Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bush 4 Mitt

Bush 4 Mitt

BREAKING” —

“Congratulations to Governor Mitt Romney on his win last night and to all the candidates for a hard fought, thoughtful debate and primary season,” said Bush in a statement. “Primary elections have been held in thirty-four states, and now is the time for Republicans to unite behind Governor Romney and take our message of fiscal conservatism and job creation to all voters this fall.  I am endorsing Mitt Romney for our Party’s nomination.  We face huge challenges, and we need a leader who understands the economy, recognizes more government regulation is not the answer, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism and works to ensure that all Americans have the opportunity to succeed.”

Via Common Cents, Romney’s victory speech last night:

Put aside what you think about Romney, has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Bush is treasonous slime whose actions by and large helped Obama in doing what he has done to this country today. Both parties have been hijacked by progressives.

    janitor in reply to doombroker. | March 21, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Jeb Bush and co. power brokers pushing Romney and responsible for the disastrous Florida primary. Bush crony capitalism.

    Has Romney developed enough as a candidate? On what criteria? Barack Obama was a superb “candidate”.

By progressives I mean international fabian socialists.

Nope.

Joan Of Argghh | March 21, 2012 at 12:21 pm

has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?

Good grief. We had to answer that question four years ago. Must the GOP make us answer it again? For the same reason?

Mitt needs to embrace the Ryan Plan. If Mitt is the nominee, he needs to absorb this, live and breathe this, and sell it as genuinely as does Ryan. We need to rally to the core of the problem, and Ryan has done a masterful job of defining and explaining it; he’s given a solid center around which to build a juggernaut. Just do it.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Joan Of Argghh. | March 21, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    Even if Romney parroted the Ryan Plan, I wouldn’t trust him to believe in it or to implement it.

    He has proven his words and positions are without credibility, stability and predictability. His actions as a businessman, and governor have been beyond contempt.

      Yeah, the ‘core of the problem’….old people, and poor people, and poor old people.

      Riiigghhttttt……THEY are the problem.

I am just as fed up with the Republicans as the Democrats. I’m fed up with Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor. They don’t represent me and I will no longer be voting for “Big Government” Republicans. I will not be voting for Romney no matter who he places on the bottom of the ticket.
The Bush family wiped out all of the strides the Reagan Revolution made. I am sick to death of the Bush family. Anybody they endorse is someone I absolutely refuse to vote for.
A vote for Romney is a vote for a second Obama term.

    Tamminator in reply to JRD. | March 21, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    And NOT voting for Romney(or whoever the candidate may be) is guaranteeing another term for Obama, fool.

      hrh40 in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 1:16 pm

      HINT: People are not fools simply for disagreeing with you.

      TRUTH: Romney is one scintilla to the right of Obama. So it matters one scintilla to the fate of our country whether Obama or Romney are in charge for the next 4 years.

      One. scintilla.

      janitor in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm

      Four more years of a category 5 mess versus eight years of a category 4 mess, or

      Four years of a category 4 mess, followed by four years of a new category 5 mess.

      Decisions, decisions…

        Uncle Samuel in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 3:52 pm

        I’m having trouble repenting of wishing the Mossad were as good and able as John Grisham’s imagination… and could sneak in here and help us out… but they have their own mess of Obamas to deal with… and who knows they may be on the OWG elite cabal payroll that created this mess.

      And NOT voting for Romney(or whoever the candidate may be) is guaranteeing another term for Obama, fool.

      If Sarah Palin had gotten herself resoundingly reelected instead of resigning; if Mark Sanford had kept his pants on; if George Allen had managed to remain civil in public; if Rick Perry had, you know, planned a national campaign before embarking on it—the Real Conservatives among us might be in a much better position.

        Tamminator in reply to gs. | March 21, 2012 at 2:07 pm

        I don’t live in woulda coulda shoulda.
        I live in reality, and we have to deal with the cards we’re dealt.
        I still love my Newtie, but it’s not looking good for him right now.

          My point is that since a branch of the conservative movement has favored so many politicians who turned out to be flawed, maybe those conservatives should be less adamant about Romney. Those conservatives had their chances, and their candidates didn’t make the grade.

          If those conservatives aren’t prudent, they could poison the well for up-and-comers like Rubio.

          It’s too bad about Newt, but it is what it is.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Tamminator. | March 21, 2012 at 3:54 pm

          Newt Knows What He’s Doing.

          I just hope he’s got a team with him, advising him and watching his back.

    I R A Darth Aggie in reply to JRD. | March 21, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    So, JRD, you’re willing to shoot yourself in the foot to spite the Republicans?

    If Teh Won gets to appoint two or three more SCOTUS justices, do you think that a truely conservative president in the near future would ever be able to undo what’s been done?

    Consider your answer carefully. If you’re OK with Teh Won having a second term, and appointing a majority of SCOTUS justices just to have a chance of flipping the bird to the Big Government Republicans, then I’ll call you a fool.

NC Mountain Girl | March 21, 2012 at 12:28 pm

No. Not in the age of You Tube. Those clips of him being on all sides of issues over the last 25 years can’t be ignored but neither can they be effectively addressed.

Voters may accept that a candidate had a major change of heart, a Road to Damascus moment so to speak, on one issue or even a basic philosophic stance. Being able to come across as a sincere convert is big help in closing the deal. Romney seems to have had such moments on almost every issue and sincerity has never been Romney’s strong suit.

It’s a shame because I think he is a good man as a private citizen. The best explanation for this I’ve heard is that as a practicing Mormon in very secular suburban Boston Romney has worn the inoffensive smiley face mask in public for so long it has become positively second nature.

“has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?”

The “Etch-a-Sketch” candidate? Are you playing the straight man here?

I’d take Bob Dole again as a candidate over Romney.

Neither inspire anything in anyone.

At least Bob Dole didn’t impose state-run health care on anyone. He also didn’t impose a cap and trade scheme on anyone.

Plus, its always entertaining watching someone refer to themself in the 3rd person.

Subotai Bahadur | March 21, 2012 at 12:46 pm

For those who have not seen it, Romney’s Communications Director just previewed the campaign. Because Romney has been forced to “tack so hard to the right” [!!??!!] during the primaries, everything starts over after the nomination and he will move to the center.

This is a candidate who seriously tried to run to the LEFT of Teddy Kennedy in Massachusetts. His definition of Center may be to the Left of McGovern. The Republicans are trying to nominate a Mormon version of Arlen Specter.

If he is the nominee, the first time he panders Left and rolls over on the Conservative base in the general; he and the Institutionals are going to look around and find themselves standing all alone.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/21/448804/eric-fehrnstrom-etch-a-sketch/?mobile=nc

Subotai Bahadur

    HarrietHT in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 21, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Great link, Subotai. The Republican Party is beyond hope of ever responding to the cries of conservatives for roll-back; the Romneys and McCains lie to us, just as brazenly as Obama lies daily to the nation. The Party has no intention of letting us stop them in their quest for power-sharing with the Commie Democrats.

I’m thinking once the nomination is locked up, Romney’s pandering to the left will leave McCain’s pandering to the left in the dust-

ashes to ashes…dust to dust

I am probably being too optimistic but I think anyone can beat Obama. It is why it is such a shame we are choosing such a weak candidate and an even weaker conservative.

    hrh40 in reply to Sherlock. | March 21, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Romney is actually the only one who cannot beat Obama.

    Shame the GOP is pushing him so much.

    Could it be they know he’s going to lose, thus paving the way for Jeb to ride in on the white horse in 2016?

    Could it be that the elites of both parties are in agreement on that point?

    Did H.W. and Jeb pay an Oval Office visit to Obama just last month?

    Yes.

    And yes.

Actually, I disagree with the majority of the above comment, Professor. I think Romney has improved a great deal over the primary season, which demonstrates the value of a long, hard primary. I no longer get the impression Romney feels “owed” the nomination — he seems to have now developed a “fire in the belly.”

Frankly, no matter who the GOP picks, that candidate will be ripped for flip-flops — none of the remaining ones are innocent of this charge. Team Obama will make the Republican candidate out to be a cloned combo of Hitler-Bozo.

However, Romney has a dignatus that is Presidential. Frankly, I don’t see that in Santorum, who I am very uncomfortable with (despite the fact I am Catholic). I think Gingrich is great in his Obama-centered attacks, and I hope he continues for that reason alone; but, it seems he is not the likely winner. Additionally, Ann Romney is luminous as a potential First Lady.

I am a Democrat who is ABO. I am OK with Romney, who frankly will be an easier sell to like-minded fiscally oriented Dems than either of the remaining candidates. I speak with knowledge of this, actually talking regularly with Democrats. I suspect many of you complaining about Romney don’t.

I have this to say about anyone threatening to “stay home” Nov. 6th because they don’t like the final GOP result: At least have the balls to pull the lever for Obama, because in truth, that is what you are directing. I think anyone who thinks the GOP candidate will be as bad as Obama is being dangerously foolish.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Romney may sell with Democrats in states that Republicans can’t win such as New York, Michigan and Illinois but he isn’t selling to the white Democrats where I live.

    Al Gore didn’t become President because he couldn’t connect with the Scotch-Irish voters in Appalachia. Had he won either his home state of Tennessee or West Virginia he would have been President. Romney has a similar problem. These voters don’t like Obama but they don’t like Romney much either. They liked George W. Bush because instead of bragging on his Ivy League connections as Romney does Dubya shrugged them off. The harder Romney tries to connect the more patronizing he looks.

      Mutnodjmet in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | March 21, 2012 at 2:39 pm

      Because you talk to how many Democrats regularly????

        NC Mountain Girl in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm

        I talk to Democrats every day. Most of my neighbors are registered as Democrats. I live in a rural county where the county government has been controlled by Democrats for decades. Our State Rep is also a Democrat. If you own a business and want to sell your goods and services to the County you better be a Democrat. Ditto if you want a county job. These good ol’ boys could teach the Daley machine a few things.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | March 21, 2012 at 3:39 pm

          Ditto what NC Mt Girl says. I’m in the other end of NC, but it’s the same here.

          Mutnodjmet in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | March 21, 2012 at 6:25 pm

          Excuse my inherent skepticism, but I find it difficult to believe that you are going out of your way to regularly inquire of Democrats if they are OK voting for a specific Republican candidate. I have my doubts, because making an inquiry of that nature is more difficult than denying my assertion — based on regular conversations and emails with PUMAs — on who they actually find tolerable.

        Valerie in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm

        Good point, Mutnodjmet. But the reason so many Democratic voters dislike Newt Gingrich is because Democratic talking heads have lied their a$$es off about what Newt Gingrich has said, and what he stands for.

        I found this out by digging up his old statements about education, which led to some really eye-opening results on that and other issues, and frankly, I am offended by the outright lies of a very nasty bunch of people like Rachel Maddow, who have no place in our nation’s public discussion. Mitt Romney, in turn, has taken up and reinforced Demoratic slanders against all of his opponents, to the great detriment of both our national discussion, and the Republican Party itself.

        It is very had for me to justify voting in a manner that rewards slander.

      And Al Gore’s opponent had a weee leetle bit of help down in Florida.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    I am dead-set against using a Hollywood Central Casting method (looks, image, mystique, gravitas, luminosity) as a way of selecting a POTUS.

    That’s what has gotten us where we are today.

    We need an issues-based, integrity-standard this time around.

    Romney has an innocent face, no known adultery, but a blackguard heart.
    He is like his father and his spiritual father, Joseph Smith.

    As Obama is like his two adoptive fathers, his biological and spiritual father.

    Romney and Obama have very, very much in common.

    hrh40 in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Improved in what way?

    Lying more convincingly?

    Directing his speech writers to write more conservatively?

    Because his record is still his record.

    And it’s the record of a liberal Big Government Ruling Class elitist.

    You can’t take that away from him.

    Though he sure tried to cover it up when he left Massachusetts.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Mutnodjmet. | March 21, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    In my opinion only zealots and professional political pollsters baldly ask “as a Democrat which Republican candidate do you find acceptable and why?” I’ve known quite a few of each in 35 years of political activity in three different Democrat strongholds. Most were morons because they never listened they just kept score.

    Once you alienate a neighbor by getting in their face with a lot of political questions your odds of connecting with that person again on a political matter approaches zero.

    I use a softer technique. Does your neighbor’s shoulder shrug when he hears the candidate’s name? How many people looked up from their breakfast at the local diner when the candidate’s interview comes on? How many people looked away in disgust at a the other candidates campaign ad? Who do they talk about and how? Through this passive method not only do I get a pretty good idea of political attitudes, I didn’t make anyone defensive or antagonistic. Thus the local cafe and county store becomes endless sources of useful information.

No. He is a transparent phony. He will unite libs and conservatives in their dislike of liberal Republicans.

Romney cannot beat Obama and the MSM. The reality of unemployment and a terrible economy can overcome the onslaught of propaganda that the MSM and the WH will throw out there, but Romney can’t do it.

In spite of flip-flops, in spite of RomneyCare, in spite of being plastic and wooden, in spite of being a weathly capitalist, in spite of slightly underperforming or overperforming expectations, and in spite of all the kicking and screaming from the right wing of the Republican party, Romney is establishing himself as the Republican nominee. How is he doing it?

It’s no accident that Romney has a growing team of loyal supporters. It’s no accident that he has more money to spend. It’s no accident that he keeps coming from behind in the polling to pull out victories when he needs to. He seems to have a better read of the mood of voters than his rivals do. That might be what it takes to defeat Obama.

    janitor in reply to Confutus. | March 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm

    On this analysis, Obama wins the next election.

      Nathan in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      The Romney-bot is not programmed to ‘read the mood of the voters’

      The Romney-bot has never met a real person that wasn’t an owner of a football team, Nascar team, or a large company. It has heard of real people….it’s been told that those ants it fires from jobs are ‘real people’…but the Romney-bot isn’t sure what to make of those stories.

      What the Romney-bot has is money, and by outspending its rivals sometimes 10 to 1, it wins where it needs to.

    Rosalie in reply to Confutus. | March 21, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    He should be making headway; he has been campaignng since 2005. I’m not nuts about James Carville but he’s right about how Consevatives feel about Romney: It’s like giving a dog a pill and he keeps spitting it out.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Confutus. | March 21, 2012 at 4:07 pm

    You do know that elections can be fixed. Especially primary elections. Especially caucuses. On both ends, the voting and the counting and all places in between.

There is one compelling reason to vote for Romney, and those who say they won’t should think about this. He won’t continue to strip our nation’s defenses, or give military secrets to Russia. I don’t know if he’ll face down Islamofascism, but at least he won’t kowtow to it.

Having a competent executive whose policies we don’t like is still better than having an incompetent execuitve whose policies we completely detest. Not a great choice, but it’s the one we’re going to be faced with.

    janitor in reply to Burke. | March 21, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    What makes Romney “competent”, Burke? How do you know that this draft dodger and small varmint hunter (right) won’t harm our military?

      Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 2:29 pm

      “Draft dodger”? Please…

      Let’s not descend to CollectiveSpeak.

        janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | March 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm

        “Collectivespeak”? He’s a draft dodger. He was drafted when he was a student at Stanford, upon which he hastily left school, suddenly needing right then and there at that coincidental point in time to commence his Mormon youth missionary thing in France, where he had “hardship” living in a mansion. His family applied and received a “minister” deferment for him.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm

          That is a lie. You should not be republishing crap.

          It is also a very selective account. Romney returned, got a draft number, and was subject to the draft for some time.

          Criticize REAL stuff. Don’t act like your worst enemy.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 4:02 pm

          I think I have the facts. He’s a draft dodger.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm

          Integrity requires that you investigate further.

          That is, assuming you have any.

          When one is subject to the draft, how can he be said to be “dodging”?

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 7:55 pm

          Regarding the military draft, Romney had initially received a student deferment, then like most other Mormon missionaries a ministerial deferment while in France, then another student deferment.[31][41] When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) ensured he would not be selected.[19][31][41][42]

          You now…despicably…begin to call names.

          Then you resort to further fallacies to try to buttress your various lies (i.e., somebody like Romney said…).

          Here is the truth; to say Romney dodged the draft is a lie.
          He did not. He was at all time compliant with the draft.

          Yet you persist in telling the lie.

          To what end? As I’ve noted before, there is ample true material to hold against Romney.

        Romney also points to his experience between June 1966 and December 1968, when he served as a Mormon missionary in France. That experience allowed him a deferment from the draft during the heaviest fighting of the Vietnam War, a conflict he at first supported but later became disillusioned over. According to his Selectice Service records, Romney was given a deferment for those serving as a “minister of religion or divinity student.”
        Romney is yet to be tested in politics: [City Edition]
        Phillips, Frank. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext)
        [Boston, Mass] 09 May 1994: 15.

        Mitt Romney did dodge the draft by dishonestly claiming a divinity student exemption when he was not a divinity student. He used a divinity student scheme to avoid the draft. So, I don’t think Romney supporters should go there. Obviously, Mitt Romney had no intention of ever being a divinity student given that he never, at any point following his deferment, entered divinity school.

        And that’s no even addressing the issue of whether he was a hypocrite for supporting a war that he himself was not willing to fight. He was certainly happy to let others go to Vietnam and die for a cause he supported but one which he avoided fighting through dishonesty.

          Ragspierre in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm

          Again, you are just republishing what is objectively a lie.

          Romney WAS granted a deferment by the people who do that, on the basis that other LDS missionaries were deferred during the period.

          You next resort to the “chicken hawk” fallacy of the Collectivists. This is simply despicable.

          I support fire fighting. I have never served as a fire fighter.

          What a miserable post.

          Confutus in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:15 pm

          It was standard practice for LDS missionaries to apply for and be granted ministerial deferments during the Vietnam War era. As long as they complied with the terms of the deferment and actually went on the mission (which Romney did) it was no more draft dodging than claiming an income tax exemption is tax evasion.

          JonB in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:28 pm

          You want despicable? Here’s Mitt Romney in his own words:

          Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”

          Of course, if Mitt Romney hadn’t used the Mormon missionary ruse to get his Vietnam deferment, he could have been in Vietnam fighting for the cause which he supported.

          What is more despicable, to advocate a cause for which you are unwilling to fight while letting others do the fighting and dying for you, or to long for the fight after the fighting was all over?

          Mitt Romney has spent his life playing the loopholes and then claiming to be a man he is not. Mitt Romney is a “severely” dishonest man.

          Ragspierre in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:33 pm

          It is despicable to publish a lie.

          It is despicable to call a perfectly valid CONFORMITY with the draft “dodging”.

          It is despicable to repeat the Collectivist’s fallacious LIE that one must serve in order to support an armed conflict.

          But I see your hatred drives your integrity…right over a cliff.

          JonB in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:43 pm

          More for the Mittbots to twist into 10th dimensional pretzels to defend:

          Mitt Romney initially received a student deferment to avoid serving in the Vietnam War, a war which he supported at the time. Then, he received a minister of religion/divinity student deferment for the two years he spent in France. After the divinity student deferment ran out, what did Mitt do?

          While many Mormons — and eventually, some of his fellow missionaries — enlisted, Mr. Romney got a student deferment after returning from France.

          Did Mitt seek deferments to avoid fighting in a war which he supported or was it just yet another example of Mitt being Mitt, doing what is best for him while putting on a different public face?

          Mr. Hansen ,a missionary said, acknowledging, “In hindsight, it is easy to be for the war when you don’t have to worry about going to Vietnam.”,

          The problem for Mitt and his Mittbots is that the facts contradict the carefully constructed false image time after time after time.

          Mitt Romney, at his core, is a “severely” dishonest man with a false facade.

          janitor in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:51 pm

          Thank you JonB. Romney played his numbers. He went to Stanford and took a wait and see approach before it became clear that his number was going to be called and he would be going to Viet Nam if he didn’t go do the charitable missionary thing in that third world country of France. Had he not been called, I’d lay money that he wouldn’t have left Stanford.

          You got it right. He plays the loopholes and looks for the easy way out. He’s a gamer. He apparently also thinks that “campaigning” is a game in which the candidate says anything, blatant lie or not to get elected.

          Ragspierre in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 7:58 pm

          Regarding the military draft, Romney had initially received a student deferment, then like most other Mormon missionaries a ministerial deferment while in France, then another student deferment.[31][41] When those ran out, his high number in the December 1969 draft lottery (300) ensured he would not be selected.[19][31][41][42]

          You now…despicably…begin to call names.

          Then you resort to further fallacies to try to buttress your various lies (i.e., somebody like Romney said…).

          Here is the truth; to say Romney dodged the draft is a lie.
          He did not. He was at all time compliant with the draft.

          Yet you persist in telling the lie.

          To what end? As I’ve noted before, there is ample true material to hold against Romney.

          Now some idiot will come along and claim he got a high lottery number…

          JonB in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm

          More on the travails of Mitt Romney being stuck in France as a Mormon missionary instead of fighting in Vietnam:

          “I really don’t recall thinking about political positions when I was knocking at the door in France” as a missionary, Romney said. “I was supportive of my country. I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.”

          Ragspierre in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 8:28 pm

          How does this support the lie that Romney dodged the draft?

          I mean, you can repeat it again, if you think it helps…

          JonB in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm

          Mormon Deferments Were Controversial

          The exemption for Mormon missionaries created controversy at the time. Non-Mormons in Utah filed a lawsuit against the federal government in 1968.

          Richard Leedy, the lawyer who brought the suit, said in a telephone interview that he did so because “the substantial number of deferments to missionaries made the likelihood of us non-Mormons going to Vietnam a lot more likely.”

          Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries; Kranish, Michael. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 24 June 2007

          Ragspierre in reply to JonB. | March 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm

          Um… So the FLUCK what?

          You have a story in the Mushroom Media about a lawsuit over sour grapes…that failed.

          You do know that LDS people are over-represented in the military, right?

          In the FBI? Secret Service? I can’t speak to the CIA.

          What does that do to support your lie?

      I R A Darth Aggie in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 2:50 pm

      Won’t harm the military? you mean worse than what Teh Won has already done?? is Romney going to campaign on a platform that includes let the Air Force hold bake sales to raise money?

        We need a rule that no one is eligible to serve as president, Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful military, who does not himself have military service or some equivalent.

          Ragspierre in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 4:00 pm

          Like Reagan, Cheney, Pres. John Adams…

          C’mon.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm

          Times are changing.

          Nathan in reply to janitor. | March 21, 2012 at 11:10 pm

          Quite a few countries seem to be like that…mostly in Central Africa these days.

          Perhaps you can find a happy home in one of them?

          I think the rest of us would rather stay in a nation that is not run exclusively by people with a military background.

          janitor in reply to janitor. | March 22, 2012 at 12:34 am

          @Nathan. Snotty. Ad hominem. And not too clear.

          We had a whole lot of people in Congress and in the judiciary also “running the country”. This isn’t a dictatorship. But the POTUS is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

          I don’t want a draft evader making decisions on the lives of our boys in the services. I won’t vote for a pathological liar to lead career military who take their honor code seriously.

          For months, I’ve been hearing and reading all about the so-called “baggage” of Gingrich, or the extreme convictions of Santorum, or the dreadful transgressions of Cain etc. Meanwhile, Romney who has spent his entire life being slimy keeps getting compared to men such as Dole or McCain. As far as I’m concerned, Romney isn’t good enough to lick their feet.

          Nathan in reply to janitor. | March 22, 2012 at 8:14 am

          Well, now you are changing what you originally said about only someone with military experience (or the equivalent, whatever that is) should be allowed to be president.

          That’s a terrible idea, and actually fairly un-American. With all due respect to the military, the way certain folks absolutely worship the military in this country is a little unhealthy for a republic, IMO.

          So your CURRENT statement is more specific….applying to draft dodgers/evaders, and even more specific to Mitt Romney.

          THAT sentiment, I can largely agree with, though I have a bit of a caveat, in that I would specify chickenhawks, rather than people who avoided the draft because they were against the Vietnam War.

          Fortunately, this election, or possibly the next one, will be the LAST election where we have to deal with the Vietnam/draft issue, and where some of these privileged rich kids chose to spend their time while the poorer citizens were getting blown to bits in the jungle.

          The Vietnam generation will soon be too old to be sending any more candidates to the presidential ticket. Thank freaking god.

          There were two honorable and above-board things to do about Vietnam:

          If you supported the war, you either volunteered, or else you didn’t….but if you got drafted, you WENT.

          If you opposed the war, you avoided the draft, even if it meant moving to Canada. You were at least being true to your principles and avoiding a war that by then was obviously a terrible mistake.

          But then there were others….Bush, Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, a whole slew of others, who supported the war, and yet used their connections or other ways (boil on the butt for Rush), to arrange things so that THEY wouldn’t have to go.

          When it comes to THOSE guys, I’d agree with you…they should never be allowed near the presidency. Mitt Romney appears to be in that group….pedalling around Paris, living in a mansion, later saying he sometimes ‘felt’ he should be in Vietnam. Yeah, right.

          His Paris assignment is itself a cushy deal. The rich son of the rich CEO of American Motors and Michigan governor doesn’t have to do his missionary work in some crappy hellhole. He gets the cushy missionary work in freaking PARIS. No way was the Paris assignment given out to any random Mormon from Podunkville….that spot was reserved for the sons of the elite.

          Confutus in reply to janitor. | March 22, 2012 at 5:54 pm

          As a rule, Mormon missionaries go where they are sent, not where they choose, and their parent’s status and income have little to do with where they are sent. Even given the choice, most would not choose to go to France and try to persuade Frenchmen to give up wine and women, no matter how palatial the mission headquarters.

          Nathan in reply to janitor. | March 22, 2012 at 10:40 pm

          Confutus…interesting name.

          Born yesterday, were you?

          Happy birthday!

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Burke. | March 21, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Romney’s business success is very much owed to helping himself to heaping portions of money courtesy of the American taxpayer.

    Even his ‘rescue’ of the Salt Lake City Olympics was possible because of 1.5 billion + $3-400,000,000.00 of US Taxpayer hard-earned dollars.

    Even Romneycare was funded by US Taxpayer dollars.

    Many of his businesses were bailed out, helped out, shored up, cleaned up after he drained them, by US Taxpayer dollars.

    A preponderance evidence is available. I can post lots of evidence, quotes and links, etc. from WSJ, NYT, Reuters and other news articles.

    The man has not got that much to brag about.

    His governorship was not anything near successful.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 21, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      Correction – that’s $3-400,000. (300 thousand, not million)

      Ragspierre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 21, 2012 at 4:26 pm

      Cripes!!! MORE apocryphal BS…!!!

      You must think your opposition to Romney is really WEAK to feel you have to resort to that kind of crap.

      Again, the man has LOTS of real stuff to attack and NOT support. You don’t have to resort to untruths and aping the Collectivist language of class warfare.

    hrh40 in reply to Burke. | March 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    Oh really?

    Five strapping sons and not one of them came within an inch of ever serving in the military?

    And when asked about it in 08, Mitt Romney replied that they were serving their country by helping to get him elected.

    Oh really?

    This is what I want as Commander in Chief?

    I don’t think so.

Put aside what you think about Romney, has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?”

Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks President, seems to think so.

Now, Professor, I’m waiting with bated breath for you to answer the question…

    Ragspierre in reply to MerryCarol. | March 21, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Using anchovies or salmon eggs…???

    Mutnodjmet in reply to MerryCarol. | March 21, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    I am waiting for the Professor, too! 🙂

    hrh40 in reply to MerryCarol. | March 21, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Matt Kibbe is a highly paid shill for the Establishment highly paid Dick Armey who formed FreedomWorks to make lots o’ money off the tea party movement.

    Matt Kibbe being for Romney means as much as Jeb Bush being for Romney.

    Permanent political class who makes lots o’ money off politics and don’t want to rock their money boats.

From my sister who lived under Romeny in Taxachussets:

A conservative, a liberal, and a moderate walk in a bar
and the bartender says:

“What can I get for you Mitt”

    Then don’t ask him. Hand him a strongly conservative Congress before he opens his mouth to express a preference.

    If Obama wins, same goes for him.

Put aside what you think about Romney, has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?

No, but he’s moving in the right direction. The speech was better than I expected.

IMHO Romney is not in worse shape than the three modern challengers who unseated incumbent Presidents: Carter over Ford, Reagan over Carter, Clinton over Bush. Otoh, none of those three outcomes wss inevitable.

    hrh40 in reply to gs. | March 21, 2012 at 4:25 pm

    Speeches mean nothing, people, if they are not backed by records.

    You cannot change Mitt’s record, no matter how much “better” his speeches get.

Not overly enthused about Romney either, but personally I’ll take him over The Constitution Shredder. If, IF, he is re-upped A Legal Insurrection, is probably NOT going to be the way things go, in our nation.

The Jeb Bush endorsement is not a shock. That it came after Florida is a bit of a surprise, but the fact that an establishment country club Republican would endorse another establishment country club Republican doesn’t come as much of a surprise.

We’ll see what happens after Santorum picks up wins in PA and LA.

In the meantime, my point of view on Romney as posted elsewhere on the web earlier in the day.

—–

Romney is effectively anti-10th Amendment having said he’s in favor of using the federal purse to coerce the states to pass legislation, specifically mandates to purchase health insurance. He’s quoted saying this from a 2008 Republican debate.

The judges he appointed in Massachusetts were overwhelmingly liberal.

He voted for Paul Tsongas who favored a $2/gallon federal gas tax, and one of Romney’s key economic advisers still favors the same thing.

He thinks the 1% should pay more taxes and is in favor of limiting their deductions for charitable contributions.

He’s in favor of indexing the minimum wage to inflation.

He was for compelling Catholic hospitals to provide contracecption and morning-after abortion pills. Probably still is. Just depends on which way the wind is blowing.

He thinks ObamaCare is just fine overall and that we should keep the good parts (like “the incentives” aka “mandates”). He encouraged Obama to include mandates in ObamaCare while ObamaCare was still being formed in the smellier parts of Congress. He says he’s for repeal now, though, and of course we should believe him.

He donated to Planned Parenthood. He told the national leaders of NARAL that they needed someone like him in the White House to hlep moderate the Republican position against abortion. Of course, now we’re supposed to believe that he’s completely changed his mind. Again. Again.

I think Romney would have a mariginally better foreign policy than Obama. Of course, that would depend on what happened after he “consulted his attorneys” to see what he should do. “Timid”, I think was the word Gingrich used. Ron Paul just laughed.

Yeah, sign me up. Oops, don’t bother. I live in California and will be free to vote my conscience.

If it comes down to a choice between the Socialism of Mitt Romney or the Communism of BHO, I will go with the Socialism of Mitt Romney. However, I am not ready to give up on Newt to save us from both.

First of all it would be hard for me to care leas about Jeb Bush’s endorsement.

Romney does look like he is on the road to being the nominee most people expected – pretending to be conservative to pander to that part of the base and thne sliding ever so silently toward the center in order to appeal to the desirerable moderates & Independents.

The GOP establishment keeps telling themselves that even though this many anger the Conservative base those voters will come home because Obama is worse. Unfortunately they are probably right. – Conservatives are so afraid of another Obama term they will once again suck it up, vote for the guy they know is going to shaft them, and then bit*h & complain and promise “never again.”

Just like the country we end up getting the poor leadership we voted for & deserve.

    ScorpyonSting in reply to katiejane. | March 22, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    My view as well, katiejane, and the reason I will not vote ever again “against” a candidate rather than for a candidate who upholds my values. The Establishment Republicans hold us in such contempt that they assume because the opposition candidate is so scary an alternative that we will fall in line behind their choice. I’m no longer willing to play that game. Every vote for the Establishment candidate reinforces and rewards the Establishment. Their only desire is to increase their power and influence and to maintain a place at the money trough. Thanks, but no thanks!

Mama Bush got out her pitchfork and told Jeb to endorse Mitt or she would come after him, LOL!

Having said that, Jeb is a RINO Republican I can do without.

Rush said the Romney’s speech last night was one of his best. Then he followed it up with the “Etch-A-Sketch” comments that threw Romney under the bus.

Here is what Newt said: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took to Twitter on Wednesday to write, “Etch a Sketch is a great toy but a losing strategy.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/21/romney-aide-causes-stir-with-etch-a-sketch-comment/#ixzz1pmSwfnSx

strawberrygirl | March 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm

That was the first Romney speech that held my interest since 2008. Truth is, I don’t think he would act that way in the general, and I’m not thrilled about defending or promoting the guy who sits on all sides of an issue. If he or the establishment think the people will just trust them and go away, they have another think coming. I think if mitt tries something stupid or refuses to overturn obamacare, they may find a million tea party protestors on the mall again. Fortunately republicans have proven they have no balls so I expect them to cave but I also foresee a primary challenge from the right, likely a rick Perry or Sarah palin, both having spent time studying and strategizing.

Good speech and delivery from Romney. Speechwriter gets kudos. His “etch-a-sketch” aide is the new Steve Schmidt. Romney needs to publicly put Eric the Etch back in his place. I’m tired of these aides and czars thinking voters are dumb. We’ll see.

    hrh40 in reply to CWLsun. | March 21, 2012 at 4:28 pm

    Why should Mitt put his aide in his place for speaking the truth?

      CWLsun in reply to hrh40. | March 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm

      My opinion is Fehrnstrom who has been with Romney for a long time, sold him out, for whatever his reasons. However, if Fehrnstrom didn’t misspeak, the truth is out. If he sold Romney out, Romney is going to have to fire him.

[…] at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson is hosting a debate on whether Romney is a Galba or a […]

BurkeanBadger | March 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

It’s worth noting that very few of the comments here answered Professor Jacobson’s question, at least directly. I suppose we can get an implied “No” to the question from the usual tirades.

A few people implied a “Yes” answer by mentioning how Romney might be as President.

My answer has always been the same: Yes, Romney is strong enough to beat Obama under the right circumstances. He’s also weak enough to lose under the wrong circumstances. I think ultimately economic and foreign policy events will determine the tone of the fall campaign and will play a far larger role in determining the winner than in most recent Presidential elections

However, from the tone of this thread and the one last night in regards to the Illinois primary, it appears that most of the LI regulars are at least tacitly conceding Romney will be the nominee. Gone is the passionate advocacy of Newt, the stubborn insistence that Newt is still going to make a miraculous comeback. I don’t even see much defense of Newt’s latest strategy of keeping Romney below 1144, followed by a 60 Day “Conversation” (read: Newt monologue).

In addition, the anti-Romney rhetoric also appears to be less passionate and steadfast. Malaise and resignation seems to be overtaking the LI comments…at least for now. But that’s okay. My sincere hope is now that “Mr. Inevitable” really is inevitable, discussions on here will refocus on ideas, on policy, on understanding and deconstructing the left, on all the political news of each not directly related to the Presidential primaries (or even the general for that matter). Professor Jacobson seems to be moving in that direction, which is great.

Henry Hawkins | March 21, 2012 at 3:33 pm

“Put aside what you think about Romney, has he developed enough as a candidate that he can defeat Obama?”

No.

-By doubling down on Romneycare and offering instead a mushmouthed appeal to federalism – without acknowledging how much federal money funded Romneycare – Romney has forfeited the Obamacare issue for the general election. This alone is fatal. Massachusetts has suffered under Romneycare, with Romney’s continued and ongoing support of it. “I support mandates only at the state level” will not resonate with any GOP voter except that thin stripe who, like Romney, are a couple short steps away from being moderate Democrats.

-I’m for X. I’m against X. I’m for Y. I’m against Y. I’m for Z…..

-It is difficult, if not impossible, to imagine how Romney can possibly get the conservative base of the GOP to support him with any enthusiasm, because to do so would require he contradict too many things he’s said during the primary races – it would further cement his flip flopper image. His Illinois primary win still had 53% of primary voters looking to someone else. When I speak to people in my area (rural eastern NC), the general sense is, “well, I’ll support Romney over Obama, of course, but….”. Very few people I know feel fully enthusiastic about Romney, though I realize this may say more about me and the people I know than it does about Romney. I do feel myself and the people in my orbit to be fairly standard conservatives, not far from the norm if separate at all.

-Charisma. Obama has it, in surfeit, particularly among his former and ongoing supporters, of course, but his charisma will be his strongest asset with the coveted independent third of the voting public. Obama won in 2008 on style and image, on idealism, as opposed to substance and a checkable record. He will win the independents from Romney with the same diaphanous, feel-good self-promotion, appealing to emotion rather than nuts and bolts issues. Obama will hold his base, though many will grumble as the ypull the lever for him. Romney will not lose the GOP vote, of course, but will fail to impress the middle third independents as will Obama. Obama will defeat Romney by outschmoozing him with the indies.

-Polls have consistently shown that although Americans are losing faith in Obama’s ability to govern, they like him personally. In this regard, Obama is out-Clintoning Bill Clinton, wherein charm overrules all but the most egregious of offenses. Personally, I gag every time I see or hear Obama, but this is not the case with a good two thirds of Americans as to their feelings towards Obama personally. Obama’s charm (plus American’s short memories and forgiving nature) will defeat Romney’s woodenness and insincerity (or, at best, Romney’s inability to project a true sincerity).

-Go ahead. Cite Romney’s best line from the primary season, that one line that made you think, “wow, good line… maybe he is the guy.” Yeah. I can’t think of one either.

-Money. Obama and Romney will each have piles of money for the general, Obama even more than Romney, but each will have enough that neither will realize any true advantage on that.

So, in the general… Romney won’t have the gross money advantage he had in the primaries. Romney’s interpersonal style and charisma is essentially a vaccuum, and is dwarfed by Obama’s charm and verbal glibness. Romney has voluntarily and willfully forfeited the Obamacare issue – he cannot contest it without having to repeat the fine hair splitting explanation (federalism) that puts voters to sleep at best and draws open derision at worst. Obama still owns 90% of media, in fact, their devotion is even deeper than it was in 2008, evidenced by their recent open admissions of bias and favoritism, offered not as apologies, but as challenges; the MSM will triple-down on bias and protectionism to win Obama a second term.

-Though Obama is no less the millionaire elitist than Romney, Romney is a Central Casting example of it, while Obama still manages to convince many people of his ‘man of the people’ schtick.

-In the general, Romney will not take enough northeast states, will not take enough southern states, will split the midwestern states, and is likely to win only the southwestern states. This prompted the “1% vs 99%” bullshit set up by the media this winter and spring. Romney is the quintessential one percenter, Obama the Champion Of The 99%.

-Finally, I see the current GOP establishment as aged out, behind the times, archaic in its approaches, and quite without the killer instinct and willingness to get down and dirty necessary to defeat Obama.

I predict another ‘nice guy finishes last’ performance by the GOP candidate, just like Dole, McCain, etc.

Obama 52%, Romney 48%. Bank on it.

    BurkeanBadger in reply to Henry Hawkins. | March 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    We shall see. I might have to remind you of this post (which made some valid points) during Obama’s concession speech.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to BurkeanBadger. | March 21, 2012 at 4:11 pm

      Don’t bother. I’m well aware I am not prescient. I’m better aware yours is among the last of opinions which hold any value for me.

        I liked your post because I agree with the majority of it.

        You just have the percentages wrong.

        Mitt will lose by a bigger margin than McCain.

1. A transcript is here. There is some overlap with the preceding speech at the University of Chicago, but IMHO the UC one was better.

2. El Rushbo was relatively pleased. To avoid Bill’s spam filter, I’m not linking the URL, but it’s easy to google.

Uncle Samuel | March 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm

Romney advisor says Mitts conservative act can ‘disappear’ after the primary…but hey, we all knew that.

http://www.therightscoop.com/romney-advisor-says-mitts-conservatism-can-be-erased-after-primary/

“Obama 52%, Romney 48%. Bank on it.”

And Conservatives will be blamed for the loss.

Uncle Samuel | March 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm

First GHW Bush, then Barbara, now Jeb, next GW Bush, then Marvin and Neil Bush…
they can keep the endorsement feed going after that with all the RINOs in DC.

In total, they still don’t add up to the three separate endorsements by Thomas Sowell

Plus the endorsements of Art Laffer and Prof. Jacobson.

Then, there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6vIAXdrMPI&feature=youtu.be

And this: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/kengor-gingrich-true-conservative/2012/01/31/id/426190

I could not vote for either Romney or Obama at gunpoint.

As of right now, I intend to write in Newt Gingrich for POTUS and Paul Ryan as VP.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 21, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    As for Romney’s speech, don’t let his words affect your opinion or vote.

    Obama is also convincing with his speeches and rhetoric. He has made all sorts of promises, only to backtrack just like Romney habitually does. It’s not a politician’s words but deeds that matter.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Uncle Samuel. | March 21, 2012 at 5:21 pm

      And as you noted just above, the Romney campaign has already signalled they’ll be dropping all this conservative nonsense in the general election.

      Boehner & McConnell are toothless kittens, and are consistently outplayed by some of the worst skilled politicians of the modern era: Pelosi, Reid, et al. They will not repeal Obamacare, will not make significant cuts in the budget, and will keep doing what they’ve been doing – kicking the can down the road. They know that at some point the tough decisions cannot wait another second, but that’s the problem of whomever’s in office at that time. In the meantime, the current moderate GOP power structure is all about maintaining the status quo, making the bucks, making the connections for post-official their respective lives, and to hell with oaths, responsibilities, and the concerns of a very frightened, and justifiably frightened, American people.

      It has been my opinion for at least twenty years that, collectively, the two major parties differ only in the flavor of lies they tell – the GOP lies about its conservative intentions, the Dems lie about their populist intentions, and we vote for which set of lies we’d like to see enacted were they not all lies. Once in a blue moon the system breaks down and by some quirk of circumstances a big mistake occurs, like a Reagan or an Obama gets elected to the White House. Hold the howling – I’m a Reagan fan, but the GOP establishment absolutely was not in 1979-80, and of course the Dems oppose any GOP candidate. In 2008 the Dem establishment screwed up and their Chosen One, Hilary Clinton, was usurped by the Chance To Make History: the election of our first black president.

      While I deplore low voter turnout, the cynicism of the voting public is completely justified – you can’t believe any of these clowns, regardless of party.

      As a thought experiment, I’d like to see someone write an article with the theme that American presidential elections are no less controlled – rigged – than are those in Russia or other places. The difference is that it isn’t the official state government that is in control or doing the rigging, it is the set of political power brokers and insiders and the games and schemes they run that we collectively call ‘American politics’.

      How sad that as powerful, genuine, truly grassrooted, and deserving as is the Tea Party, it has absolutely no one around whom to rally for this presidential election.

      Somebody calculate how many Americans match this set of criteria….

      Working
      Tax paying
      Responsible
      Law Abiding
      Not liberal

      ….and whatever that percentage turns out to be, use it to name a new grassroots effort, a son of the Tea Party, called the Fifty-Three Percenters or whatever the number is, because the ‘99%’ includes every welfare sucking, EBT trading, disability faking, entitlement grabbing leech out there.

Jeb Bush? Not sure his endorsement means much to me, but I loved him on Beverly Hillbillies. Yeah, him and Granny and Ellie Mae. Oh, and Jethro. Who can forget Jethro (besides me almost). Man, that was television at its finest.

good god ! i always thought that this was a republican/conservative/GOP-leaning site but this savaging of the likely republican candidate that i’m seeing here is even more disgusting than the way the dems viciously turned on hillary in the last election. i thought that obama and his evil policies are destroying america and that he HAS to go. what happened to that?? i recall jeb bush being touted as our best candidate and now he’s some kind of ‘rino’ sell-out for endorsing romney?! what the heck is wrong with you folks?? is it your allegiance to another candidate that is driving this hatred? is that candidate obama for cryin’ out loud? have the comment threads here been infiltrated by media matters? i wanna win with whatever candidate we end up with..if that’s romney, then it’s romney. i don’t care about any ‘purist’ b.s….i want obama OUT of the oval office but with ‘friends’ like the folks commenting here, i’m fearing that were just gonna hand the re-election to him for some kind of spite. how pathetic! get your heads out of your butts, folks! this election matters.

    BurkeanBadger in reply to el polacko. | March 21, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    I agree with your sentiment, el polacko.

    There is no simple explanation as to what drives the Romney hatred on LI and other sites. Part of it is, I think, collective effervescence. Being amongst a group of Romney bashers makes one who is even just mildly opposed to Romney more adamant.

    Part of it involves projecting all of the frustration and impatience with the often tepid, milquetoast and clueless GOP “establishment” (such as it is). The annoyance and defiance of National Review, Commentary, Jennifer Rubin, George Will and the rest of the conservative chattering class (to say nothing of the Brookses, Frums and other faux conservatives). Such anger and frustration is largely understandable in my opinion; but basing one’s support in a presidential primary upon it is absolutely NOT a good way to express it.

    Somewhat related to the above: Part of it involves a deep loyalty and appreciation of what Gingrich accomplished and what he was trying to accomplish. LI bloggers are not the only ones who were craving for someone to articulate conservatism in a clear, forthright, intelligent manner and to push back hard against the ever condescending mainstream media who often dismiss conservatives as ignorant kooks. Newt Gingrich filled that void beautifully. And if we were voting of a national spokesman/public intellectual of the GOP, Gingrich would have my support wholeheartedly. But we are not. We are voting for a nominee to challenge and defeat Barack Obama. I have never doubted that Romney is the best choice in the field.

    Part of it is a response to Romney’s hesitation and discomfort in truly engaging the conservative base of the party. He hasn’t made a concerted and serious effort, at any point. Honestly, I don’t think he has it in him. It’s unfortunate, but we have to accept him warts and all.

    Part of it is a passionate belief (almost an article of faith at this point) that Romney is really the weakest candidate in a head to head matchup with Obama. This contradicts every single poll taken over the course of the past year, both on voting preferences and overall favorability. It’s important to make a distinction here often forgotten by Romney’s detractors. That Romney is far weaker in the fall than he currently appears against Obama is an argument with at least some merit. That Romney will be weaker in the fall than Gingrich or Santorum would be has no merit, in my opinion. There is little hard evidence to support this position; indeed, Newt and his supporters’ generally seem to think that Newt’s advantage is a given because he will humiliate the President in any debate. That’s far too simplistic and deep down I think they realize this.

    It’s worth reiterating Romney has already been fighting a two front war; the Obama-Soros-union sludge machine is already campaigning against him because: A) They fear him the most, B) They’d love to create an “Operation Chaos” by forcing a brokered convention. That Romney has survived as well as he has is a testimony to his resilience. But there’s another point to be made that the anti-Romney contingent often forgets. If, by some miracle Santorum or Gingrich won the nomination, the left’s holster against them would still be full. It won’t be against Mitt. Romney is fighting with one arm already tied behind his back. But, he’s persevering and will be a stronger nominee because of it.

    Finally, yes, part of it might be infiltration by lefties to sow discord amongst conservatives. But while we may have a liberal troll or two on this site, I think most of the regulars are quite sincere. I disagree with much of their conclusions, but I respect their sincerity and forthrightness

DINORightMarie | March 22, 2012 at 1:11 am

It seems the DNC thinks that the Etch-A-Sketch is a winning image…….for them:

DNC attack ad on YouTube.

That didn’t take long. Guess it was a gift, or something.

Now we know why Romney dodged the draft.

He’s better at shooting himself than aiming at the other side.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend