Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

What is wrong with this picture?

What is wrong with this picture?

Other than everything?

It’s a theme I’ve been harping on since the beginning of time, or at least the beginning of this campaign season.  Not being someone else is not a reason to vote for you.

Oh, we’ll vote for you if the only someone else is Obama, but we will not be enough.

Via Ryan Lizza h/t Dan McLaughlin:

This sort of stuff doesn’t help, either, cause we ain’t stuped:

“Four years ago we won all three of three of those states [Michigan, Utah and Massachusetts]. Is any one of them a must-win for Mitt Romney? No,” [Romney senior advisor Eric] Fehrnstrom said.

“I think the must-do for any candidate running for president is achieving the 1,145 delegates. That’s what’s going to secure the nomination, and it’s a long process and as of right now we have a nearly three to one lead over our closest rival in terms of delegates,” he added.

It feeds a narrative shared by conservatives and liberals alike that there is no there there, which will be devastating in the general election:

In short, hiding behind that Mitt Romney mask is (yikes) another Mitt Romney mask.

Change course, right the ship, do something other than what you have been doing.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is all that Mitt has. After running for 5 years his numbers were stuck at 25%. This is not a name recognition issue. This is a no one likes you issue. Only recourse is to make voters like the other candidates even less.

The real tragedy is that is has worked so well. A couple negative stories and conservatives go running for the next candidate. How easy does that make it for the MSM to chose our candidate for us?

In short, hiding behind that Mitt Romney mask is (yikes) a Bob Dole mask.

Hopeless.

The ad is a degradation in every political sense of the word — to the truth, to our intelligence, to the other candidates and ironically even to Romney. What Romney’s people didn’t consider is that after simultaneously trashing three candidates (to trash one opponent is expected, trashing two at the same time is pushing it) you’re begging the voter into a value judgment about YOU.

“Unrealiable leader”? Gingrich may have sat down with Pelosi but he didn’t get up with a legislative abomination as Romney did from his much longer sit-down with Ted Kennedy.

“Career politician”? But what do people see in Romney? A failed WANNABE career politician. That is, a man who keeps trying to be one but can’t cut it.

Finally, “Rick went to Washington and he never came back.” What does that mean? Santorum isn’t even in Washington, and hasn’t been about a half-dozen years. And where has Romney been all this time? Traveling the country in a perpetual motion of pandering and fund-raising to GET to Washington.

Aside from being demoralizingly dishonest, the ad is incoherent. This man is hopeless in about as complete a way as any person running for office could be.

OT but related to this statement from Romney’s campaign advisor Fehrnstrom:

“I think the must-do for any candidate running for president is achieving the 1,145 delegates. That’s what’s going to secure the nomination, and it’s a long process and as of right now we have a nearly three to one lead over our closest rival in terms of delegates,” he added.

(my bold emphasis)

The delegate counts are mostly non-committal or “unbound” thus far, and the FL delegates’ assignment (proportional or not?) are in dispute.

Has the FL issue on winner-takes-all vs. proportional been resolved? The rules are pretty clear; but that apparently doesn’t mean much to the RNC.

The MSM and RNC/Repub. Establishment types want everyone to believe these numbers are fixed, final, a fait acompli.

Not even close!

I can’t be certain that Romney is the main reason, but I have been pushed, it feels, into ennui regarding this nomination process, coupled with dismay about the likelihood of another Obama term.

    DINORightMarie in reply to Rick. | February 20, 2012 at 11:49 am

    You are buying into the propaganda, the 24/7 negative messaging. That is EXACTLY the result they want.

    Fight against it. Don’t accept it! Go to marklevin.com and listen to a few of his recorded shows (last week was wonderful!).

    Get your batteries recharged. We have a long, hard slog in the mud of Obama & Co. yet to come!! Don’t quit now.

    They want you to quit. If for no other reason than that alone – DON’T GIVE IN! FIGHT!

    As someone reminded me the other night, when apathy sets in, the devil has already won the battle.

    “Never give in. NEVER give in! NEVER NEVER NEVER!…..” –Winston Churchill

As someone who supported Perry, will not vote for Romney if he is on the ballot in November, and currently a marginal Santorum supporter, I don’t get what all the fuss is about concerning Mitt’s negative campaigning. Or rather, I DO believe I know what all the fuss is about…

Negative campaigning is a legitimate tactic. In fact, virtually all campaigns use it to a greater or lesser extent. Of course, when to use it, and how much to push it, depends on that particular campaign at a certain point in time.

Perry IS a career politician. Newt HAS been unreliable at times. Santorum HAS spent a lot of time involved with Washington politics and lobbying. None of these attacks are unfounded.

So why all the grief about Mitt’s negative campaigning? Could it be because the people here are bitter about the effectiveness of Mitt’s negative campaigning against Newt? Yes, I think so.

    Could it be because EACH of the three criticisms applies also to Romney himself, either as he is or as he wanted to be, and because it’s mind-numbing to believe that anyone aiming to be president would have such a low regard for the electorate that he thinks he can get away with aiming allegations at his opponents that apply with greater force to himself?

      Astroman in reply to TJSC. | February 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm

      So Mitt is a hypocrite. This is news?

      The point of a campaign is to sell a politician to the public. When selling something, you want to emphasize your strengths, and emphasize the short-comings of your opponents.

      When you go to a job interview, you don’t air every single piece of your dirty laundry, you put your best foot forward. When I interview for a job, I don’t blurt out “Beans gives me gas, and I really like beans!” It isn’t the interviewee’s job to pull out all of their negatives, that is the interviewer’s job.

      Just because Mitt has wanted to be a career politician, and the only reason he isn’t is because he has lost races, that doesn’t change the fact that Perry is a career politician.

      No, the rationale that makes the most sense is that many of y’all are just bitter, and are looking to justify and rationalize that bitterness.

        “The point of a campaign is to sell a politician to the public.”

        Then your defense makes no sense. Romney isn’t selling himself. His preponderant strategy for seven years has been to smear others.

        His very failure to sell himself is the problem, its bitter root, and the root of the “bitterness.”

        If Romney were a resounding leader, an inspiring conservative, a candidate who used his 10:1 financial advantage and organizing awesomeness to spread the gospel of conservatism and make a compelling case against this corrupt and poisonously ideological Obama administration, would anybody really be bitter, at least for long? How could they? Wouldn’t his success be celebrated?

        The problem is the meagerness and unfitness of this poor figure of a man who, after more a decade of trying, simply cannot move people to himself or to whatever ideas he may hold at the moment.

          Astroman in reply to raven. | February 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm

          This is what you don’t get. At the end of the primary, we will end up with one of the four remaining candidates (barring a brokered convention which is unlikely).

          So by tearing down every candidate but one, you are selling that one, albeit in a round-about fashion. And it has been effective, at least until this point. Romney has outlasted most of the other candidates. The only candidate currently in Romney’s way is Santorum.

          So even if Romney’s strategy doesn’t ultimately prove successful against Santorum and win Romney the primary, it was still largely successful, because it got him at least close to winning. Romney’s strategy makes sense, it’s just that it may not be enough, given all of Romney’s weaknesses.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to raven. | February 20, 2012 at 4:59 pm

          If one correctly applied Astroman’s analogy, his job interview would consist of telling the employer, “Beans give the other applicants gas, and boy do they like beans.”

          That’s “selling yourself” – Romney and Astroman style!

    Say_What in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    Hi Astroman. Well, that just blew your Santorum supporter cover didn’t it? Thanks for the confirming what I suspected:)

      Astroman in reply to Say_What. | February 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm

      OK, I give up, who am I secretly supporting? And do you have any, you know, actual proof? Or are you just smearing me on a hunch, while attacking Mitt for smearing people? Perhaps because you can’t answer my actual points?

      And were you accusing me of secretly supporting someone when I predicted Newt would win SC, even when Mitt was still ahead in the polls? You see, I am able to set aside my personal feelings and wants when doing political analysis. Can you?

        Say_What in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 12:52 pm

        Political Analysis? That made me laugh. Have a nice day Astroman.

          Astroman in reply to Say_What. | February 20, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          So you basically admit you have no proof when you essentially called me a liar.

          I’ll remember that the next time I see you complain about how Mitt is going around smearing your guy.

        Hope Change in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 1:07 pm

        Astroman — Here’s what would be nice.

        Some sign that you recognize that the country that you presumably love is in trouble and that you care about that.

        Some sign that you love enough to try to make something better.

          Astroman in reply to Hope Change. | February 20, 2012 at 1:23 pm

          Uh, so because I’m critical of Newt, I need to prove I really care about this country? I am continually amazed at how far gone so many of the folks on this blog are. Newt isn’t the Messiah. He is a politician. That has supported things like global warming and healthcare mandates.

          The truth is, the field of candidates this year is weak, and we’ve already eliminated who I believe was the best of a weak field – Perry. I find Mitt, Newt, and Santorum to all be weak candidates, and I don’t believe they are likely to beat Obama, anyway, although I would give Santorum a slight chance. I believe Mitt and Newt are auto-loss candidates.

          Which is a shame, because Obama is a terrible and weak and traitorous president. If we had ran Mickey Mouse, we could have beaten Obama. But instead, we’ve decided to take that as a challenge, so instead of running Mickey Mouse or better, we’re going to try to beat Obama with Goofy.

    Nope it’s not just about Newt. However, it IS because Romney is a LIAR, a pathelogical one at that.

    From ‘100,000 new jobs’ to Obama’s jobs record to his first name, Mitt Romney has a truth problem
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/12/mitt-romneys-lies
    Mitt Romney lies about South Carolina defeat: ‘We were vastly outspent’
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/31/1060309/-Mitt-Romney-lies-about-South-Carolina-defeat:-We-were-vastly-outspent
    Romney Lies in FL debate
    http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2012/01/romney-lies-in-fl-debate-about-not.html
    Romney Lies About Abortion
    http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion
    Mitt Romney Lies About His Investments In Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac
    http://www.americanbridgepac.org/2012/01/wire/response/on-fox-news-mitt-romney-lies-about-his-investments-in-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/
    CBO shows Romney lies about “savings” from repealing Health Care Reform, actually adds to the deficit
    http://www.americablog.com/2012/01/cbo-shows-romney-lies-about-savings.html
    Romney Lies About His Pro-Gay Record
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/01/romney-lies-about-his-progay-record.html
    Three More Romney Lies (and counting)
    http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/three-more-romney-lies-and-counting/
    Two Huge Romney Lies at CNN Debate Debunked by Gregg Jackson
    http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/two-huge-romney-lies-at-cnn-debate-debunked-by-gregg-jackson/

    Is there anything he can be truthful about?
    Certainly not his own record!!

      Astroman in reply to Terri. | February 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm

      But it isn’t a lie to call Perry a career politician. It isn’t a lie to call Gingrich unreliable. It isn’t a lie to say that Santorum has spent a ton of time in Washington.

      Those are the negative ads Mr. Jacobson was drawing attention to.

      Now what do you expect Mitt to do? To campaign on the fact that he is a liar? Would you expect Newt to campaign on the fact that he is the only candidate in the race who slept around on the mother of his children?

        Terri in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 8:54 pm

        How do you KNOW he is the only one? I have read that he may NOT be the only one. Yes, his was made public but he never LIED about it nor did he deny it. I want a President -not a Saint, Preacher, Pope or someone who thinks they will become a G-d. Must be nice to be without sin. Folks like to talk about Newt’s sins of the flesh, but they don’t like to hear that greed and avarice are sins that God hates and the K Street project was indeed greed.

        FACT: Newt has actually passed and implemented more Conservative Agenda then any man currently alive. Meanwhile, Romney has passed and implemented more Liberal Agenda then any man alive. That’s as clear of a choice as I have ever seen.

    wodiej in reply to Astroman. | February 21, 2012 at 6:22 am

    yawn.

Mitt can’t break out in the weakest GOP field in decades. What does that say about Mitt? Nobody really wants to vote for this guy. People are turning to Ron Paul for crying out loud! That’s how bad Mitt is!

    Same Same in reply to WarEagle82. | February 20, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    The field this year wasn’t really that bad. Perry and Pawlenty are both serious players. That why the Romneybots took them out early.

    We are now left with the candidates who were not seen as a viable threat. The fact that Mitt still can’t get any traction is a measure of just how thoroughly the base dislikes/distrusts him.

      Estragon in reply to Same Same. | February 20, 2012 at 1:42 pm

      “Romneybots” took out Perry and Pawlenty? In what sense?

      It seemed to me as a Pawlenty supporter that Tim and Rick did a magnificent job of wrecking their own campaigns without any help from anyone.

      Did Romney have a role in the Kennedy assassination, too?

Another hiding behind the Romney mask is…George H.W.Bush
No wonder H.W. endorsed Mittens.

Romney is the epitome of Washington “influence peddling.” Something he accused Newt of doing.

Romney has spent his life spreading his money around and trying to “position” the Mormon population to live in states he needs to win for the Presidency out in the Western U.S. Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Idaho heavily populated Mormon.

If he loses Michigan, and it’s being said that UAW workers were told to vote Santorum, Romney does really need to consider getting out. The people don’t want him.

I can’t begin to stress how Romney will fail against Obama. Axelrod has done his homework thoroughly. Much can be said for Rick Santorum as well.

I don’t know how we propel Newt to the forefront. He needs to do much work himself, because there is a lot of misinformation out there. People only react to soundbites and that’s the way the media works.

    Hope Change in reply to Scorpio51. | February 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    Scorpio51 – What you say is very true.

    And yet, “That’s the way the media works,” isn’t as true anymore. Because, look, we’re talking. Hi!

    We are Americans. We were born into a free country. Since we love our freedom, the media is our mortal enemy.

    So we have to use our smarts and initiative to defeat the MSM and the Left (but I repeat myself).

    Once we’re clear and keyed in on what we love and that the SOB’s are trying to take it ALL AWAY, we can begin to fight with courage and determination. “THE NAME ON THE FRONT IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE ONE ON THE BACK.” It’s time for us to begin to play like champions.

    How we position Newt is as follows, IMHO — this is what I say to people who don’t yet know —

    –each American citizen who cares about whether there will be jobs in the future, money in our pockets, safety and a strong country, manufacturing like we used to have, and the right to act like citizens and not subjects, must step up.

    “These are the times that try men’s souls” — well, those times are here again.

    I think you are saying, Scorpio51, that you see that Newt is ready to lead us, the American People, right now. Newt is ready. And the organization is forming up around Newt.

    So what I say to anyone who is wondering how we defeat these miserable statist would-be tyrants, listen to Newt’s CPAC 2012 speech and find out the plan. FIND OUT THE PLAN.

    Newt’s plan, essentially, IS the American People.

    If WE fail to act, then the terrible thing will have come to pass, that a foolish people will have allowed themselves to be put into tyranny.

    I am sick and tired of feeling helpless when we elect conservatives, or so we think, and nothing ever changes. The reason this PLAN will work is, it calls for a mobilization of the American People. We will elect the White House, the House and the Senate ALL AT ONCE.

    WE THE PEOPLE will know EXACTLY what we’re doing.

    It will all be in writing by October 1, 2012. We will have a clear agenda of the laws that they will pass, many signed the FIRST DAY. Restore Liberty. Repeal tyrannical laws and nonsensical government interference.

    We are free citizens of a free country. It’s incumbent upon us to find out what we can do to save our country.

    The American People love freedom. We are recalcitrant, stubborn, fierce and independent. Thank God. The TEA Party spirit is strong.

    If you have not yet listened to Newt’s CPAC 2012 speech, find out for yourself. What can you do to save our country that no one else can do?

    The time to find this out is NOW. The election is NOW.

    Because if Newt is the nominee, we will win this fall. And then we can get to work restoring the America of the Constitution, the America we were born into.

    Picture how good that would feel.

    http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/newt-2012-cpac-2012-american-campaign-newt-man-with-the-plan

    p.s. there’s also a loose transcript if you want to skim through it quickly.

    Once you’re clear, you can sign up at http://newtsnetwork.com/ The people are marvelous. Put a comment up at the Public Square to find your state leaders. People will respond and help you.

    High morale is a function of knowing what you’re fighting for. We’re skating for the United States of America.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MxHedPMvmY

Windy City Commentary | February 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm

Drudge is back to criticizing Newt, saying Newt criticized Reagan. Here we go; once again. Drudge has 2 headlines on this which link to the same article. Drudge is at it again; attacking Newt.

Gingrich Papers, Speeches Show Frequent Criticism of Reagan…
… Revolution Was ‘Weak’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-archives-show-his-public-praise-private-criticism-of-reagan/2012/02/15/gIQAnK6IOR_print.html

I hop the missppeling of stuped was intenshinul.

Professor, it appears you finally see the truth behind my own prediction.

Mitt the nominee means Obama’s second term.

The primary race, so far, has been a parade of Not-Mitts rising and falling to the money of Mitt Romney and their own foibles, perceived or real.

The problem is that Mitt does NOT have more money to spend than Barack Obama and can NOT overcome the huge media advantage he has. Mitt can NOT predictably count on the hardcore base of the Republican party, the conservatives while Obama can predict that the entitled classes will pull the lever for the entitlement party.

The true problem for the Presidential race this year is we don’t actually have a feasible candidate on the field. We will have a nominee. No matter how bad a job Obama is doing he can count on the entitlement class and enough help from the media to push bast Obama’s worst handicap, his record.

It is not too late to change strategies and let Mitt have his losing run while we focus on the Congressional and State and local races where Obama does not have the political capital to fight.

    Astroman in reply to Kerrvillian. | February 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Why do we have to “give Mitt his run,” if you agree that Mitt can’t win? Why not stick it to the Republican establishment and boot Mitt out in the primary for your remaining candidate of choice?

    Mitt isn’t guaranteed to win the primary. If Santorum has a good night in MI and AZ, Mitt will no longer be the favorite to win the nomination.

      Estragon in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm

      You don’t have to “give” anyone anything. The GOP has the most open and Democratic process of delegate selection in the world, even moreso than the Democrats because we reserve far fewer seats for officeholders and activists. Our voters get to choose.

      Then we have the sore losers who won’t vote for X or Y if they win the nomination, which certainly makes those voters RINOs, doesn’t it?

      Not supporting our nominee, whoever it is, only helps Obama. Whether you vote third party or leave the top line blank or stay home altogether, the difference is only a matter of degree, you are helping reelect Obama. You are sentencing your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren and beyond to live under the hundreds of federal judges he will appoint to lifetime terms and the tens of thousands of freedom-robbing regulations he will promulgate.

      Now, as long as you understand that, your vote is your right. Do as you will – but don’t pretend it isn’t having the effect of helping Obama, and don’t refuse to accept that responsibility for your actions.

        Astroman in reply to Estragon. | February 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm

        Actually, I voted for the Republican nominee in 2008. And what did that give us? It gave us 4 years of Obama, and another RINO as the (current) front-runner in the following primary.

        So if we end up with McCain 2.0 as our candidate in 2012, and if I refuse to vote for him, it won’t be any worse than when I did vote for the nominee, now would it? At least this way, it gives a clear sign that we conservatives will no longer put up with RINOs.

        But yeah, being a principled conservative probably DOES make me a Republican-in-name-only, since the Republican party and establishment clearly doesn’t represent real conservatism.

          Hope Change in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm

          Hey! Hey! It’s nice to be able to like your comment, Astroman. Really.

          I would be very interested to learn more about what you care about as a conservative. Really.

          I agree with what you just wrote. The tone, the frustration and the substance.

          I think the Republican Establishment plays Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football with us — bait and switch. They claim to be for conservative principles. Then they FAIL TO PROTECT OUR LIBERTIES DAY AFTER DAY ANFD ALLOW THE STUPIDEST THINGS IMAGINABLE TO GO ON IN WASHINGTON.

          We got Dole and lost, McCain and lost, Gerald Ford and lost; H.W. Bush, it turned out, had learned exactly nothing from being in the Reagan administration for 8 years, broke his word, and lost.

          This is why I ask you. And I know it’s repeatedly. And I’m sorry for that. Really. I’m sorry to be annoying. I would infinitely prefer a celebratory festival. To listen to Newt’s plan.

          Because it isn’t about Newt. It’s about the American People. You. Getting our Rights back.

          Astroman in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm

          Newt was foolish enough to go along with Global warming and the healthcare mandate. Not as a young man, but as an old man. Not as a rookie politician, but an experienced politician who had spent years playing the game at the top of DC politics.

          All of this, and yet Newt was stupid enough to fall for these blatant power grabs against personal freedom.

          Remember not very long ago when Newt was boasting about how he had the nomination virtually locked up, even before a single primary? As if it was unthinkable, “highly improbable” that the race could shift.

          THAT’s the “vision” of Newt. He is so full of himself, he is so convinced that he is smarter than everyone else, he only proves his own foolishness. And THIS is the guy you are still willing to trust?

          Can you not understand how people like me, who believe in personal liberty, cannot and will not trust someone like Newt?

          Hope Change in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 6:38 pm

          Astroman, I have already offered you linked evidence that what you are saying is false.

          So that means you won’t look at the truth.

          If you were in good faith, you would inform yourself. You would be curious to know the truth. If you were being unjust, you would care. But you don’t.

          As a citizen in a free country, you have the right to be ignorant.

          But your lack of information destroys your credibility. Your criticisms of Newt are untrue. Repeating them doesn’t make them true.

          Hope Change in reply to Astroman. | February 20, 2012 at 6:39 pm

          And, Astroman — If you believe in personal liberty, Newt’s plan is your best friend. Because WE THE PEOPLE are going to restore your personal liberty along with everyone’s personal liberty.

          Thank you for indicating that you value personal liberty. Me,too. So we’re allies in that.

          Astroman in reply to Astroman. | February 21, 2012 at 7:25 am

          Hope Change, you have zero credibility, ZERO credibility. The fact is, and deny it all you want, but the FACT is Newt sat down on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Oh, but he never supported the global warming agenda or anything.

          When you can be honest about the plain facts, let me know.

        You are off the wall. The sore losers here are the GOPE. In 2010 America told the Republicans, “do the right thing or we will vote you out also. We don’t like your brand either.”
        So what does the GOPE do, serve us a squish. Americans don’t want anyone who refuses to fight Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Screwmer, etal. Mitt doesn’t know how to fight. He knows how to go along to get along. He knows how to pay people off to get what he wants.
        Americans have realized Obama is not their number 1 enemy. Their number 1 enemy is the GOP establishment who refuses to fight Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etal. against the wishes of their base. The GOP establishment has disdain for the base. Fine, they can get the squish over the finish line without us but, even the Independents don’t like Mitt because he offers no alternative to Obama, duh!
        You voting for Romney enslaves your children and grandchildren to socialism/progressivism. No flippin’ thanks. No mas. You are the sore loser.

Astroman | February 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm

This analysis is narrow and completely at odds with the expansive models that win elections.

“So by tearing down every candidate but one, you are selling that one, albeit in a round-about fashion.”

No, by definition this is not “selling.” It’s just surviving, and at crippling costs. More importantly, in a world such as politics not measured in strict bottom lines but in emotional terms — rather, in a world in which bottom lines are driven by emotional forces — tearing down others results in the inverse of “selling”, i.e., the risk of deep product alienation. Which we are seeing: independents fleeing Romney.

“And it has been effective, at least until this point.”

I think we just demonstrated it hasn’t been. In any case, why are still here discussing all this? Shouldn’t Romney, with his overpowering financial and establishment advantages and his seven years running and advertising bombardments, have it locked up by now? Weren’t we told he would? How did Santorum just rally to win three states Romney won in 2008? How did Romney lose South Carolina? “Effective”? How could Romney spend $23 per vote in Iowa and lose to Santorum who spent 70 cents per vote? “Effective”?

“So even if Romney’s strategy doesn’t ultimately prove successful against Santorum and win Romney the primary, it was still largely successful, because it got him at least close to winning.”

What? He would be “successful” by not winning a primary he also didn’t win in 2008 despite having, as he did then, massive advantages of money, organization, endorsements and media collusion? If Romney can’t win in 2012 with all the aforementioned strengths and given this field of candidates, he’ll have been so “successful” as to self-liquidate from the political scene forever.

“Romney’s strategy makes sense, it’s just that it may not be enough, given all of Romney’s weaknesses.”

It only makes “sense” if it’s the only thing he was capable of anyway; but that’s not really sense or not-sense, just what is. And it appears that’s what is.

    Astroman in reply to raven. | February 20, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    OK, if you are Romney, and you’ve been a liberal and a flip-flopper all your life, and your record proves it, but you still want to become president, what would be a better strategy for Romney to follow?

    Romney is simply employing the best strategy available to him.

    And yes, by telling everyone all the alternatives are so much worse, you are selling yourself – they’re bad, I’m not them, so elect me.

    Thus far, it has gotten Mitt from a large field to making it to the final two. MI and AZ will give us a good idea whether or not it will get him through to the nomination, or come up short against the eventual winner of the primary.

[…] Impressively, Carl was extremely polite during the entire discourse — as well as extremely informative. It this time vile attacks based on bold-faced lies, such civilized dialog was quite refreshing and a testament to the adult approach so often lacking in today’s politics. […]

ROMNEY may not have been in Washington, but he had people in DC shoveling tax dollars, pork and protection his way:

*** His people lobbied Fannie and Freddie – http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/25/top-romney-advisers-lobbied-for-freddie/

*** His people got a BIG bail-out for Bain – http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10538-romneys-skeletons-his-bain-capital-received-millions-in-bailouts

*** His people got SUPER-SIZED bail-outs for the Salt Lake City Olympics:
“Romney has a history of surviving poor decision-making by gulping down federal largesse. He’s built up an impressive mythology about someone who makes things work.”
http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/01/bailout-mitt-salt-lake-city-edition/

“Most U.S. tax dollars per athlete. Federal spending for the Salt Lake City Games will average $625,000 for each of the 2,400 athletes who will compete. (Not a penny of it will go to the athletes.) That’s a 996% increase from the $57,000 average for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. It’s a staggering 5,582% jump from the $11,000 average for the 1984 Summer Games in Los Angeles.”
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024516/index.htm

“And for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the estimated cost to American taxpayers is 1.3 billion dollars. That’s outrageous Mr. President. And it’s a disgrace,” McCain said. (2001)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/whos-the-biggest-earmarker-of-them-all/?hpt=hp_bn3

Romney has DC in his very deep pockets.

    that’s why the establishment wants him. He plays their game. They took out Perry, Cain and are now trying to take out Gingrich. Who is left to fight Romney? Mr. Sweater vest. People better wake up.

ABOUT ROMNEY:

1. Romney is not holding onto level of support he had in 2008. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/romney-shows-trouble-keeping-supporters-from-2008/
In Maine:
–2008, Paul took 18% of the vote, and Romney took 51%.
–2012, Paul took 36% of the vote, and Romney took 39%.

2. Romney is not conservative, has no conservative voting record or achievement and no success that he can TRUTHFULLY name:
Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum, who has researched Romney’s record, said the state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases.
“As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. “On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.”

At a campaign rally here on Saturday, Romney’s supporters handed out flyers promoting the candidate’s economic credentials, a central theme in his campaign, saying he had “closed a nearly $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes” during his term in Massachusetts.
But the $3 billion deficit projected by Romney and state legislators in January 2003 at the start of his administration never rose that high because a surge in capital gains taxes more than halved the shortfall to $1.3 billion.
While Romney and the state legislature cut $1.6 billion from the 2004 budget, analysts noted he also generated more than $500 million by raising fees and by closing corporate tax loopholes — actions considered tax rises by some businesses.

“There’s never been under his watch an economic turnaround to speak of,” Michael Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told Reuters.
“We added a few jobs over the last three years of his tenure but very few. He also raised corporate taxes and fees.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/20/us-usa-politics-romney-record-idUSN2033704120080120?sp=true)
Under Romney, Massachusetts was 47th out of 50 in jobs and growth. His Health Care plan has been disastrous for the state.

3. Romney is a big time wheeler-dealer member of the financial and political 1%. In this economy, the poll numbers are below sea level for Political Elite and Wall Street Barons who have gotten bail-outs.

Three big strikes against Romney in his second time at bat.

Couple the three strikes with his reputation for continuous LIES and flip/flops showing lack of any credible convictions – all with a preponderance of evidence on video, in writing and in his ads…well, what can anyone say in his behalf?

Years of decadent movie stars, secret-sinner televangelists and politicians make Americans hunger for someone who is not necessarily perfect, but real, sincere, honestly sorry and repentant when he’s done wrong and willing to own his mistakes. We have failed too and know we need God’s forgiveness, mercy and transforming power to correct our course and begin again.

That does not characterize Romney in the least. He’s still faking, playing make-believe. Hiding behind his money, media power, mud slinging and lies.

Romney can’t get the conservative vote by destroying all the other candidates or by trying to buy it with ads or checks.

Obama couldn’t force conservatives to vote for him at gun point. Obama is going to employ his Chicago tricks… and more… including Soros’s and Jimmy Hoffa, Jr.’s promised OWS/Arab Spring chaos and violence.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Uncle Samuel. | February 20, 2012 at 11:24 pm

    !.3 billion $$$ is what it costs to get the short frumpy Canadian ice dancing pair tie the elegant lyrical Russian duo.

    Canada thanks you.

[…] because his campaign’s good at making everyone else in the field seem less viable, as this hugely depressing graphic vividly demonstrates. It’s taken for granted that fear and loathing of Hopenchange will turn […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend