Image 01 Image 03

The nomination hasn’t been etched, but already he’s sketching

The nomination hasn’t been etched, but already he’s sketching

Defeating Barack Obama is a priority.

So is keeping the presumptive nominee from etch-a-sketching and erasing the conservative movement.

Via Byron York:

At a closed-to-the-press Florida fundraiser Sunday night at which his remarks were overheard by some reporters standing outside, Mitt Romney was asked about his media strategy for the general election campaign.  According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC, Romney said his campaign has been treated well by Fox News but that he needs to expand his audience beyond the leading cable news channel.

“Fox is watched by the true believers,” Romney told donors, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We need to get the independents and the women.”

Many of the true believers are women, and Fox News demographics are diverse by party affiliation:  In 2010,  44 percent of Fox viewers identify themselves as Republican. 28 percent as Independents and 21 percent as Democrats.

But put aside the facts, isn’t this just a little too soon?

Twitchy is collecting the reaction from the true believers.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



What do you mean, too soon? His communications director was only telling the truth. Next watch Romney define the conservative movement as religious social engineers, as he abandons fiscal conservatism in favor of “crony” capitalism modeled after the recent feeding by the Democrats.

LukeHandCool | April 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm

I got into it big time with a radical leftist high school classmate on Facebook once about this.

He was bashing Fox and I replied that quite a few Democrats watched it.

He asked me why any Democrats would possibly watch Fox.

I simply replied because a certain percentage of them know that if they don’t, they’ll be oblivious to news that MSNBC, the NY Times, etc., refuse to cover until they are dragged kicking and screaming to it. By that time, it’s old news for people who watch Fox (and read LI).

    LukeHandCool in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 16, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    P.S. This guy is a very successful professional but … he was reduced to yelling at me on Facebook, “Name five Democrats who watch Fox News!”

    I was like … Dude … seriously? Come on, get a grip. I could pull five fictional names out of thin air and how would you know the difference? Leftism is a progressive (as in degenerative) mental disease.

    WoodnWorld in reply to LukeHandCool. | April 17, 2012 at 4:42 am

    Excellent point. You wouldn’t even need five fictional names though. We could start with the major Democratic guests/contributors and you would be well on your way to ten without even having to think about it.

    There’s Axelrod, Beckel, Powers and Colmes. We also know Carney, Jarret, Plouffe and Lew (or at least their aides) have to stay on top of Fox; they would be fools not to. Then there is Huffington, Moulitsas etc. The list literally goes on and on…

    I would bet any Democrat they pay far more attention to what we say on Fox (and talk radio) than than we do with them on MSNBC (NPR) etc… What is amazing though is study after study and poll after poll shows we understand their positions and the psychologies (psychoses?) far better than they do ours.

He’s also already flip flopping on immigration:

“Romney said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a “Republican DREAM Act,” referring to the legislative proposal favored by Democrats that would offer illegal immigrants a limited path to citizenship, to give Hispanic voters a real choice between parties. ”

Remember how he attacked Perry and Gingrich for being soft on immigration? Anyway, you can read more about this (with quotes from 2 prior debates) here

    Uncle Samuel in reply to libertarian_neocon. | April 16, 2012 at 4:10 pm

    Romney already has his junior partner, Bush-protege FL Senator Marco Rubio working on the Republican version of the Dream Act.

      Milwaukee in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 16, 2012 at 8:09 pm

      Are the Republicans capable of sealing the borders? Forget the Dream Act until them.

      Are we going to eliminate Affirmative Action and racial preferences? Then forget the Dream Act. Why should illegals receive preferential treatment in college admissions and government and private jobs?

      Rubio wants to push the Dream Act? I think he must then be a racist White Hater.

Cue sardonic Sam Peckinpah fade-out laugh…

One word of caution…

The news side of the WSJ is NOT conservative. Rather the opposite.

And I’ve learned to look under the hood of anything out of BSnbc.

    That’s an excellent, crucial point, Rags: a badly needed splash of cold water in my face as I fulminated against Romney. Perhaps the most prudent remark in the thread. Thank you for the insight.

    Are we so disenchanted with Romney that we accept as gospel the words of the MSM, the people who gave us Fake but Accurate?

    There is a number of direct quotes in the linked pieces. Where is the audio?

    The Left tries to set us against each other via trolls at our Websites. It is entirely plausible that they will try the same thing via the major media.

    From the gang that brought us the Ann Romney smear: an Inside Scoop on Mitt’s Secret Plans!! Uh huh.

    I say: where is the evidence? Release the audio.

    1. Slate is piling on, taking the WSJ/CNBC stories at face value.

    Not only that, Slate deconstructs the real Ann Romney. O progressives, you thought she is just a typical rich parasite, living high off the toil of the poor? No, the camera reveals far worse. Ann Romney is a snarling fanged demon!

    2. Slate titles its piece Beware the Hot Mic!. I ask again, Where’s the audio?

      Ragspierre in reply to gs. | April 16, 2012 at 9:06 pm

      Hmmm… “Hot mic”, hey???

      Maybe Sully wrote that head, and referred to a Mike…???

Hey Mitt–Awfully confident there, aren’t you, Buckaroo? You sure you have my vote?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to persecutor. | April 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm

    How Crown Prince Vain of Bain and the Powers That Be of the RNC see Republican voters now that they and their media mouths (Drudge, Coulter, NRO, FOX, etc.) have spoken their official proclamations and they have executed their primary shenanigans and stratagems.

    Gosh, what more could we want? Both Mitt and Ann spoke at the NRA. Mitt has said all the right things…gotten all the right endorsements.

    Never mind that Romney’s actual record is exactly what Obama has done nationally since 2008.
    Never mind what Romney’s people say they are planning.
    Never mind what Romney has promised liberal groups.
    Never mind the lies Romney has told and keeps on telling.
    Never mind his ruthless, unethical, deceptive campaign tactics.
    Never mind the people Romney consulted with (John Holdren, Kevin Jennings) are the very same people Obama has consulted or appointed.
    Never mind the radical judges Romney appointed.
    Never mind the poor jobs, growth and tax record of his governorship.
    Never mind the costly, negative effects of his healthcare program.
    Never mind Romney’s violations of constitution and law in implementing radical social agenda.
    Never mind Romney’s violations of religious freedom and conscience.
    Never mind the corruption, crony capitalism, fraud, ethics violations, massive tax dollar grabbing, ruthless greedy business practices.
    Never mind all that, just do as you are told.

    (Note: I have links to support everything I have written)

      Scorpio51 in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm

      The Governor and his wife may have spoken at the NRA, but it was NEWT that got the standing ovation.

      Hope Change in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      Hi, Uncle Samuel. YOU ARE RIGHT. And Scorpio51, the standing O, I noticed that, too. Anyone can listen to that speech and instantly know that Newt is the man for our time.

      How about a metaphor:

      The Left has poured vinegar in the gas tank of our government and our economy. We don’t need a driver. THE CAR IS NOT RUNNING.

      We need the Ace Master Mechanic who can tear down the engine, clean it, and remind us how to put it together the way it’s supposed to be according to the original schematics, the CONSTITUTION.

      Newt is the ONLY candidate who can lead the way to put it back the way it’s supposed to be according to our Constitution.


        WoodnWorld in reply to Hope Change. | April 17, 2012 at 5:14 am

        How could anyone expect Newt to balance the federal budget if he can’t even balance his own campaign check books? To raise national revenues when he cannot raise his own? To organize a complete overhaul of the entire government if he cannot organize his name being on his home state’s ballot? To appeal to the majority of the electorate if he cannot appeal to the majority of his base? To win in the general if he cannot win the primary? To win states in the general that he could not win in the primary?

        Metaphors are all you have Hope. Would that poetry and prose could pull Newt over the line. They can’t. They haven’t. They won’t.

        Some of you don’t trust Romney. That is fine. I don’t trust Barack Obama. While I am worried about what Mitt *might* do, I am far more worried about what Barry, Uncle Joe and The Gang absolutely WILL do.

          JayDick in reply to WoodnWorld. | April 17, 2012 at 9:48 am

          First, Newt will not be the candidate, so comments about what he would/could do are irrelevant.

          Second, while Romney’s agenda as President might be more timid than we would like, it’s got to be a whole lot better than Obama’s.

          Seldom do we get an ideal candidate. More often, we are forced to chose the lesser of two evils. That was certainly true with McCain/Obama. Romney is at least as good a candidate as McCain, better in my opinion. So, get over it; that’s just the way things are. Of course, you should work for your ideal candidate if you like. But, when it comes down to the general election, pick the best one and go with it. And, stop whining about what might have been.

      Lina Inverse in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 17, 2012 at 9:49 am

      Never mind his ruthless, unethical, deceptive campaign tactics.

      Well, in his favor, I’m getting the impression that unlike McCain he doesn’t want to lose gracefully to America’s first black President.

      Pity about what we think he’ll do once in the Oval Office, though. Here’s a reason to vote for him: going with Bob Krumm’s prediction, he’s likely to be the last Republican President ever elected. Especially since the party as a whole has no stomach for eliminating our trillion dollar annual deficits “as far as the eye can see”. That can’t go on forever.

      So vote for Obama or don’t vote at all [a vote for Obama]. Then whine and kvech for 4 more years. Another idea: Keep a big majority in the House and take back the Senate, then Romney can’t fade to the center.

    Milwaukee in reply to persecutor. | April 16, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Right. Romney thinks he has the “true believers” on his side, and he can pivot. Not this “true believer”. Where is that “Operation Counterweight”? We need it to protect us from Romney.

    Remember, I claim that Romney could run as 0bama’s Vice-President, without skipping a heart beat.

      WoodnWorld in reply to Milwaukee. | April 17, 2012 at 5:28 am

      I completely support Operation Counterweight and believe the underlying logic that supports it should be a permanent, strategic, state of mind rather than an operational/tactical, electoral season approach.

      What I cannot support is aiding and abetting our admitted, sworn ideological opponents and enemies in tearing another Republican down. The flagrant use and abuse of liberal talking points to make arguments we try to convince ourselves are bedrock, conservative positions.

      There is no candidate who was going to make everyone happy, not even within the “true” conservative ranks. As a party we were all going to have to compromise on one level or another no matter who won the nomination. Only one candidate is going to win. I think it is painfully obvious who that person will be.

      If any of you cannot find it in yourself to support that person, that is fine. You do not have to work against him. There are plenty of other candidates on lower levels and plenty of other races across the United States that merit the most of our attentions. Collectively, our conservative energies would best be devoted supporting the people we like rather than fighting or hating the people we like less.

I’m so mad that so few of my fellow americans didnt vote for my seriously flawed more conservative prefered primary candidate that I’m going to take my ball and go home…


    persecutor in reply to bains. | April 16, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    Unless my “seriously flawed more conservative primary candidate” pulls out before my State’s primary, I plan on voting for him in order to remind Mr. Bain Capital that he hasn’t yet been given the nomination or the opportunity to shake up that Etch-A-Sketch!

      PGlenn in reply to persecutor. | April 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm

      Bain, you need to teach us more about this technique whereby the Romney supporters insult the conservatives/libertarians they’re trying to persuade to support their candidate. Is that the Mystery Method of political persuasion?

        bains in reply to PGlenn. | April 16, 2012 at 7:08 pm

        I was a Bachmann supporter, and then voted for Santorum in my caucus. No what I am mocking is those fervent supporters of Anybody But Romney who conveniently forget that all our primary candidates have/had serious issues – both in terms of the conservative base and general electability. Any candidate coming out of the primary was going to face a very difficult battle now that the media has shown that they are all in for Obama. This delusion that Gingrich, or Santorum, or Cain, or Perry, or Bachmann is/was the only true conservative on a path to Reagenesque victory is folly.

        No, I am not pro-Romney. I am anti-ABR now that he will be the nominee. I can accept that my preferred candidate was not the choice of the primary voters – will you and others accept that Newt (or whomever) similarly has been rejected by primary voters? Or will schadenfreude drive you into accepting an Obama victory just because your preferred candidate was resoundingly rejected by Republican voters?

          WoodnWorld in reply to bains. | April 17, 2012 at 6:30 am

          Hear, hear!

          persecutor in reply to bains. | April 17, 2012 at 8:08 am

          My holding out for Newt isn’t due to a belief that he’ll get the nomination or win my State primary. What it is, is a not so subtle shot across Mitt’s bow-tack left and you’ll risk losing my vote and you then better hope you get that independent to replace me! Willing to bet the farm on that?

          The Dem establishment take the black and Hispanic vote for granted, believing that they’d never vote for anyone but the Dem.
          The GOP take us for granted, thinking we’re not going anywhere. Not true. I’ll vote in my local races and for sure I’ll hold my nose and vote for their Congress Critter candidate (dyed in the wool RINO), but as of this date, they wouldn’t be getting my vote for Mittens; they’re going to have to earn it in November-let’s see if they do, since it’s a long time between now and then.

    Yeah, the conservative is always “seriously flawed” but the liberal Democrat running as a Republican is merely “less than perfect”. Flaws are fatal but as we’ve been told so many times by the Rovian progressives, “perfection is the enemy of the good”.

    Republicans have figured out every angle. It’s NEVER the right time to do the right thing. Talk conservative but vote liberal.

Oh no, we’re doomed in the fall. “independents” is a term used by the media and clueless campaign consultants.

You better believe that I’ll be voting for Newt come April 24th in PA.

    persecutor in reply to quiznilo. | April 16, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    As I will doing be in NY on the same day!

    JayDick in reply to quiznilo. | April 17, 2012 at 9:56 am

    That’s fine. But in November, will you vote for Romney, Obama, or just not vote? Anything other than a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. Do you really want four more years? I certainly don’t. That would likely ruin our country completely.

      persecutor in reply to JayDick. | April 17, 2012 at 1:04 pm

      It’s a long time between now and election day. Let’s see who he nominates for Veep and if with his platform and pronouncments, he earns my vote.

        JayDick in reply to persecutor. | April 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

        Whatever. It will still come down to Romney, Obama, or don’t vote. I think Romney is the best of those alternatives and I can’t see anything that will change that opinion before November.

“We need to get the independents and the women.”

Gosh, you could have fooled me, Mittens.

I could have sworn that your primary campaign strategy was exactly the opposite of Richard Nixon’s famous dictum to “run to the right in the primary, and run to the center in the general.”

As I see it, you have yet to secure the conservative Republican base that you’ll need to win in November.

    PGlenn in reply to Samuel Keck. | April 16, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Using a football analogy, I think Team Romney was lined up on the left hashmark. During the primary campaign, they deployed a fake pitchout reverse to the right, followed by an inside power run to the left of the Center (“off tackle”). Three yards and cloud of investment trusts.

This is insane, I want a primary do-over. Something is seriously wrong with our nominating process. McCain in 2008 (who showed his determination to lose that election with every silly move he made, with the sole exception being his vice-presidential pick), and now Mitts who is following the same rotten establishment play-book.

Don’t scare voters! Got to get the independents and soccer moms! A strategy for failure.

    Ragspierre in reply to quiznilo. | April 16, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    “Something is seriously wrong with our nominating process.”


    I would be hard-pressed to name anything RIGHT with out process this cycle. It has been a goat-FLUCK virtually from the start.

    Milwaukee in reply to quiznilo. | April 16, 2012 at 8:18 pm

    For starters, we need closed Republican primaries. States such as Wisconsin, where a person may vote in any parties’ primary, mess things up. Since a political party is a private entity, they should find a way to fund and operate their primary independent of the state.

    Unfortunately, the moderate Republicans like the system they way it is, as they can count on Democratic votes in the primaries, and can defeat conservatives in the primaries. Bastards. (The moderate Republicans are being identified as Bastards. They are probably also Establishment.)

    Lina Inverse in reply to quiznilo. | April 17, 2012 at 9:58 am

    Something is seriously wrong with our nominating process.

    Indeed: it was largely designed by George McGovern after the 1968 Democratic nomination debacle, and not coincidentally he won the next nomination. Since the Progressives were so horrified by the “back room” nominating process of old, it’s mostly primaries, and the Republican party doesn’t have much or any choice in many states but to hold their own primaries on the same dates.

    And, you know, the current system doesn’t work very well for the Democrats either…: McGovern, Carter (who won because of Watergate but proved to be … less than satisfactory in office), Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Obama (see note about Carter).

It’s the McCain strategy. Ignore the base and go for independents.

    persecutor in reply to Same Same. | April 16, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    As Ronaldus Magnus observed, when we run in pastel colors, we lose. When we run with the bold colors of conservatism, we win.

    Be careful with that fence that you’re straddling, Mitt! You may have to pull some splinters from your testicular lock box!

    Hope Change in reply to Same Same. | April 16, 2012 at 8:58 pm

    Yes, Same Same, that’s the strategy all right … oh, and “lose.” That’s the rest of the strategy, which we’ll see in the fall. see: Ford, H.W. Bush, Dole, McCain.

    persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | April 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    After NR did their hatchet job on Mr. Newt, I canceled my subscription and got a refund.

    This is good to see, but they have a way to go before they’re a conservative and not a GOP magazine again.

If Romney was Newt Gingrich I’d watch him on any channel.

So I take you all think that the Romney Campaign should NOT have people going on MSNBC/CNN to counter the talking points of the progs. Wehould just concede any independants/youth/unallied voters that watch those shows to Obama. I’m an old fart, and came by my conservatism by way of life experiences. I am not a Romney enthusiast, but I will be a Romney voter. He’s not where I’d like him to be, but then probably most of the posters here aren’t either. But I will still read your remarks, even though it sounds as if you’d rather have Obama if you can’t have Cain/Gingrich/Santorum/ Or (my choice) a Reagan clone.

    Ragspierre in reply to beloney. | April 16, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    I agree with SOME of what you are saying.

    There are a LOT of Conservative Independents, for instance, and more leaning our way.


    “We [s]hould just concede any independants/youth/unallied voters that watch those [MSNBC, CNN] shows to Obama.”

    Really? Have you looked at their numbers, and who is watching that BS?

    No. Great. Loss.

    persecutor in reply to beloney. | April 16, 2012 at 5:22 pm

    They should do what they have to do. If they think that the moderates and the independents will be the thing they need, then either they’re afraid the base will not respond in sufficient numbers, or they’re taking our numbers for granted and think that this’ll be a 49 (out of 57) State blow out like ’72.

    My holding out for Newt isn’t due to a belief that he’ll get the nomination or win my State primary. What it is, is a not so subtle shot across Mitt’s bow-tack left and you’ll risk losing my vote and you then better hope you get that independent to replace me! Willing to bet the farm on that?

    The Dem establishment take the black and Hispanic vote for granted, believing that they’d never vote for anyone but the Dem.
    The GOP take us for granted, thinking we’re not going anywhere. Not true. I’ll vote in my local races and for sure I’ll hold my nose and vote for their Congress Critter candidate (dyed in the wool RINO), but as of this date, they wouldn’t be getting my vote for Mittens; they’re going to have to earn it in November.

      Kenshu Ani in reply to persecutor. | April 16, 2012 at 7:15 pm

      If they think that the moderates and the independents will be the thing they need, then either they’re afraid the base will not respond in sufficient numbers, or they’re taking our numbers for granted and think that this’ll be a 49 (out of 57) State blow out like ’72.

      I think they are looking towards independents because they KNOW that Romney will have to deal with a base that doesn’t favor him. They KNOW that the only reason Romney has as many delegates now is because the Not-Romney vote was split up amongst many candidates in the early stage of the primaries.

      Therefore, they will need to bring in enough independents to cover for the loss of the conservative vote.

      If one was cynical enough, one would suspect that the GOP establishment had encouraged enough Not-Romney candidates to run precisely to split up that vote. I’m not quite that cynical, but I’m pretty close.

        persecutor in reply to Kenshu Ani. | April 17, 2012 at 3:31 pm

        The establishment gutted every candidate but Mittens. I’m not afraid to say that the establishment has more invested in him than I do, or ever will.

          persecutor in reply to persecutor. | April 17, 2012 at 3:37 pm

          And if you’re afraid that your base, who are the people you have to count on for things besides votes–money, volunteers, bodies at rallies, etc.–won’t be there, then you as Party leadership need to look into the mirror for the cause of the failure.
          You don’t intentionally alienate the people you shouldn’t have to worry about and then wring your hands asking “why?” .

      Lina Inverse in reply to persecutor. | April 17, 2012 at 10:01 am

      The GOP take us for granted, thinking we’re not going anywhere. Not true.

      Indeed. If conservatives had turned out for McCain like they did for Bush in 2004, we’d likely be screaming about things like a bipartisan McCaincare we’d never be able to repeal….

        persecutor in reply to Lina Inverse. | April 17, 2012 at 3:40 pm

        Conservatives made 2008 less of a blow out than it could have been. Had McCain not picked Palin, I’m afraid it would have been an even bigger embarrassment.

JohnInFlorida | April 16, 2012 at 5:29 pm

beloney, your comment is bAloney!
Romney is the presumptive nominee and the “presumptive” nominee is acting rather PRESUMPTUOUS! Until he is, IN FACT, the nominee, I shall continue to support his primary opponent in hopes that Romney never will become the actual nominee. To the core of my being, I believe that Gingrich is FAR MORE qualified to represent me as the Republican nominee and I believe he is far more able to defeat Obama in November. IF Romney should win the nomination, I shall support him, but until the convention and the actual nomination, I shall remain skeptical of his ability to get done what needs doing … the defeating of Obama.

    Hope Change in reply to JohnInFlorida. | April 16, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    JohnInFlorida, I totally agree. I love your fierce attitude.

    beloney in reply to JohnInFlorida. | April 16, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    I would be more than pleased to see Gingrich go on msnbc and refute, verbally destruct, and show them up as the lying marxists that they are. If Gingrich wins the nomination ( or Santorum) he is going to need independents and moderates to win. If that weren’t the case, Obama would NOT be in office today. I just don’t think that we can win with only 40% of the vote.

    JayDick in reply to JohnInFlorida. | April 17, 2012 at 10:03 am

    It’s fine if you want to tilt at windmills for a while, as long as you come around to reality by November.

DINORightMarie | April 16, 2012 at 5:35 pm

I just don’t trust Mitt. His team is full of arrogant, snarky elitists who seem to think they’ll coast to a win. They think that this has been easy……and believe that ANYONE could take on Obama with his abysmal record.

WRONG. You think that punch at Ann Romney was low? You ain’t seen NUTHIN’ yet! She is going to be Palinized, it’s just a matter of what mud they sling that will stick. It’s in the game plan.

Romney’s religion will be pilloried – who cares that Obama got a pass for his Black Liberation Theology Rev. Wright religion……this is a “rich white male” and there is NO way that he can take on The One without their invoking all their usual cards of protection: race card, evil rich/1%/ Wall Street card, can’t-identify-with-the-middle-class card, etc. etc. Not to mention his flip flops, his liberal left record as governor, and RomneyCare. *sigh*

The Van Jones-organized Occupy folks are gearing for riots – not just Occupy the parks, stink them up all summer, drumming people out of their minds; oh, no, they are hoping to recreate 1968 in Tampa, in August – the Florida heat will fuel this vile Marxist anarchist crowd.

And then, you have the UNBELIEVABLE reality that SPAIN will be counting our votes and handling the data BEFORE OUR COUNTRY HAS A VALID COUNT! The group just happens to be owned and backed by Obama donors and supporters….. Thanks, Professor, for linking to that yesterday. I am STILL fuming over that one!!

Yeah, I really think Clueless Mittens Romney is in WAY over his head. He has no comprehension; these are the “Chigago Way” crowd with Alinsky’s Rules in their back pockets. The Romney team, because they think Obama is simply “in over his head,” is very “Touchable.”

And this lame “definition of insanity strategy” (i.e. it didn’t work any time it’s been tried (see Ford, Dole, McCain)but let’s do it again anyway”) “tacking toward the center” is NOT the answer, Mittens. To paraphrase Khrushchiev, “These guys will BURY you!!”

    Hope Change in reply to DINORightMarie. | April 16, 2012 at 9:10 pm

    Yes, DINORightMarie — I’m really concerned about that. How can it be that our votes will be counted overseas. This is a very serious issue. The fact that this kind of thing goes on and the GOPE won’t stand up against it is another essential problem.

    You know, when there’s an abusive parent in the home and the non-violent parent knows about it and does nothing, at some point, the non-violent parent is as culpable as the one who does the violence. The GOPE have a duty to protect the reliability of our voting and they have not.

    I think you’re selling Romney’s campaigning ability way short. His mild, calm, exterior is deceiving. I think he can (and will) destroy Obama very efficiently, all the while maintaining his cool demeanor. Ask Newt about Romney’s skill in negative campaigning. You don’t get to where he got in business by being a nice guy.

      WoodnWorld in reply to JayDick. | April 17, 2012 at 12:30 pm

      I absolutely agree with this. I firmly believe Mitt will run an extremely disciplined and tightly orchestrated campaign. Your point about asking his most recent opponents about how effective his campaign skills are is absolutely valid and cannot be excused or explained simply by pointing to money either raised or spent (although both seem to go a long way in any election).

        JayDick in reply to WoodnWorld. | April 17, 2012 at 1:46 pm

        Very true. But, the amount of money he raised (for his campaign, not the PACs) also tells something about his campaigning ability.

          WoodnWorld in reply to JayDick. | April 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          Without question. For many weeks and months now I have marveled at the logical and rhetorical contortions that have suggested a candidate’s (read: Romney’s) ability to raise and spend boatloads of money is somehow a liability, that another candidate’s inability to do the same was somehow an asset.

          Further, I believe projections about the estimated size of Romney’s general election war chest have been grossly underestimated while Obama’s have been both propagandized and overinflated. We are very much in this fight.

I think we over estimate the squishy middle voter’s opinion of the media. Most independents don’t see much problem with what they are presented with on the Nightly News and probably don’t analyse the difference between CNN and MSNBC and FOX. Unfortunately, these people decide elections.

That being said, Romney sounds like a Republican in a room of liberals who’s trying to stay on their good side. There were a hundred different ways to make the point that you are going to take the fight against Obama everywhere without implying Fox News viewers are non-analytical sheep.

The real threat looming over us is the upcoming lame duck Congress. We keep assuming that they aren’t working on anything just because there is no visible effort to address our economic problems but that is very likely not so. They are simply waiting for after the election to minimize the political fallout.

We need to start demanding that ALL of our politicians sign a pledge to DO NOTHING during the lame duck session. I don’t trust any of these clowns from “either” party.

“Fox is watched by the true believers,” Romney told donors, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We need to get the independents and the women.”

A woman called out to Adlai Stevenson: “Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!” during one of his presidential campaigns. The Senator replied, “That’s not enough, madam, we need a majority!”

Based upon comments both here and elsewhere … I sense a Goldwater/Rockefeller moment returning. That turned out poorly for both, and gave Johnson a landslide.

You either want to beat Obama by any means at any cost, or you deserve him for another term. Simple as that.

    Hope Change in reply to Aridog. | April 16, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Yes, Aridog, you are right.

    That is one of the primary reasons I support NEWT. The benefits that will flow from Newt’s win are innumerable.

    Because once Newt wins, we will get our economy back (easy to do) and return the federal government to its Constitutional limits (hard to do but we’ll have a clear plan).

    NEWT 2012

      JayDick in reply to Hope Change. | April 17, 2012 at 10:12 am

      Newt won’t be on the ballot in November, at least not as President. You must choose between Romney and Obama; of course, you could also stay home, which is a vote for Obama.

      Aridog in reply to Hope Change. | April 17, 2012 at 10:30 am

      @Hope Change … I think you are missing my point.

      Romney was not my first choice either, nor was Gingrich, but Romney very likely will be the nominee. Newt very likely will not be the nominee. I will vote for Romney. Will you?

      If we cannot get our act together in this effort to unseat Obama, we’ll be repeating the Goldwater/Rockefeller fiasco of 1964 … and the result will be an unfettered Obama for 4 more years.

    Lina Inverse in reply to Aridog. | April 17, 2012 at 10:15 am

    Ignoring minor details like JFK’s assassination for which the right was successfully blamed and Rockefeller’s divorce et. al., 1964 set the party on a more conservative path that directly led us to Reagan at a particularly critical time in the nation’s history.

    Of course the party immediately ran hard and fast away from that (“a kinder and gentler nation”) … the problem I see with this analogy is that I don’t think such changes will come until after a presumably disastrous Romney term in office. We aren’t going to see anything dramatic at the Republican National Convention, post-1968 (see my comment above) that’s not in the cards.

I like Newt but he has no chance. And he’d better be paying the vendors he’s stiffed. The primary season worked exactly like it should. The strongest candidate survived. Now you may quibble over what “strongest” means but that’s what happened.

    JayDick in reply to PhillyGuy. | April 17, 2012 at 10:13 am

    Generally, I agree. One quibble: open primaries distort the process. Somehow, that has to stop, but I don’t know how it gets done.

I also like Newt, Rick, Rick, Herman, Michele, Ron, Donald etc. All for different reasons. There was an extended period of (separate) time(s) when I thought Perry and Gingrich could actually win the primary. For Rick that hasn’t been since December, at least, and for Newt that hasn’t been since January.

With all due respect, this nomination is “etched.” It is over. It has been for weeks now. Rather than hold out for the final score, than wait until the clock ticks down to 00:00, why don’t we read the writing on the wall (as Newt, Rick, Rick, Herman, Michele, Ron and Donald have done), and start prepping for the next big game. The one that matters most.

None of any of (y)our heartburn about Romney will be assuaged by an Obama victory. If we have any hope of turning things around, we absolutely have to win in November first.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to WoodnWorld. | April 17, 2012 at 8:52 am

    If Obama wins, and Romney is the nominee (Romney can’t refute Obama on the class warfare, eat the rich strategy or on any other point) it kills two or three birds with one stone.”

    Obama can’t run again.
    Romney can’t run again.
    The Republican establishment can’t win again.
    There will be a new Constitution or Conservative Party…with an American Eagle as the mascot.

      JayDick in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 17, 2012 at 10:18 am

      I don’t think all that is true (the first two are, obviously), but even if it is, it is irrelevant. Four more years of Obama will ruin our country. It will be almost impossible to put it back together again.

      persecutor in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm

      Romney: “Mr. Obama, your Obamacare needs to be repealed; it won’t work.
      Obama: Mr. Romney, I used Romneycare–the plan that you put in place in Massachusetts while you were governor, as my model. If it was so bad, why did you do it?
      Romney: [crickets]

Uncle Samuel | April 17, 2012 at 8:47 am

The true Conservatives evidently have a plan to take to the Convention as per the Santorum conference call last night.

Meanwhile, Cain is caving.
Michele is thinking hard about endorsing Romney.

Any conservative politician, group or individual who endorses Romney had better get a LEGAL AND VERY SPECIFIC CONTRACT IN WRITING with a HUGE penalty clause because Romney’s word is worthless and his record is one of flip/flopping, and corruption without conscience.

It is conservative suicide to bet their reputations on Romney. We’ve seen how ridiculous it has made Coulter and Drudge.

Better keep your conscience clean and vote your convictions.

    JayDick in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 17, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Your choices will be Romney (as is) or Obama (as is). Your only other option is to stay home (or not vote the President line), which is a vote for Obama. Which do you want.

      hstad in reply to JayDick. | April 17, 2012 at 1:43 pm

      Best comment on this site! I think the trolls for Prof. Jacobson are still licking their wounds from that fantastic candidate Newt! Prof. you and your Newt buddies should really come back to reality. I know, you like Obama!:)

        JayDick in reply to hstad. | April 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        Thank you. Actually, I like Newt a lot and can identify with others who do. But, it’s over; Newt didn’t win. The choices have been defined and won’t change before November. So, vote your choice and recognize that not voting is also a choice that has consequences.

    Aridog in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm

    I, for one, am as tired of that “True Conservative” meme as I am the Obamessiah meme and the Ron Paul Libertarian isolationism jive, much as I might like some of his domestic ideas. I’m near f’ing 70 and cannot recall a single election won by one of any these dogmatic ultra conservative ideologues. It’s almost like they enjoy losing elections, floor votes, you name it. Then they can be the perpetual victims just like their progressive opponents.

    Who the flip decides who is a “True Conservative? Why does it always seem that dogma is more important to them than winning elections? They sure as hell did not win the election for Reagan, Independents and rebel Democrats did that in conjunction with regular Republican voters.

    Now, I say for the umpteenth time, Romney was not my first choice, but he is my choice today, period. If the Republicans hold the house and take the Senate, they can dictate a lot to Romney, not the other way around. That would be a true power shift with a capable “manager” in place, regardless of his personal issues. Congress has the purse strings and can prevent run-arounds by various rule making agencies, if they are in control. If we fail to make it happen, we’re screwed.

    I liked Cain, but he got Mandingo’d, pure and simple. I like a lot of Newt’s ideas and his intelligence, but … but he has a record that is one who lot less conservative than his popular image suggests. Santorum, like Newt, had a positive surge, but lost, both his original elected office and this campaign, just like Newt did in both instances.

    Simple situation is this: Newt nor Santorum could gain a majority of Republicans, with “true” or not, in the primary season … so what makes anyone think either could win an election in the open season? A brokered convention will guarantee defeat, so be careful what we wish for on that.

    I want Obama gone, I want his czars and advisors gone, and I want control of both houses of Congress. In my opinion this cannot be done with a divided acrimonious “I’m truer than you” mentality between us.

In response to persecutor, I’ll be voting for Newt in NY as well. I’ve read every response in this section and I see the same thing being said over and over. One side wants Romney. End of sentence. One side wants Newt. End of sentence. Then there are those who want Newt but have decided that he can’t win so in the end they’ll vote Romney. We also have a few who will not vote if Newt isn’t their candidate. so were does that put us? Well, as far as I can see, and my eye sights not that good, is that we are in a big mess.
What I want to know is why does our supposed candidate tell us we need special policies for certain groups. For instance Hispanics. Why is he talking about the Dream Act. I thought he went after Newt and Rick saying that there would be no amnesty.
Why is he having private meetings where he discusses policy with big donors? Shouldn’t he be telling all of us what he wants to do? I thought private, secret meetings were what the Dems. did.
How can a man who is embarrassed by his wealth stand up for the conservative principle that making money is not a bad thing.
Also, Diane Sawyer asked Mitt about being rich and if he could relate. He should have said yes I’m rich and I earned every penny. I want all people to be able to make as much money as I have. Instead he talked about dividing america and the idea which has been shot down that more women where hurt but the bad economy than men.
Do you think Newt would have answered that way or would he have said, “What about the money you’ve made Diane. You make $50million a year for twenty minutes of work each week. Do you think you relate?”
So what am I saying. For those of you who think he’ll be better than Obama, you’re right. But is that how we elect a President? Shouldn’t we be voting for a man who is, in his heart, what he says he is with his lips. The fact that he is having all these private meeting to say to those who give big money what he’s going to do makes me nervous. And why is he going after the rich? We aren’t suppose to be into class warfare. He’s playing right into the hands of the other side.
The more I’ve heard about him lately the more worried I get. I admit, I’m a Newt supporter, but once I’ve voted my conscience I’ll vote for the candidate. Not with enthusiasm but I’ll vote. The future is to bleak to contemplate if Obama remains in office. The term “You ain’t seen nothing yet,” comes to mind. And that, more than anything else well keep me from staying home.

    WoodnWorld in reply to Bittersweet. | April 17, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    There is another side to the “want” factor as well, one which is shared an overwhelming majority within most (if not all) of the other sides you mentioned above.

    It is the side that wants Barack Obama beaten in November and cannot imagine letting him and his team walk back into office in January 2013 without giving him every calorie we have to resist that end.

    This “not wanting Barack” can be an extremely potent replacement for voters who did not get what they want in the primary. You said your eyesight is not that good; that’s okay. All you need to do is lift your gaze to the much larger threat, the much bigger fight, and “want” Obama out more than you want any Republican in.

Agree! Looking in the rear view mirror is useless now! If you don’t vote because you don’t like Romney you have given the vote to Obama!

I completely agree with hstad and WoodnWorld. As the leader of a local tea party I have been saying just that to the fifteen hundred people on my blog list. Nothing is more important than getting “devastation and disaster” out of the white house. That is what I’m going to be about from now to the election. Hopefully others will feel the same. We can’t take our marbles and go home. Not this year.
As Lincoln said,
“Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step over the ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–all the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a Thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | April 17, 2012 at 7:51 pm

This presumptive Nomination garbage, is all about the progressive GOP RINO’s preemptive attempt to try to circumvent the whole Republican Primary process, and proclaim their anointment of Romney, before all the States like Texas, and all the conservative people have even voted.

Romney is the Republican antithesis of Ronald Reagan, thus Romney is the worst possible choice of all choices as the Republican Party Nominee, as he is not a conservative Republican politician of opposite ideology and political policies of Obama.

As a Conservative, let alone as a Republican, how does one defend a Ted Kennedy collaborated forced mandated substandard inferior State Socialized Medicine entitlement program law that bankrupts the residents, citizens, and Independent businesses and companies in the Free Market Capitalist Free Enterprise system of a State, let alone the Nation, but then turns around and argues that he must repeal Obamacare, the very same thing he implemented and refuses to refute and repeal in his on State called Romneycare.”

For all intents and purposes, Romney should be Obama’s running mate.

What will they debate, how much each of them loves inferior substandard force mandated State Socialized Medicine programs like Obamacare and Romneycare.. How they both love Global warming cap and trade policies and programs.. How they both love crony capitalism to prop up govt, and stifle the Free Market economy.. How much they both love social welfare programs.. How much they both love to spend and borrow and tax.. How much they both love gun control.. How much they both support abortion rights, and how much they both say one thing, but do the opposite- then lie about everything they say and do, and use blame game excuses for political plausible deniability, etc, etc, etc..

The Truth speaks for itself,and Mitt Romney’s action’s- his record as Gov of Mass., speaks loud and clear that he is not a conservative, but a Liberal Ted Kennedy Mass Politician to the very core, and like with Obama the people refuse to hear it, and all the Romney GOP Progressive Republican RINO propaganda and delusional denial by all the progressive RINO Romney-ites in the world cannot hide it, let alone makes taste any better.

This is why Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans, and Republicans are not necessarily Conservatives. GOP Republican Party establishment RINO’s put the Republican Party before and above the US Constitution, Democracy, Freedom and Liberty, whereas Reagan Constitutional Conservatives puts the US Constitution, Democracy, Freedom and Liberty first, then the GOP RINO Party second or third.

I, along with millions of other Tea Party Reagan Conservatives, will never support and vote for Mr. liberal progressive Republican GOP RINO Romney, period. !

This is the problem we also now face, when the electorate in the mass populace are apathetic to the real issue at hand concerning the politician either being Reagan conservative, or a GOP progressive Republican liberal from Mass..

Thus this is now about the people’s ability, or inability, to discern the differences, problems, and issues at hand, facing what we are now faced with, and then adequately make the right decisions at the ballot box.

If the mass populace of America is determined to go into a state of constant delusional denial, and keep running into the same brick wall of stupidity, apathy, and indifference, just like their choosing of Obama in 2008, a radical progressive liberal, they now choose instead a moderate progressive liberal GOP Republican establishment RINO elitist, aka Obama lite Mitt Romney, then the Constitutional Republic Nation of America is in more peril than we thought, as no Nation can stay Free and Independent when both sides of the political coin are liberally destructive. The left is a cancerous toxic ideology, and as history has shown, can and will completely destroy a civilized society of Freedom, Liberty, Democracy, and the Truth, in a blink of an eye.

That’s their choice, but in so doing will unfortunately continue the same old destructive liberal dead end brick wall policies of the past.. ie; meet the new boss, same as the old boss, which means the continued rapid decline of America as a force of Freedom, Liberty, and Democracy is an assured prospect, and not just inside America, but the free world as a whole is affected as well, as our US National Security is also the world’s international security against the forces of evil, tyranny, and oppression.

    TeaPartyPatriot4ever … I’m not going to argue your points, several of which are quite true. I didn’t care for Romney at first because he reminded me of another Republican named Governor Bill Milliken of Michigan, the highest taxing mo’fo in the history of the state, and one whose closeted VAT legacy (labor cost is not deductible, but taxed without pass through) we only managed to dump this year.

    However, I do have one serious question for you: If Republicans can take control of both houses of Congress and Romeny wins the POTUS slot, do you think Romney could run off the rails amok given that a large contingent of the Congressional gains would be Tea party people?

    I don’t think he could and I believe that the rightful power of Congress would be restored to a significant degree. That’d be unlike the by-pass Congress modus operandi of the current POTUS….who even deigns to denigrate the SCOTUS (at least twice in public forums).

    At this point, are we not at the “baby steps” phase of rebuilding? If we tear each other down, now, who wins?