Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama’s Attack Ads

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…and why Mittbots are such tools when they argue otherwise. Seriously, we don’t have to like populism to recognize that it’s a powerful weapon in such an ugly political climate.

natedogg

I find this discussion fascinating, because it reminds me of things we Dems went through in 2004 when trying to unseat Bush. Those of us on the left wanted Howard Dean because we thought, “Hey, anyone can beat Bush. You have to beat him on principles.” To me the anti-Romney vote reminds of this kind of thinking. On the other hand, Romney is a lot like John Kerry: plastic, distant, and from Massachusetts! Electable? Perhaps, but hard to sell to people who want genuine candidates. Only Romney in a way is worse for you guys than Kerry was for us, because at least Kerry was a real progressive at heart, whereas Romney is not really a conservative. I wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep knowing that Romney is nominating SCOTUS justices.

What am I trying to say is this: In my humble, Democratic opinion, I think that if you guys (a) want a conservative, and (b) want to win, you have to find someone who isn’t running yet, someone like Christie. Maybe a brokered convention? The guy is charismatic and conservative. I thought Huntsman was the strongest candidate you guys could have nominated (that’s why Obama gave him the ambassadorship–to keep him away!), but for some reason you guys don’t like him and I don’t see that changing any time soon.

Anyway, those are the thoughts of a Democrat political junkie trying to engage in productive conversation. Take it for what it’s worth.

Very respectfully,
NateDogg

blark

Really Eric? Your loathing of Little Romney is so intense that it drew you back from vacation to post old Ted Kennedy ads? You are losing political capital and credibility fast! Get used to the title Political Hack.

http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

but we have a wonderful governor who is a champion of states rights, and has a plan to send the congress home to work under the laws that they make. The reason a part time congress would work is because if we went back to the tenth amendment, then the role of state politicians would become more important, and the states can choose what to pay them. This is what we really should want.

haumea

Being a budget hawk does not make one a conservative.

Anyway, this “Get X” business is fine in theory – until you put a magnifying lens on X. Then you see all kinds of warts.

But I look at this way – there is no perfect conservative candidate.

First, you analyze the times. America’s in crisis. Then you pick the candidate who can get America out of that crisis – not someone, e.g. like Romney, who will competently manage the decline. Someone who knows the trouble we’re in and is willing to take on the enormous job – on every front.

Gingrich is the only guy who can do so. Picking at his scabs is all fun and everything, but is sorta like standing on the tracks, watching the train coming and complaining that it’s a really hot day.

dhoerster

Because people like Erick called him, essentially, a traitor out of the gate. As much as we like to think we are individual thinkers, once you have an influential conservative stating that Huntsman is despicable for resigning and campaigning against his former boss, you tend to sway a number of readers. I’m not a fan of Huntsman, but I thought what was written about him on these pages early on was out of line and basically helped to bury his campaign.

sowa1

Romney and his wife will make a great addition to the White House. Sick and tired of all these crazy people who would vote for anyone but Mitt. Stupid! Next thing we will hear is people voting for Obama because they don’t like Mitt. That would really take the cake. Obama is not for the middle class. If he were, he would not be doing things that keep jobs from all of us.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…instead of competing with Romney for the moderates, he might have had a chance even with EE’s hostility. As it was, you can’t win solid Conservative support if you don’t even try to appeal for it.

natedogg

I would bet my car that Gingrich would get trounced in an election against the President. I don’t think this is wishful thinking on my part. The “baggage” ad that Romney put out against him is right on the money, and whatever conservatives might say about Obama’s campaign, it is a well-oiled machine that was able to micro-target precinct turnout in the primary campaign for maximum delegate accrual against Hillary. As for Gingrich’s organizing abilities, he couldn’t get on the ballot in VA. This is not a small issue. The Obama ads against McCain in the general were brutal and brilliant. And McCain was a moderate war hero! I don’t think Gingrich can stand up to that microscope, not because of his ideas, which are not necessarily out of the mainstream, but because of deep, deep character flaws (real or just perceived, depending on whom you ask).

romansdaughter

Typical Willard fan goes along with the Romney’s thinking. Anne Romney said the same thing…”People who don’t support Mitt are stupid.” The arrogance in those comments is what turns me off completely. Now I would vote for Mitt against Obama but I would have to really hold my nose tight but in the primaries he is not getting my vote cause I am crazy and stupid. (even though you have no idea of my IQ or about me at all.} I think you and Willard need to read the book “How to win friends”.

itsjoanne

n/t

dhoerster

If he’s essentially called a traitor and disloyal out of the gate.

Again, I’m not a fan of Huntsman and really didn’t understand his campaign strategy. I’m just pointing out that he was being cut down before he entered the race.

renl57

…how much more vulnerable Gingrich would be to attacks on his personal and professional background, the retort around here was “The Dems can attack any candidate with fabrications if necessary–we shouldn’t be trying to choose a candidate based on his perceived vulnerability to Dem attacks.”

And yet here you are attacking Mitt Romney for his vulnerability to Obama’s attack ads. That’s really inconsistent.

The attack ads against Romney will be nothing compared to the ones that will be unleashed against Gingrich. Every bimbo that Gloria Allred can find will accuse Gingrich of affairs. Records from Freddie Mac will be leaked to the New York Times about why Gingrich was hired. Etc.

If you’re worried about how vulnerable Romney is on the Bain issue, you should be ten times more worried about how vulnerable Gingrich is on a whole host of issues.

1stRichard

Romney will be pummeled so hard on this by the left he is not a viable candidate. One more thing, expect a large document dump from the current governor here.

romansdaughter

That is why I am supporting Rick Perry.

buddyp

I agree with your point (and Erick’s) that it’s a liability for Romney, but…

What do you mean when you include yourself when you say “we” don’t have to like such populism, attacks which you imply are “ugly” politics.

YOU have said more than once that you “consider Romney?s work at Bain Capital to be immoral and scandalous.”
http://www.redstate.com/bs/2011/12/27/tuesday-night-open-thread/#comment-5341

It’s fine if you want to make the point that the charge is a political liability, but you shouldn’t pretend you are among those of us who don’t consider the attacks legitimate.

And my point isn’t to discuss with you here your view about Romney’s work at Bain, so don’t go off responding as if that was my point. I’m just saying don’t misrepresent your views just to make an argument of yours (that the charge would be a liability for Romney in the general election) more appealing to those whose view (that the attacks are not legitimate) you don’t really share.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…but I use “we” to be polite, speaking for a larger group of people here, some of whom definitely disagree with the premise of the populist attacks. You would not understand well what it means to speak politely, though.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…that was his first error.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…admitting you are a Democrat would seem to shorten your life expectancy here.

jiminga

Every time I hear Mittens claim to be a job creator I start screaming at the TV. Bain Capital is a restructuring firm that specializes in taking companies private, disposing of assets and people to strengthen the bottom line, then taking it public again generating huge fees for Bain. All this is legal and “moral” but doesn’t create jobs. In fact, it destroys jobs.

If Romney is the nominee Obama will destroy him.

docaja

All of us associated with the Tea Party seem to enjoy a bit of populist foment.

buddyp

My two biggest concerns about Romney:

- As I’ve written previously (even while explaining why he, or perhaps Huntsman, will probably get my vote), Romney would be a bad example for the nation in terms of integrity. I mean, I’m very cynical about politicians generally regarding integrity (meaning primarily sincerity of the positions they choose and the statements they make), but Romney is in a league of his own. He’s a shameless, opportunistic, insincere flip-flopper, including on issues (that should be) of conscience, apparently with few convictions other than a desire to be president, at best because he thinks he’d manage the nation well and perhaps be more pragmatic, and at worst simply for ego and/or the thrill of it.

- Related to the above, I fear that, once elected, his policy decisions would instantly and throughout the next four years be driven to an even larger degree than normal for a first term president by the anticipated impact on his re-election prospects. I could be wrong on this — ego could drive him to prioritize doing a good job as he sees it, but an ambitious, convictionless, probably ego-driven guy hardly gives me comfort in that regard.

His electability is not a negative in my view because I have to consider it relative to the electability of the other candidates. I think his is superior. I don’t think Perry can be counted on not to have more awful “oops” moments. Gingrich has a lot of baggage, most notably I think a lot of women who will be strongly inclined not to vote for a guy who cheated on both his first two wives and then left them for his mistresses. I think Bachmann comes across to many as looney, ill-informed and perhaps reckless (an opinion I share), she’s also undisciplined (remember her vaccine-retardation comment), and also has no real executive experience (yes, neither did Obama, but he does now, and in any case the point is that Romney has very substantial executive experience, and could even argue that Obama’s lack of such experience is a factor in the poor economy and other weaknesses of the Obama Administration). Santorum is a smart and articulate guy, apparently knowledgeable about the issues, including foreign policy, but I think his outspokenness about gays would turn off many with more moderate or liberal views on related issues (such as me, although in my case it wouldn’t be a deal-breaker). Romney, on the other hand, has a strong management resume (aside from the vulnerability on layoffs, etc.), is very well-spoken in all formats (even if robotic in delivery) in a way that conveys having command of the issues and high intelligence, would be disciplined in his message and comments, and would run a well-organized campaign. And he can point to governing in Mass as proof he can work across the isle to get things done, which will appeal to moderates/swing voters and even to others who are concerned about gridlock. He’s got the electability challenges of those “layoffs and bankruptcies” attacks, his phoniness as a flip-flopper (and Dem use of his past statements against his current arguments), his robotic delivery, his Mormonism, and the relative weakness he’d have in attacking Obamacare. Yes, those are real negatives re: electability. But all things considered, I still think he’s more electable than the others, with the possible exception of Huntsman. I also think he’d make a better president, with the possible exception of Huntsman.

johnt

Dems and O ‘s brain trust[ puke] are just stupid enough. You mean like a certain new energy company, stimulus waste, etc. If Romney can’t make this bunch of true dimwits choke on that he might want to run as alderman somewhere.
I do have to give O, Axelrod and the rest of the trash some credit, they are better feces flingers than even the dumb drunk Kennedy. Close call, but this crew deserves some credit for something.

buddyp

You said “we” to be polite?? LOL

I think it’s much more likely you were trying to associate yourself with most here who have the opposite view from yours, in order to enhance the appeal of your argument. So you said “we don’t have to like” such attacks and implied that such attacks reflect “ugly politics”, when in reality you agree with such attacks and have repeatedly made them yourself (so presumably you don’t consider such attacks “ugly politics”).

So, nice try. I suggest in the future you just make your point without being deceptive about your views as an enhancer.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…and as I commented to buddy troll above, I have a pretty strong partiality to populism myself. Nonetheless, it is not necessary to like populism to understand that the attacks of Kennedy in 1994, which are certain to dog Romney anew if we have the misfortunate of choosing him as our standard bearer for this election, are highly damaging in an election where populism is very important. I was speaking to those here who think that Romney’s work at Bain might be legitimate and proper and moral (and who would not be populists themselves) but who would be rational enough to accept that such populist attacks would greatly damage his electability. That is all.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…that you automatically jump to the worst conclusions and engage in trolling behavior because you don’t bother to collect the facts or subject them to rational analysis. I have no problem admitting when I have advocacy for a certain position (like populism) and have commented publicly and at length about my hostility toward Romney’s actions at Bain. Nonetheless, I wish at times (as here) to speak to those who may disagree with such views themselves but who are rational enough to concede the damage such attacks would cause to Romney’s electability. Clearly, you are not rational enough yourself to merit or appreciate my politeness in speaking to a wider audience than my own personal echo chamber.

http://tbrickert.wordpress.com tbrickert

What Eric is doing is inoculating Romney from these types of ads in the general. I?m sure Eric will do the same for any of the candidates if they look to be the nominee. He said he would support the nominee and it looks like Romney may be the nominee . So, this barrage of anti-Romney posts is not a temper-tantrum. No, it?s Eric using the lessons from the campaign against Kennedy, to help Romney learn from them. We know Romney learned in 94 not to complain about negative ads and this year we all saw what happened to the candidate who complained about negative ads. Keep showing these ads Eric, because, one thing for sure, they won?t compare to what Obama will do to Romney, but at least I know Romney will fight back equally as hard.

circlegranch

An article headlined this morning at Real Clear Politics declares the issues that matter most to Iowans are jobs and limited govt. Nothing in Romney’s record underscores either. He’s been a professional presidential candidate for 5 years.

Santorum is touting himself right now on Morning Joe as being a staunch fiscal conservative but as EE so accurately pointed out yesterday, there’s plenty to doubt and question in that claim. However, it seems nobody in Iowa is taking the time to question, let alone doubt.

Ron Paul is connected to all sorts of wild-eyed theories that no sovereign country could be built upon, let alone survive under. It’s too bad that idea Libertarians had earlier this year of moving out onto oil platform-type communities and simply being adrift at sea and having no association to any govt. didn’t catch on quicker. They, along with their leader, would be so much happier.

If polling data coming out of Iowa is to be trusted, it appears the folks there are out of step with reality. Mitt Romney will not be a conservative president, Ron Paul will weaken our military more than Obama intends to do, leaving us vulnerable along with our allies. Newt is finally facing the realities of his past and appearing old, out of shape and grumpy. He keeps grasping for the chance to debate, yet every time he faces adversity as president, he can’t call for a 90 minute, no timer, no moderator face-off. Rick Santorum has faced essentially no scrutiny of his governing record and when he does, his quick rise will soon plummet. One might guess Sarah Palin could be a bit ticked off since she was often criticized for being the matron of a large family, including one child with special needs. It was often suggested she should focus on a less demanding job and stay home and care for her kids and enter the national stage later. Santorum also presides over a large family and his youngest child is suffering from a very serious disorder. Yet, he escapes criticism about wanting to have the busiest, most time consuming job in the world which clearly would take him away from his growing family.

CNN’s “American Morning” reports that the Latino vote is going back to Obama having been adrift for awhile, looking at the Republican candidates. Not liking what they see from the top tier, more of them are deciding to stick with what we have. Another missed opportunity.

The only encouraging news is that a week from now, Iowa will be off the radar and won’t really matter, at least until the next primary season.

Rick Perry
President 2012

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…and that might be all there is to it. We must remember that Iowa isn’t a particularly conservative state as well.

buddyp

All you offer is a combination of implausible explanations of how you supposedly weren’t trying to mislead folks about your view, and a rant of ad hominem and an absurd insertion (yet again) of the label “troll” for me, as if I’ve done anything trollish. Worst thing I could be criticized for here is calling you out on disingenuousness rather than just addressing the topic itself.

Again, you said “we don’t have to like” such attacks, and you implied such attacks were “ugly politics”, even though YOU have made such attacks repeatedly. And you claim you just said that to engage in a civil way with others who have the opposite view than yours, as if putting it that way were necessary to engage constructively with others, and as if your explanation passed the laugh test. It doesn’t. I don’t expect you to admit it, but again, you deliberately, totally misrepresented your view in order to increase the appeal of your point to those with the opposite view. Not cool.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…but you’re a troll. It’s obvious you’re not sympathetic with the Tea Party (which I am, and which, as commented below, is populist). It’s obvious you don’t know how to make rational analysis or come to correct conclusions because you have too high a view of your own intelligence and too little respect for others. Why are you even on here anyway? Some village is missing its idiot. Go home.

buddyp

You obviously are having trouble dealing with insecurity after finding yourself unable to hold your own in our exchanges, as well as being caught red-handed being disingenuous right here, so you’re floundering about claiming negative or unpopular things about me.

And you can’t even get straight what you’re saying, or you’re just pretending to confuse things because you are trying to say something — anything — to sound like you have some defense of the disingenuousness you just exhibited.

YOU are the one who implied that those attacks were “ugly politics”.

YOU are the one who included yourself in saying “we don’t have to like populism”.

And now you are just floundering around pathetically. And I expect you’ll once again reply with more of the same.

btpull

Firms like Bain take over poorly run companies that are heading to bankruptcy. Short selling, vulture capital, etc. is a necessary part of capitalism.

Too bad anti-Romney syndrome prevents conservatives from defending capitalism.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

Villiage Idiot Cocktail Ingredients

50ml gin
50ml vodka
short dash lime cordial
Fill the glass lemonade
Instructions

Fill a tall cocktail glass to the top, free pore the gin and vodka at the same time and a dash of lime cordial and top up with lemonade.

Seriously gets you smashed – i.e. The Village Idiot!

streiff

thus far he’s been above board about his politics and isn’t trolling. I happen to agree with a lot of what he’s said.

josephine

I have to say that those who do not connect policies to the person are just down right stupid or either they have no policies themselves.
In real life policies in our living habits, such as taking out the garbage,washing clothes,saying thank you. Forbidding teenage sex in the house, etc. are the rules that we set up because we beleive in certain things that should go on in our little lives.
Barack Hussein Obama believes that all Americans should be knocked down ,humiliated,& demeaned because they have had a smile on their face too long. His policies reflect his opinion of the people of America. I am fed up with Barack Hussein Obama and Big Sis and all of the Obamabots and especially the Senate Republicans. I say vote them all out. Ga. Senators included.Give them a taste of real life. I am truly fed up this morning.
You watch, Mitt Romney will not repeal Obamacare. You watch. I’ll bet a dollar I’m right.

bk

“If polling data coming out of Iowa is to be trusted, it appears the folks there are out of step with reality.”

The problem with the current system is that you have this popularity contest of who can visit the most little cafes and shake the most hands and kiss the most babies in IA and NH. The candidate needs to spend a bundle on organizing in these two little states, then say a few good things (regardless of what his/her past history is) and display a good personal touch, and voila! they swoon over them and we’re down to two “viable” candidates.

This system of determining our nominee sucks. Democrats have the same problem of course, but this cycle they don’t have to go through it.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…he’s not a rabid liberal at least and isn’t a troll, that’s for sure.

bk

The comments were interesting and worth reading.

streiff

Bain targeted companies that were vulnerable to being bought out and carved up.

The comment is correct, Bain did little to nothing in the areas of improving productivity or creating jobs, it’s business was turning massive profits, quickly, for a handful of crony “limited partners.”

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…and we’ve been over this brokered convention bit before–I don’t think it would lead to a more legitimate candidate and I don’t think that Christie is a genuine conservative. But his comments were respectfully made.

bk

The Democrats have a billion dollars to spend, and they sure as heck are NOT going to spend it telling us what a wonderful record Obama has these past four years.

bk

I don’t know the answer to that and I don’t know that it matters in the big picture – I’m just curious.

buddyp

I hope your comment above helps you get by, but it will be counterproductive if you realize you’re just shining an even brighter light on your insecurity.

If you can’t learn anything from this experience, you’d be smart to at least cut your losses. Getting quite pathetic.

So you got caught trying to mislead people about your views to enhance the appeal of a point you wanted to make. ok, water under the bridge. I’m sure it must be embarrassing for you, but I still think I’m not out of line calling you out on it. Just try to grow from the experience instead of continuing with such obviously desperate replies.

dpmapper

Let’s say Obama offered you a chance to change his approach towards the Keystone Pipeline. Your job description doesn’t require you to agree with him on anything else; take the job and you’ll get to ensure that Keystone gets built, and maybe have some influence over other parts of energy policy. Isn’t that a good thing for the country?

Obama’s Asian policies aren’t perfect but they are much better than what he’s been doing in the Middle East and in Latin America (essentially supporting Chavez and his acolytes and undercutting our allies).

Ausonius

Spoken in “Cool Hand Luke” after his character beats Luke with a cane!

Mr. Erickson wrote above:

“Yes, you can say we?ll hear all the same stuff about Barack Obama, but every poll shows voters still do not connect Barack Obama to his policies. Policies are esoteric things. The people in these ads, however, connect their firings to Mitt Romney.”

Josephine’s frustration is legion: so WHY do people NOT connect BIG BRObama to his policies and their terrible effects, but do “connect their firings to Mitt Romney” ?

Failure to communicate! An “epic failure” by Republicans, especially the leadership, because of their cowardice in attacking MAObama head-on, due to their fear of being branded “racist” or accused of “supporting the rich and the big corporations.”

WHEN will we hear how it is the present Democrat administration that supports the rich and big corporations through Mussolinian corporate fascism? The evidence is there, the cronyism happens every day, with impunity, but the RINOs are silent in the face of this.

Is it because…they themselves engage in something too too similar?

Marcus_Traianus

This is a very myopic view.

Romney or whomever won’t be running against a Democrat for governor in a very Blue State. He/she will be running against the most destructive, corrupt, economically incompetent, fiscally irresponsible, business destroying author of the biggest assault on individual liberty in our nations history. That does not even include foreign policy faux pas we have cataloged for three years now. Further combine that with a Democratic Congress that road roughshod over the American people’s will for over two years and a Senate that still stalls every piece of legislation that could potentially provide relief to the American people.

I frankly couldn’t find a better counter argument if there were competent people to actually produce the media and write articles.

Really, now we’ve elevated Kennedy and his campaign staff as some type of media geniuses? It won’t work. Not in a national election against this President.

katem

It’s sad to hear a comment like that. Huntsman served his country, not just the particular president who appointed him. There’s an old saying that partisan politics stops at the water’s edge. And there is precedent for a politician of one party serving as a US ambassador for a president of another party. Henry Cabot Lodge comes to mind. At the end of the day, we’re Americans first. Huntsman put country first and we should thank him for serving. He had some unique qualifications to offer (he lived in Taiwan and Singapore, did business in Asia for many years, speaks Mandarin and had been ambassador to Singapore and a US trade negotiator under Republican presidents). An ambassadorship is not a partisan position and does not involve domestic policy-making. Secretary Gates and Fed Chairman Bernanke are Republicans and Bush appointees who stayed on to serve in the Obama administration. And Senator Judd Gregg was willing to be nominated to be Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, a cabinet position, but a disagreement relating to the census led to the withdrawal of his nomination. I hope that if the next GOP president has a post to fill and a Democrat has some unique or otherwise good qualifications to serve, his party affiliation won’t be a roadblock to serving the country.

katem

Meant to say that Bernanke was re-appointed by Obama. The Fed is, of course, not part of the administration but rather an independent agency.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…was a major error. It allowed him to be painted as a traitor to his boss. Being an ambassador for an administration means supporting their policies, and if you can’t in good conscience support the foreign policy of Obama, it would be better not to serve than to give anyone the ammunition to discredit you as being disloyal. Given his comments about China’s Internet Generation, we can assume that Huntsman was not a profound student of Chinese society while he was there, unfortunately, which further diminishes him.

circlegranch

so it’ll be interesting to see how that goes.

circlegranch

You are referring to the 70-80% of the Republican Party that has objectively reviewed records of governance and current experience of the candidates, right? Everybody except your 20-25% niche is crazy. At least you stated it openly and with apparent honesty.

In a country where the majority rules, its always fascinating to be in the majority, yet lumped into a group and labeled insultingly by the minority. The ruling class, or 25% of the Party/RNC, are the smartest people in the country. Everyone with differing views is crazy. And stupid.

heraklios

.

heraklios

.

circlegranch

he isn’t giving the 3 Republican governors that served as MA governor before him much credit, is he? He is slamming all 3 of them for being non-conservative and big govt/big spenders?

Scope

is not the result of the lawsuit that he filed on Tues. Perry filed another suit yesterday, in a different court, asking for an emergency injunction in order to get his name on the ballot. The hearing is a fact finding event, in order to see what the both parties to the suit are arguing over. There will likely not be any news or decisions coming out of the hearing. I promise everything will be delayed as long as possible until it is impossible because of time constraints.

I’ve read this morning that Gingrich said that he hired a paid signature gatherer that turned in over 1,500 false signatures, and that that was what kept him off the ballot. I still have not heard anything about the Perry signatures, if they any of those were false also.

I think it’s interesting that some are saying he was incompetent because he could have spent some money, and paid people to gather signatures for him. His lawsuit speaks to the fact that he couldn’t bring in his own people from out of state to collect signatures for him. There has already been a lawsuit in the past from an agency who hired paid signature gatherers who turned in false signatures for another candidate running for a local office. Since this seems to be a problem in other states as well, paid people getting false signatures, I now understand why Perry has made that a central theme to one of his lawsuits.

sunshinek67

a Mitt Romney nomination for GOP; the potential of nominating SCOTUS in an 8 year term Administration. He is Obama-lite. Period.

Wubbies World

he ran touting the Mass Miracle economy. The only problem is that the Mass Miracle economy was due to the passing of proposition 2 1/2 where property taxes got cut to 2 1/2 percent of valuation. The funny thing is that Dukakis opposed its passage but it was on the ballot and it was voted in. Then he ran on the idea he was responsible for it.

circlegranch

.

tnguy

I don’t care for Romney. I think his conservatism is generally fake, what little conservative principles he is actually claiming at this point.

But the class warfare – and this huge fear of the class warfare that will be used against him in the general – I’ve seen directed at Romney the last few weeks is downright sickening to me.

Really? We’re going to be concerned that the media will show pictures of his mansion? We’re going to worry about them highlighting his laying off employees at Bain Capital? We need to disqualify him because he’s been financially successful? Perhaps I’m the oddball here, but I prefer candidates who have been successful. Should we be looking for candidates with a history of failure? Or some 40 yr old who can’t find a job and is living in his parents’ basement? Or go to real extremes and nominate a bum or panhandler who’s never had a job?

I find that line of thinking repugnant, even if it’s just the concern that it won’t play well in the general. I look for success in a candidate. And any candidate with any significant private sector experience at all is probably going to have laid employees off at some point. In fact, one of the reasons I hope for a conservative president is that he’ll do that very thing to many highly-paid gov’t bureacrats and other useless fed gov’t employees.

It’s time we stopped worrying about media reaction to this and that and the other, and instead focused on right and wrong. Our failure as conservatives and republicans is not that we have not appropriately handled the media in campaigns or in selecting candidates most adept at dealing with the media. Our real failure is in teaching, influencing, and winning over our fellow Americans at a personal level, which includes our continuously voting for candidates who we know will ultimately not represent what we really stand for. Nothing will really change as long as we repeatedly go for the lesser of two evils and refuse to draw a line in the sand.

sethellis

Warren Buffet’s approach to investing is very different. He targets companies that are already doing well, but are undervalued. Companies that are good and solid, but haven’t been noticed by the rest of wall street yet. Don’t be fooled by the angel persona you see of him out in the news though. He’s still a shark. His reputation gives him a unique position to negotiate from. He is therefore able to purchase the companies for a much lower price than anyone else can get.

Both are legitimate investment strategies that serve a unique purpose in the economy.

billyd

All Romney needs to say is that the plant was losing money, Bain assisted Ampad with purchacing SMC in an attempt to turn the facility around and make it profitable again. Ampad attempted to negotiate a reasonable wage scale with the Union, and the Union refused. Due to the unions refusal to accept the actual financial conditions at the facility, the plant was closed. Then mention how it was a shame because Bain has had success in the area of office supplies though a company you may have heard of…. Staples.

sethellis

It bothers me when I see other conservatives buying into Ted Kennedy’s argument that there is something immoral with Bain’s business. It separates those that really understand how capitalism works, and those that are just “mad as hell”. Its disappointing to see so many in the party fooled by this line of attack.

However, in the general election it is a fight I welcome. Obama has been trying to channel populist attacks since the day he took office. He has demonized business at every turn, and it is a central component to why our economy has been so weak. His populism never really caught on. It has come to the point where nobody really even cares what he says about it anymore. Even when occupy wall street reared its head the public eventually dismissed this vision for our country.

Romney has framed the argument perfectly. This is not just about the actions of one company. This is a battle for the soul of America. Will we become a society of entitlement or a society of opportunity?

Some here claim that we should avoid nominating Romney because of this vulnerability. I say that this vulnerability is exactly why we SHOULD nominate him. This is a battle we have to have. If we shy away from it the socialists have already won.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

….his crony capitalism background allows Republicans to get clobbered with (hypocrtical) populist attacks from Obama while Mittens’ Romneycare takes (non-hypocritical) attacks on Obamacare off the table while Romney acts squishy and takes conservatives for granted and avoids stirring up the Republican base. How could anyone who is remotely sensible want that sort of outcome. If you’re spoiling for an anti-socialist fight, do it with someone who takes the sting out of the populist angle and can consistently show Obama as an out-of-touch socialist elite without trunkfuls of baggage of his (or her) own.

papabear

I have no skin in this game. However, you are looking desperate for a line of attack. If you keep making extended attacks on the smallest pretext, NA won’t be the only one who tags you as a troll

romansdaughter

for trying to keep them honest. Yeah I heard that on Morning Joe that Newt admitted that he had a lot of false signatures. Weird, since isn’t he residing in Virginia now? It would seem he shouldn’t have had such a problem with finding honest signature gatherers. Maybe that was Perry’s problem too, since he couldn’t use his own guys??

gekster

this to anyone who disagrees with him or doesn’t see things his way.
It’s just him, and there is no cure.

lalupa

Why is that so hard to understand? Gates served our country by staying on. What part of patriotism people do not get? Tribalism is alive and well, I see.

lalupa

Why is that so hard to understand? Gates served our country by staying on. What part of patriotism people do not get? Tribalism is alive and well, I see.

crosley

This sudden Occupy Wall Street rhetoric from Red State is disturbing. So this is why conservatives shouldn’t nominate Romney, because he invested in a company that had to layoff union workers? What about all the companies he invested in that created jobs?

Every candidate we run against Obama is going to be attacked for something, get used to it. I’d rather go into battle with “this” as opposed to a dunce like Rick Perry who now says abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or the serial adulterer Newt Gingrich who’s married to his mistress and was a lobbyist for Freddie Mac.

You’re never going to convince GOP voters that Romney is not the most electable candidate, that’s why he’s winning and will put this thing away in a few weeks. Every single poll shows that Obama would stomp anyone else, especially Rick Perry that polls in Palin territory.

joshdunn

Thank you for calling him out on his nonsense.

If anyone read Repairman_Jack’s excellent, EXCELLENT diary on the Colorado strategy, he would see that we, the Republican Party, have no strategy in place to do to Dems in the swing states what the Dems and their rich friends have done to us in Colorado.

People like Nathaniel (and many others) are part of the problem. They want to sandbag the only GOP candidate who polls show has a legitimate shot at beating Obama for their own selfish reasons.

If there is a Republican president in 2013, his name will not be Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry.

And, frankly, I don’t care what Obama throws at Mitt Romney. They threw all kinds of lies and mischaracterizations against Ronald Reagan, too. Reagan beat Carter in 40 states.

We can do it again.

satchman3

Take a look at some polling results for example Question 30 of the recent CNN poll.

The group of people who won’t vote for Mitt is smaller than the group of people who won’t vote for Newt which is smaller than the group of people who won’t vote for Perry, Bachmann, and Paul respectively.

This idea that a large group of voters are rejecting Mitt is a creation of his opponents.

romansdaughter

nt

joshdunn

You already showed your hand. Don’t you realize that Obama is going to run negative ads against any Republican he faces?

Do you have some personal reason for hating Mitt Romney? If so, what is it?

If Obama wants to use ads that were designed to influence Massachusetts voters, let him.

Romney will use ads against Obama that simply point out the fact that millions of Americans lost their jobs after Obama took over and millions more Americans can’t find work.

My advice to Romney is simple: focus on the economy. Obama can’t explain away his mismanagement of the economy.

satchman3

What part of Mitt’s background includes crony capitalism??

joshdunn

Especially if it is a decisive win.

Unlike all of the other candidates, Romney can lose in Iowa and still become the nominee, especially if he loses to Ron Paul, a candidate who is unacceptable to most conservatives.

I’m impressed that Iowa Republicans are looking at electability and likeability as they make up their minds about the 2012 candidates. I’m even more impressed with the New Hampshire Republicans who are able to see that Romney is the Republican that Obama fears most. This is why the White House has been consistently targeting Romney since Rick Perry’s fall.

I’m planning on voting for the candidate who gives Obama the most indigestion. And I could not care less what that candidate’s religious preference is.

heraklios

…

heraklios

…

joshdunn

I think that the debates and the media coverage has been very antagonistic to candidates like Rick Perry. But Mitt Romney has also had to deal with some ugly attacks, many of them coming from people who consider themselves conservatives.

I like every single Republican who is running this year, for different reasons. Yet the media has already successfully framed this contest as a parade of horribles. Remember 2008 when the Democrats were running 3 very inexperienced senators for president (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards)? Why wasn’t the media actively poking fun at all 3 of them? Obama would have been the “scarecrow” candidate (the one with no brain). Hillary would have been the “tin man” candidate (the one with no heart). And Edwards would have been lampooned as a closeted pretty boy who was far more concerned about his hair than about the average American. Where were all of the attacks and SNL/David Letterman jokes that all of these candidates deserved? No where.

The SNL parodies of Rick Perry played an active role in killing his candidacy. Similar parodies would have damaged Mitt Romney’s campaign beyond repair. But Perry did himself some damage when he told the moderator that he would eliminate three federal departments and then only came up with the names of two federal departments. A Democrat could have gotten away with such a mistake. But a conservative Republican cannot make a mistake like that and get away with it. Not with this media.

I feel confident that Obama’s aloofness and arrogance on the economy will cost him the presidency next year.

bk

I had read a while back that he liked to prey on family businesses. I found the ancient article that talks about it at HE. He sounds like just as much of a shark as people at Bain or the like, just from a different angle.

joshdunn

If “70-80% of the GOP is against Mitt Romney (who is currently tied with Newt Gingrich as the front-runner in national polls) than 70-80% of the GOP is also against Newt Gingrich.

You and many other people here need to take a statistics class so that you can see that your constant referencing of the 70%-80% of the GOP that is against Romney is a false meme based on the false notion that such a group of Republicans exist.

There are many Republicans who currently support another candidate (other than Romney) or who are undecided, who will eventually support Romney after their candidate withdraws or as they (the Republican voters) come to a decision on whom they want as their candidate.

Nice try with the whole “lying with numbers” bit, though. You’ve probably confused a few people today.

satchman3

Who are these companies who lost jobs?? Bain took Staples from startup to thousands of stores.

Turnarounds often do involve job losses. If a company is headed for failure then a successful turnaround really saves jobs in the long run while reducing jobs in the near term..

lalupa

We are 11 months out… no one knows whan the dominant issues of the 2012 campaign will be. All Obama needs is decent jobs numbers in September and October 2012 and Mitt’s sole campaign rationale is finished.

Personally, I am more interested in fundamentally reforming the federal government than defeating Obama. What is the point of defeating Obama is we are going to continue on the same big government trajectory?

acat

I’ll ask the mind control laser technicians to get right on that….

/sarc

Look, politics is bloody, it’s not beanbag. So far, the only candidate who’s had the stones to go into the lions’ dens of Letterman and Jon Stewart’s shows is a guy named Rick Perry.

Why hasn’t Romney done this? Why not Bachmann or Santorum or Ron Paul?

Get serious.

Mew

acat

It seems pretty obvious.

Mew

cbartlett

The most consistent negative thing I hear about Perry is NOT a lack of conservative values or policies but that “he can’t win a debate against Obama”. Perry has struggled to denounce other Republicans – especially in 30 second debate sound bytes – but his consistently conservative positions would be a stark contrast to “… the most destructive, corrupt, economically incompetent, fiscally irresponsible, business destroying author of the biggest assault on individual liberty in our nations history. ” (thank you Marcus!) I wish the public could see that part of him in action.

acat

who landed a shot on Willard.

Remember when everyone expected Pawlenty to land the first shot and he wiffed?

I think Perry would do just fine against the Teleprompter-In-Chief. Debates, after all, are unscripted.

Mew

acat

Here in the real world, though, we understand that sometimes it’s just the wrong time to make an argument.

Unemployment is fudged to 9% (but actually closer to 18% counting those who have stopped even looking…) so it just seems like it might be the wrong time to argue that layoffs are a Good Thing.

Mew

lalupa

over the next 11 months.

lalupa

over the next 11 months.

acat

Obama doesn’t.

Otherwise, they would have improved by now.

Mew

Spartan4Life

Don’t be afraid. Obama is the phoniest populist of all time.

I’ll take Mitt’s business success against Obama’s fancy private HS in Hawaii and Occidental/Columbia/Harvard education(paid for by the taxpayers, btw) anytime.

Americans disdain pointy headed liberals most of all. Especially failed pointy headed liberals.

Spartan4Life

Don’t be afraid. Obama is the phoniest populist of all time.

I’ll take Mitt’s business success against Obama’s fancy private HS in Hawaii and Occidental/Columbia/Harvard education(paid for by the taxpayers, btw) anytime.

Americans disdain pointy headed liberals most of all. Especially failed pointy headed liberals.

Marcus_Traianus

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It?s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.

Rasmussen

Furthermore to my point above about Mr. Obama’s record and a further point being, we need to rally behind whoever our eventual candidate becomes.

acat

I’ve said before I will vote for Romney if he’s the nominee.

I do not believe Willard the best candidate as he is at best an insipid and uninspiring silver-spooned wonk. (and at worst, a thin-skinned self-important {ahem})

Until he wins the nomination, I will continue to point out his flaws.

Mew

acat

Trust fund babies need not apply.

Mew

Ausonius

The fix is in: as Steve Martin says in “Sgt. Bilko” he prefers to bet on boxing matches where he knows the winner in advance. It’s more efficient that way.

The polls are already rising for MAObama by polling more Democrats than Republicans and Independents.

Employment will rise by disregarding the people hanging around the second-third-and-fourth hand stores buying clothes from the aluminum cans they cashed in. Employment will rise by redefining part-timers at 20 or 30 hours per week as the “new full-time” worker.

The economy will rise by “adjusting” figures of growth upward constantly, especially right before the election.

And then they will be re-adjusted downward, no matter who is elected.

APA Guy

…with a GOP House pulling in the reigns. As we all know, Obama “jobs” numbers would have to come from public-sector employment, not private-sector job creation that sustains a growing economy. THAT is the fundamental flaw in his being that will doom him in 2012 regardless of how the employment numbers are spun before the election.

acat

It worked under Clinton because the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble meant Joe Sixpack had more money in his 401k or his house that he could move into his pocket.

It didn’t work under Carter because there was no bubble.

My read is that Solyndra, Fisker, et al were Obama’s attempts to inflate a green bubble .. but they failed to really get going.

The numbers may improve, but if Joe knows he’s got less in his pocket, he’s not going to like the incumbent.

This doesn’t mean Obama is weak. It means there’s a large chink in Obama’s armor that the right candidate can exploit.

Just as Bob Dole was the wrong candidate to challenge Clinton, we must choose the right one to challenge Obama.

Or, and this is still a possibility, to challenge {Generic Democrat}. They could still bait-and-switch us if they think it’ll let ‘em keep the Senate.

Mew

Marcus_Traianus

Romney is now steadily gathering support. Other candidates? Virtually flashes in the pan, including it appears Newt.

I suppose there are some legitimate folks out there truly putting candidates records and capabilities into perspective. But they are far outnumbered by the people with flamethrowers who care about nothing but their own candidate and by extension nothing about the party and our eventual nominee.

They are also being helped along by Democrats? Why, you say? Well, I would answer…because they are attempting to gain legitimacy for illegitimate arguments they will use down the road by getting Republicans to use their stupid, foolish, untrue arguments during the primary.

After we pick our nominee, you are going to wish you had a nickel for every tome a Democrat says; well during the primary so-and-so (insert Republican name or publication here) said Romney this, Gingrich that, Santorum this, etc. etc. All as the Independents, et al nod their heads in agreement.

Obama is famous for this approach, mainly because he and his speechwriters can’t think for themselves and are Alinsky-ites. They co-opt the arguments of others for which they sow the seeds. It’s really not hard to figure this stuff out.

acat

well before the rest of the country caught up. (and was frequently told “Nah, he *can’t* be that bad!”.)

Two simple facts.

First. This far out, head-to-head is useless.

Second. Romney is not the best candidate that we’ve got.

Mew

tomatin

He polls better against Obama. Well of course he does. He’s been running for president near on six years. Polls now are about name recognition and the voters who will decide the election are tuned out until next summer.

Obama is going to run negative ads against any candidate. Of course but these ads against Romney are effective in this climate. One of America’s top issues now is corporations shipping jobs overseas and Romney is the poster child for that issue. Whether it’s entirely accurate does not matter. Obama won’t even be able to run many direct ads versus the other candidates because the only attacks he will have are vapid personal attacks.

But the worse thing is Romney because of all of his flip flops and zero integrity will offer no contrast to Obama. Republicans only win when they can show a contrast between the candidates in fact GWB almost lost in 2000 because he didn’t make enough contrast with Gore.

The debates between Romney and Obama will be an utter disaster for Romney. On about every issue Obama can say Romney agreed with me at some time and the worst part is it would be true. Romney will try to make some wimpy statement about how Romneycare is not Obamacare and all Obama has to say is you were for Obamacare before you were against Obamacare or something to that effect and game over for Romney.

I guess people have not noticed that Romney is using the same lame attack strategy against Obama McCain did. The Obama’s not for America stuff might sell well with conservatives but not for the general public. The public knows Obama took out OBL and continued most of Bush’s policies on national defense. Even the socialism charges will stick less this time around. The GOP candidate will need to hit Obama on the economy with credibility not rhetoric. Most of all the GOP candidate needs to have a new vision like GWB did. Romney is not that guy. He has neither the charisma or inclination to put forth a vision. He’s a status quo/establishment guy.

Vegas_Rick

There is absolutely no comparison. Somewhere between flip and flop, Romney may have occasionally landed on a conservative position by default. There is no evidence that this silver spooned, effete, milk toast, flake ever actually HELD a conservative position.

bogeyman

is run an ad showing one of those car dealerships that were eliminated for purely political reasons by the government takover and have the owner and all the employees crying for the cameras BOO HOO HOO! BARRY STOLE OUR BUSINESS AND NOW WE ARE SO OUT OF WORK….IT IS JUST SO UNFAIR!

Do this right after the convention, like Lee Atwater did to the Dukakis with the Boston harbor ad. Beat him to the punch.

snowshooze

We may dismiss that as it is already out the window.

And where I have stated I tried to factor out marketability in my selection, but in Romney’s case, I can’t do that.

Held to that standard, he won’t do well.

The polls at this point do not project into the real race.

We still don’t have it sorted.

Johnson is in as a Libertarian. That is only the first, and he would have him some Romney. He will get him some Obama too.

But the Indies will have someone pulling off votes too.

Romney is not our best horse on those grounds.

lizzie

including this one.

which is why I will not even protest vote for Romney in the general election.
Since I will NOT vote for Obama, what does the GOP accomplish? (I am still a disillusioned fiscal conservative dem wanting the GOP to once again be true fiscal conservatives. Tom Coburn is now my favorite US Senator. And I am 100% for Rick Perry)

It is not just Bain Capital – it is how the Harvard MBAs rose in 1978 to use Leveraged Buyouts to de-industrialize America because these companies were not profitable ENOUGH. By 1978, you could get 10% annual yield on a savings account because of the Fed’s Volcker’s determination to strangle the inflation that had DOUBLED prices of everything between 1973-76.

I was there in 1978, when American Can had a whole wing of Harvard MBAs deciding that manufacturing was not profitable enough, AmCan would transform itself into a financial services firm, which they did, ultimately becoming Primerica and then infesting CitiGroup.
By 2000, I was witnessing the 22-year legacy of one of those manufacturing plants, in Parchment, Michigan – a highly profitable high value-added plant that was about to be shutdown because they could not sustain the LBO debt that had been added to the plant overhead from AmCan’s first LBO spin-off in 1978. The debt had grown and grown with every subsequent LBO. If not for that artificial LBO debt that made fortunes for private equity sharks, that one plant was highly profitable.

It is not just what Romney did at Bain Capital. I got KKR’d twice out of my career. Both companies were highly profitable, but KKR overpaid, and once they had stolen the profits from their annual fees, the financial engineering left tens of thousands of people destroyed.

Where was Romney in calling for his competitors in private equity to try to focus on what he says were his objectives? It is a myth that private equity ‘saves weak companies’. A total myth.

Venture capitalists start companies – that is the part of Bain that can claim Staples.

Investors like Warren Buffet buy undervalued companies and do keep them for the longterm, and make them more efficient and grow them

Anyway, thanks Erick, for the photos of the Romney homes. I am horrified by the stonework hot tub in Utah. Yuk. And, at least Romney probably does know he owns four homes.

There is NO WAY Romney can win, and he will have ZERO coattails.

All Romney has going for him in these polls is name recognition.

John Kerry got Swiftboated because he had turned anti-war after his Vietnam service. But, at least he had served. Romney and his five sons all avoided military service. Romney is the worst possible nominee that either party could have on the ballot in 2012. Where is his leadership? He does not even understand the real economy – manufacturing DOES matter, and Romney’s laissez faire approach to the ongoing housing crisis is another huge problem.
I know that this breaches the TEA Party litmus test, but, to be blunt, I would rather pay my mortgage directly to the Fed so they can earn 4% profit on my interest than to pay my mortgage to Bank of America at 6.375% while BoA borrows money from the Fed at 0% just so BoA can meet the Wall Street paradign of profitably that started this whole mess in 1978. I would prefer my interest payments go directly to the Fed because that profit goes directly into the US treasury.

I am tired of supporting the Lifestyles of Wall Street.

America can not survive until 2016.

jeffperren

“every poll shows voters still do not connect Barack Obama to his policies. ”

I’m neither cynical nor naive, so I’m not sure what to make of this. A poll or two that implied this would be helpful.

If true, however, I’d be very curious to know why this might be. I know most voters don’t pay much attention to politics but in the Internet age there’s a limit to ignorance (if not foolishness or lack of ability to think).

Ausonius

In the late 1940′s Catholic History books for the grade and high schools spoke of a Catholic Capitalism, whereby workers agreed to do their best for a company that treated them fairly and paid them as much as possible, so that the company could compete and make a reasonable profit.

Thus would union greed and violence be prevented, along with unions’ diddling of Socialism/Communism, which the Church opposed.

But it depended on a social contract where nobody got too greedy, and apparently was too idealistic.

Jesus used a whip on the traders in the temple, not for selling and making a profit, but for how and where they were doing it!

When the building of casinos and the spread of lotteries is seen as a “solution” to unemployment and to governmental spending, rather than the building of factories and the restriction of governmental spending, we know that America has drunk the elixir of moronism.

As I mentioned above, “failure to communicate” this righteous anger by our Republican nominee will mean the loss of people like Lizzie to the Conservative cause, and failure to solve the indebtedness by rewarding thrift, by rewarding proper speculating in the founding of businesses and penalizing the gambling by day-trading and the destruction of assets, will mean the failure of America long-term.

1stRichard

Populism dates back to Rome, the Populares Party and is mentioned as a major factor in the downfall of the great Roman Empire. Populism is considered as being the roots of socialism. The Populist Party in the US, originally the People’s Party is now part of the socialist Democratic Party. Please be careful with those words, it is highly offensive and disrespectful to consider the Tea Party has anything to do with Populism!

katem

The “traitor” claim is ridiculous. Words have meaning and that’s not one that should be used lightly.

Agree about supporting the foreign policy of your country while abroad. (That goes for others too, not just ambassadors.) It doesn’t mean he couldn’t have disagreed privately with the administration. He was questioned about that topic on Bret Baier’s show a few weeks ago and he explained a tariff issue with which he disagreed with the administration. He said he discussed his views on it with people in the administration.

Not sure what is intended by the last sentence. Huntsman’s debate comments about the impact that bloggers in China will have on the government over time have sounded reasonable to me. Huntsman has a lot of experience in Asia, not only China, and knows his subject matter.

katem

were very effective against Romney in 1994 (regardless of their merits, any counterpoints or mitigating factors, etc). Before they started airing, Romney’s poll numbers were pretty good. If I recall correctly, Kennedy’s campaign brought a busload of laid off workers to Boston to speak out against Bain/Romney and that was widely viewed as ending Romney’s Senate campaign.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

….targeting struggling companies, charging expensive fees that benefit a few cronies (like him) and then bankrupting the companies and causing thousands of lost jobs (which is corporate parasitism), and then having his firm being among the firms to profit from government bailouts? Ergo, crony capitalism.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

…as he has no tactical choice, considering he’s got nothing positive to offer. I just find it offensive and unacceptable to want a fight on socialist with someone who (Romney) doesn’t have anything better to offer either except a corrupt business career and a turn as an unsuccessful career politician. I think that everyone in the field other than Paul is superior to Romney, and people thinking that Romney is so highly electable or superior is pure hogwash.

http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

It depends on how you use it. I consider some aspects of populism (like its anti-intellectualist tone) to be troublesome, but any time you have ordinary people looking to support an insurgency against a corrupt elite you have some element of populsim, and being an insurgent in that respect and having a long tradition of supporting outsiders against corrupt insiders, I don’t necessarily have a problem with that side of populism. Like most words, it depends heavily on what you mean by it. And the Tea Party, in its support of grassroots voter involvement and insurgent campaigns, does have some aspects of populism in it, whether you like it or not.

tomatin

Please play again.

tomatin

Because at some point he had the same view Obama had with his policies.

1stRichard

Revenue for the government changed from taxes to fees, that Mass Miracle economy was only some funny math. There are too many skeletons in Romney?s and the Republican?s closet from 9|11 to gun laws, if these come out of the closet and spun? When you say conservative from Mass you must take in to account the political spectrum here, when you say Republican and conservative together it means a hundred miles on the other side of the fence. (Democrat left here is a thousand miles on the other side of the fence.)

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Ted Kennedy Prepared Barack Obama’s Attack Ads

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL