney really is the guy this time, I beg, I plead with all of you, you especially, to rise above this mess, be better than those clowns and help us win in November.

        We really need you.

        As far as “Look at yourselves” is concerned, I AM looking at myself. I try very hard to comport myself with both passion and a modicum of decency; there is level I just will not go to. You are a better man than I am, and are doing more work for conservatism than I ever could. As such, I ask you to look at YOURSELF and be better than the people you are, justifiably, upset with and disappointed in.

        I like you better when you are for something (and ferociously against Obama and the Democrats, I am weird like that…) and I think many of your readers here who either do not comment, or are scared off by the intensity of the anti-Romney crowd, would agree with me.

        I didn’t mean to soapbox but I sincerely do think, because you are so damned effective at making your point, that you are doing real lasting harm to our national election prospects in November, at least within the confines of this community.

          William A. Jacobson in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 10:57 am

          “you are so damned effective at making your point, that you are doing real lasting harm to our national election prospects in November, at least within the confines of this community.” How is it damaging to push back against false accusations spread by the Romney campaign and its supportive conservative media. If Romney had run a positive campaign convincing people why we should vote for him instead of vote against others, so much might have been different. If you have followed this blog then you would know that for most of this election cycle I have practically been begging Romney to convince us why we should vote for him and to stop the negative attacks on others. Now he’s in the early stages of going after Santorum the same way, with an anti-Santorum press conference call in Minnesota hosted by Tim Pawlenty. Don’t blame the messenger.

          WoodnWorld in reply to WoodnWorld. | February 6, 2012 at 11:46 am

          “How is it damaging to push back against false accusations spread by the Romney campaign and its supportive conservative media?”
          -That is a very good question. One for which, I think, I have a good answer. It’s damaging only insomuch as I have not heard you say that you would support the nominee, whomever it might be, come November. Damaging that, either through silence or complicity, I have not heard you say that our real focus is Obama in the fall, and not each other (mere spectators of the process) now. You could, very easily, while still pushing back and holding firm to your principles, say almost anything to temper the blue-on-blue we are witnessing on the level where it matters most: voter enthusiasm. If you have said any of these things and I have missed it, I am sincerely sorry.

          You say you are not anti-Romney. I believe you. But from the outside looking in, it sure did look like you didn’t like him and judging by the (only somewhat) sycophantic pied piperism I see here from the Army of Jacobson, I am not sure they realize you aren’t anti him either.

          “If Romney had run a positive campaign convincing people why we should vote for him instead of vote against others, so much might have been different.”
          -None of them have run a positive campaign. Newt flirted with it before Iowa, and given his historical penchant for the opposite, I commend him for it. History shows that if a candidate cannot make headway with an opponent, highlighting the “contrasts” is a great way to break some ground. This is a timeless concept. I hate it as much as anyone but tracing back who started what, when almost anything you say to challenge an opponent can be perceived by that person as “going negative,” it just seems fruitless to try. More importantly, why oh why are we choosing this election, of all the elections in the world to get, to use your word, “sanctimonious” about the methods and tactics that are employed in an election?

          “If you have followed this blog then you would know that for most of this election cycle I have practically been begging Romney to convince us why we should vote for him and to stop the negative attacks on others.
          -I have been following this blog for far longer than I have been commenting and admit to seeing (many) posts stating exactly that. I also have been following the comment section for far longer than I have been commenting in it, and I have seen some pretty nasty stuff about Mitt Romney, material that precedes him going negative in Iowa by a long shot. Point being, no one side has a monopoly on Ugly here.

          “Now he’s in the early stages of going after Santorum the same way, with an anti-Santorum press conference call in Minnesota hosted by Tim Pawlenty. Don’t blame the messenger.”
          -I don’t blame you at all and I would never presume to tell you what to link or not to link, or what to say and not to say. Please understand that all I care about is the national election. One of these gentlemen, and I think we both agree it is not going to be Rick Santorum, is going to be the nominee and whether they will insulate themselves or not is irrelevant, I feel it is our job to insulate them from themselves, in spite of themselves, from the very real, very negative and very ugly machine that is going to start tearing into one of them this summer. We should not aid and abet the enemy in that process. I feel as though by *sounding* more anti-Romney than pro-Newt, and not gently discouraging the wide-eyed types here who are threatening to jump ship if Mitt does win, you are condoning the sentiment. With everything that is at stake, again, we cannot afford to lose anyone.

          (I am sorry. I seem incapable of writing succinctly; I try, I really do.)

Newt did better in NV than was expected and the Rombots beclowned themselves in NV. This race is just getting warmed up. Time to send Newt another contribution.

Governor Palin Is The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute’s 2012 Woman Of The Year: She’ll receive the award at a luncheon between 12-2 PM on the day of her keynote address at CPAC.

http://conservatives4palin.com/2012/02/governor-palin-is-the-clare-boothe-luce-policy-institutes-2012-woman-of-the-year.html

I hope she announces her decision to run at her CPAC keynote speech. She would breath new life into this process and give Coulter a heart attack.

It would also be a crushing defeat of the Establishment GOP. How sweet would that be!

    Say_What in reply to RWRFAN. | February 6, 2012 at 8:11 am

    Palin was my first choice and was disappointed when she didn’t go for it, but after seeing what the MSM, RINO bloggers and Rombots did to Cain, Perry, and Newt I totally understand why she chose not to run.

Wow, the comments on Sanotum’s column @ Redstate are right on!

We are on to you Rick.

http://tinyurl.com/7bovh2g

My Dinner with Andre Bill Ayers

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn auctioned off an evening for dinner in their home in Chicago and Tucker Carlson of “The Daily Caller” took advantage of the opportunity. For $2,500 Tucker and a few of his friends secured an evening with the radical couple. Tucker invited along Andrew Breitbart who called into Stephen K. Bannon’s “The Victory Sessions” and gave a play-by-play of the meal. Breitbart said that they had “no game plan” going in to the evening, and that strategy produced an unforgettable event that the Ayers won’t soon forget.”

Sometimes I wonder if we all don’t support Romney, or Gingrich, or Santorum, or Paul because if we did not, we’d have to admit the GOP is currently talentless and leaderless at a critical moment in American history.

I still support Gingrich, but he was not my first choice, and I’ll wager Romney, Santorum, and Paul weren’t the first choices of many of their respective supporters.

I’d love to see a poll showing how many Republicans have their first choice still in the race. I’ll bet it’s 25% or lower, that 75% wanted someone other than the current slate of four.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend