From a different time but interesting comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRmcN1z_qOM&feature=related

the 5-17 record is a terribly orchestrated statistic. Brings to mind the old Simpson’s quote. Homer: “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”

It includes the primaries and not the caucuses from 2008. That’s like counting all the state by state votes in the general. The primary is one election – to be the party nominee – you either win or lose it.

Romney ran in the following elections:

1994 MA Senate primary (win, but not meaningful)
1994 MA Senate general (loss, but not meaningful)
2002 MA Gov primary (win, moderately meaningful)
2002 MA Gov general (win, meaningful)
2008 US Pres primary (loss, meaningful)

That’s 5 election, and he’s 3-5. In the meaningful ones he’s 1-1.

That’s not to say he can argue he’s not a career politician – he’s been running for office since 1994 – that’s 18 years. Pretty much a career. Sure he wrote a book in between two presidential elections (typical politician move.) I consider the Olympic Games in Utah a pseudo gov’t job. He did go back to Bain Capital after the 1994 race, so take a few years off. That’s still 14 or 15 years in public sector.

I think he can credibly argue he’s not a Washington DC insider – an argument Santorum and Newt cannot make. He can argue that he had a career in the private sector (and a highly distinguished one, even if it has bad populist optics) – something Newt, Perry, and Santorum cannot. On the other hand those guys can argue they understand even better than Romney how politics and policy impact, but they haven’t mostly because it’s an insider argument I guess.

I’ve been a fan of the Newt and have been on his mailing list for about a dozen years. Having said that I’ve probably only read his mail a dozen times over that period because he can be such a pompous windbag. And I don’t support his run for President. In fact his comments are really annoying me. He has a video coming attacking Romney for job losses at Bain companies. Yet isn’t the Newt going to cut jobs in the Government if he is elected? He says he believes in capitalism but not in the Wall St version. Well I’d like to know more about what he means by that. Does he support the bucket load of additional regulations put out last year opposed and opposed by the republicans in congress? Look, the Newt has been running for President ever since I’ve been on his mailing list and is still a second tier candidate. His three marriages is an offense to my wife and most other thinking women. We are appalled he is collecting up to $20m from a casino owner to finance his campaign. He’s got to pack it in. He is really offending me by how he is running his campaign.

He will have more serious ‘gaffes’. He is a very smart man, but is prone to saying odds things, that will hurt him if he is succesful later on. I live in ‘Texas and have watched him for a long time. He does have a problem at times thinking on his feet. If he is the nominee you will see it again. If you can handle that then ok. I know that Newt is a better choice and is the only one Mitt fears. There will be more millions spent to discredit Newt in the days to come. There is a reason for that. He can beat Mitt and Obama

…which will also be used to analyze the parent-piece….

* {denotes programmatic breaks}

NEWT comment on Mitt: need bold RR-conservative with economic plan vs. moderate-Mass. Noted in handout that he’s “not electable” softened to “would have great difficulty.”
MITT replied he has quality record, created jobs, endorsements illustrating accomplishments.
SANTORUM comment on Mitt: Noted he refused to run for re-election; in contrast, Santorum ran for re-election. Cited his ’94 victory compared with Mitt’s loss to Teddy Kennedy. He was reminded of endorsement of Romney over McCain.
MITT didn’t run for reelection because, otherwise, it would have been “all about me.” Testy exchange with Santorum [you won’t run for re-election if POTUS?] yielded answer to his query [yes]. Portrayed desire for term-limits.
NEWT noted Mitt ignored red-light [because he’s the front-runner]. And he then noted he was disingenuous when he claimed he was only sporadically running [“pious bologna”].
MITT said his father advised him to only get involved in politics if he could make a difference [and had already raised a family]; admitted he wasn’t going to beat Teddy Kennedy, but felt compelled to oppose him [and that he had to take-out a mortgage to beat him].
PAUL doesn’t believe Mitt is true Conservative, per review of issues [TARP, Fed, RomneyCare, overseas spending] instead of character.
MITT said he has conservative record and documented views in his book.
PERRY said we must beat BHO, involve TPM, dismantle big-spending D.C. [referring to all competitors]. He noted BHO has poured gas on fire; problem existed but was exacerbated. Emphasized importance of manifesting TPM movement’s fundamentals.
MITT wants to convey passionate need to get USA back on-course.
HUNTSMAN attacked Mitt for attacking his loyalty to America during last night’s debate.
MITT replied in partisan fashion, and…
HUNTSMAN said America was divided due to attitudes such as that; regarding painful spending-cuts, he endorsed the Ryan Plan [entitlements including means-testing in SS/Medicare, cut spending rather than adhering to links to GDP].
SANTORUM concurred with these potential-cuts, citing Welfare Reform.
NEWT thought Ryan was a bridge-too-far, noted Wyden plan [just introduced] as transition. Would change bureaucracy to place “pain” onto crooks.
PERRY said he would cut bureaucrats in three departments [!]; wants to create jobs rather than focusing upon government assistance…by altering environment. Has executive governing experience to create jobs [only one]. {Dick Morris noted inherent humor in his presentation.}
*
SANTORUM said we should implement Ryan [premium-support] as Congress already has, comparable to Medicare-Voucher; wants to emphasize people should make choices. {THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR HIM WITH SENIORS.}
MITT opposes tax-increases [supporting Norquist over Buffett] due to need to shrink government [e.g., OBamaCare]; would NOT change entitlements for current Seniors.
HUNTSMAN supports elimination of deductions [loopholes supported by lobbyists].
NEWT must work with opposition [citing experience] and got 1/3 of D’s to support RR tax-cuts. Must seek common-ground rather than compromising fundamentals. It can be done.
MITT claimed he was able to do so, as well, when he exerts unilateral power to cut spending [after having been granted this power by his 85%-D legislature]. Cited charter-school achievements, too.
PAUL works with other groups due to need to emphasize freedom; would only implement “pain” on those who have benefitted via status-quo.
SANTORUM cited welfare reform achievement. {Dick Morris said he was bit-player; Clinton did it all.”
HUNTSMAN discussed trust and need for term-limits.
PERRY agreed with need to continue discussion of leadership; when would you buck party? [makes them uncomfortable when cutting spending.] Biggest problem is not overseas [per Dr. Paul] because it’s actually bloated government [citing part-time Congress and implementation of term-limits] plus balanced-budgets. Would this be threatening to GOP? YES, because a bunch of people up here say they are conservative but their records say otherwise. {Dick Morris: “Perry’s outside theme is good. So is term limits. But to him they are just sound bites.” Guzzardi asks: “How many jobs has Morris helped to create?”}
SANTORUM attacked Paul for never having passed anything of consequence [despite desirability of his economic plan]; then attacked Paul for potential to implement Foreign Policy of neo-isolationism.
PAUL replied by defending status [“we don’t accept elections overseas”?] of opposing nation-building; also wants to change monetary policy [increasing support for auditing the Fed].
*
HUNTSMAN supports heating-oil subsidy, but emphasized need to undermine oil distribution monopoly to achieve energy independence.
PAUL opposes subsidies philosophically, preferring deregulation and noted prices rise when government prints $. {Dick Morris: “Ron Paul is wrong. Energy prices are a function of global demand and OPEC not monetary policy.”}
MITT would not make D.C. responsible for social safety-net, instead bundling and sending back to states.
MITT advocated more support for Gays previously, as illustrated by his appointments [executive/judicial], but still opposes same-sex marriage.
SANTORUM [“surprised it’s coming to me” testily] feels all Gays should be respected, but wouldn’t change laws to allow for adoption/marriage.
PERRY sees right-to-work as federal issue; endorsed DeMint’s effort to repeal state-level compliance. He is pro-job [taxes/regulations].
MITT supports unions [training, etc.] and supports right-to-work [and would pull-back government unions’ power by tying reimbursement to private-sector levels].
SANTORUM defended opposition to right-to-work due to PA’s status.
*
NEWT would open-up additional energy supplies to increase competition and cut costs; BHO weakened us against Iran.
MITT blames BHO for prolonged/tepid recovery, noting NLRB is stacked with labor-stooges. Also attacked ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank because they hurt good-guys [rather than just getting bad-guys].
MITT views EPA regs regarding whether NH is Mass’s “tail-pipe” need study; would not discount Federal role in this regard; emphasized need to develop fracking [citing PA].
NEWT views “Environmental Solutions Agency” [rather than radical/imperious/uncooperative EPA] as problem-solving that wouldn’t depend upon regs. [such as “dust”-related efforts]. Would attack efforts in Arizona [incentivize change, not punish it] to forget this is occurring in desert [got applause].
PERRY endorsed McCain over BHO’s socialism, in-variance with Founding Fathers; emphasizes 10th Amendment.
SANTORUM said vote for Medicare D [no funding] supplanted concern with HSA and Medicare Advantage.
PAUL said entitlements [including healthcare] are not “rights.” Only “right” is “right to liberty.” Opposes affirmative-action [women, blacks, gays, etc.].
HUNTSMAN views “leave free or die” [NH motto] as manifesting recognition of life/liberty/happiness-pursuit. Doesn’t like bashing/vilifying [of unions, etc.] and likes unifying [attacking trust-deficit].
*
30-second answers request:
{Note Perry was ignored, while Santorum was queried twice.}
SANTORUM on Iran: why can’t we live with nuclear iran? Would push to war? Because it’s a theocracy. Quotes Ahmadinejad as seeking martyrdom. Pakistan? Not a theocracy, but still a serious threat [BHO bungled].
NEWT on Mitt’s super-PAC, now claiming Mitt is “predator” [Bain] and “liar.” Consistent? Based on facts.
MITT agreed super-PAC is dominated by his aides, but can’t direct them; those that were seen were correct [citing Pelosi, loss of speakership, etc.]…and then said Newt’s rhetoric was over-the-top.
SANTORUM would use bully-pulpit to shape American culture by emphasizing family.
PAUL would use bully-pulpit by preaching Gospel of Liberty, as per Founders/Framers [$, property, defense].

…and let’s see if something new emerges in the process….

*

Newton’s Third Law is of-interest:

“Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.”

“To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction: or the forces of two bodies on each other are always equal and are directed in opposite directions.”

A more direct translation than the one just given above is:

LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. — Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other. If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in the next scholium. {“Principia” on page 20 of volume 1 of the 1729 translation.}

*

We know that the long-knives were out for Perry after he announced but—naïvete having been the entry-attitude—we didn’t know the profundity of the fear he struck into the GOP-Establishment. As transient as were the initial issues [Ponzi Scheme, Gardisil, tuition-break], all the moreso were the lost opportunities to tackle the underlying issues [jobs, economy, federalism]. Essentially, the equilibrium was threatened.

That’s why a “reaction” emerged, “equal and opposite.”

Indeed, “the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts,” for the existential crisis he triggered among the DC-insiders [and pretenders to this status] “triggered” an antipathy which rippled through the MSM/LSM/ELM [“Establishment Leaning Media”]. Actually, it was this last component that proved [via FNC] to be the most potent.

But the stabbed Governor decided last Thursday [while jogging] not to utter “Et tu, Fox? Then fall, Perry!” He is pushing back.

*

Our error was manifest when we ignored this sub-aphorism: “Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.” Essentially, the Perry-opposition was as drawn to his “outsider” status [to oppose it, of course] as was the Perry-advocacy motivated to proclaim it. Such symbiosis, if recognized, could have been prophylaxed via prior preparation of position-papers/strategic-contingencies, etc., but there was a compulsion to initiate the unique re-education of the electorate that this August announcement portended; the 10th Amendment had been ignored during the modern era of discourse.

This is why “If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.” Perry, on some level, NEEDED to maintain a taut-rope by being prepared to reply to anticipated reactions to his programme [as detailed in “Fed Up!”] before the “agenda” had been [now successfully] reformatted by his opponents.

Instead, because of laws-of-unintended-consequences [“If a body impinges upon another, and by its force changes the motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, toward the contrary part.”], Perry was buffeted by countervailing forces. We had not remembered Guzzardi ‘s adage: “We were playing checkers, foolishly, while they were playing chess.”

*

What is the remedy?

We must apply the tag-line principle [“The changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For, as the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies.”] We must “hinder” the reaction by insertion of “impediments” that could protect Perry while he continues to make his case unimpeded. We must focus on his themes, transitioning anything seemingly-tangential [including Faith-based ads, @ this point] into the focused message of GOOD GOVERNMENT.

…is that Mitt’s disingenuous presentation of his sense of patriotism has been punctured.

The initial foray was provided to illustrate that there are no available “reinforcements” for such an argument among most “Conservative” bloggers; subsequently, a comparable conclusion was drawn regarding broadcast-journalism.

The Newtonian Physics discussion was provided to illustrate how high the stakes have become [or rather, "have always been, although we didn't know it"] regarding how to strategize.

Now, quotations from the “paraphrased”-transcript can be used to illustrate why the “ad hominem” anti-Mitt foray was successful [as validated on PMSNBC, albeit not on FNC...predictably].

The “inevitability” argument has been forestalled, masked by hyped-up praise for Huntsman’s clean-intellect. That’s why Mitt was soooo wrong when he attacked the patriotism of his Chinese Ambassadorship [no matter how problematic his support for BHO's policies had become] based on a petty-partisan argument. And Chris Christie’s reinforcement ["one wonders whether he deviated into personal interest when lunching with visiting business-people"] was an extension of this error, for there is not a shred of proof to support such an accusation.

But Huntsman clearly is desperate, “pandering” ["HUNTSMAN supports heating-oil subsidy"] just as Santorum did in Iowa [ethanol subsidies]. This, again, illustrates why ON-THE-ISSUES, Perry is predominant.

*

What to do?

Perry issued his not-so-covert request, amplified by a piece on Politico about the silence of the TPM ["PERRY said we must beat BHO, involve TPM, dismantle big-spending D.C. (referring to all competitors). He noted BHO has poured gas on fire; problem existed but was exacerbated. Emphasized importance of manifesting TPM movement’s fundamentals."].

It’s time for Sarah, etc. to be aggressively invoked!

*

Mika noted this morning that Romney is now exhibiting an ‘amused condescension’ toward his fellow candidates. Another commentator also nailed it by saying Romney ‘just wants to get to Sept’ because in Sept, he can run as himself. He’s bored with this ultra right position he is forced to take in the primaries. He wants to get back to his comfort zone which is middle and to the left here and there. In the meantime, he must suffer we conservative fools.

I agree. That struck me as a strange, obviously grossly unfair contrivance (counting all the primaries rather than viewing it as one contest).

The individual states’ primaries do not each count as a separate election in that tally. The entire 2008 primary season counts as one primary for the purpose of that tally. However, the 2002 Gubernatorial election counts as 2 elections because he won the GOP primary and the general. In other words, counting it this way is actually helpful to Mitt.

iwantedtobeacareerpolitician.com

He slammed Perry early on for being a “career politician”.
I would say Perry was a winner, Mitt is a loser.

Here’s the funny thing.
Romney’s Dad was a Governor and almost a President.

There is no freakin’ way Romney was oblivious to political ambition. Nor is it something to be ashamed of. Romney’s political heritage is an asset if parlayed right.

Had he been more honest and said that he wanted to follow his father’s footsteps and serve in public life (which is really what is going on), after spending 20 years in private sector, he’d be fine.

His dancing around his passing up on 2006 election – which he did no to go into private life but so he could run for President fulltime – was as big a gaffe as Perry’s ‘oops’. Now this obvious fib will dog him.

for trying to take over 1/7th of the economy.

I dont think trying to stop others from over-talking you rises to that level of control freakishness.

This alone should have prevented Romney from ever being a national candidate.

The way you wrote it makes it sound like the house censured him. He stepped down, in no small part, because his party’s loss of 5 seats was seen as a referendum on his leadership.

My wife and I got up early (after a long drive the night before) to watch the debate. That one and the end of the one the night before are the only we’ve seen. The last hour was pre-empted by a paid church broadcast, so we went down in the basement to watch it stream on the PC.

My wife isn’t very interested in politics, btw, and will definitely vote for either party in any given race. She disliked Perry and Santorum, and liked Huntsman and Gingrich. She thought many of the things Paul said made sense.

Reagan first ran for political office (I’m not counting union offices and he was president of SAG) in 1966 and he was elected Governor of CA. He ran and was reelected in 1970.

He ran for President in 1968, achieved a plurality of primary votes nationally but lost to Nixon who had a solid national organization. He ran again in 1976, narrowly losing to Gerald Ford and won the nomination in 1980.

So, he ran a total of 5 times: won twice in CA, lost two Republican presidential primaries and won two presidential elections (I didn’t double count the primary/general elections where he won). The key here is that Reagan never change what he stood for, he had well formed core beliefs by the time he was Governor of CA and never wavered on them.

Romney, OTOH, has made a career out of running for public office and has held every possible position on every possible issue over the course of that career.

You’re right, he’s not a lifetime politician, he’s a lifetime wannabe.

with your ability to find “Reply To This”, I’m not wasting my time. I will note, that Reagan lost two primaries, won four general elections.

Mittens has lost 12 times. I suppose facts are pretty meaningless things to you. Oh well.

In fact, as long as Newt was in the House, he had a very conservative record. If you bother to actually do some research of his time in the Congress, Newt was the leader of the conservative faction and has a solid record as an elected official, both on the legislation he wrote/sponsored/supported and his leadership. Did he stray? You can probably find something you don’t like, but overall he is easily the most conservative member of the House Republican leadership from 1970 until today.

Newt flew off the rails after he left of Congress and his flaky period really did no one harm.

Santorum OTOH, was a big government, big spending disaster in the House and the Senate and took zero leadership on anything while he was there.

Romney has never had a conservative breath while holding elective office.