« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Unelectable Mitt Romney, Part II

By: streiff (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2011 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Earlier today I posted a story on why I believe that contrary to what the Establishment would have us believe that Mitt Romney is actually the least electable candidate in the GOP primary. As today is a slow day I decided to follow up this well-received post with a supplementary one.

Not only is Romney not exciting the GOP base… which he has to do if is to win the primary… but his history leaves him open to an attack that will resonate with middle America.

The above photo features a younger Mitt Romney (in the center, naturally) when he was part of Bain Capital. Get used to seeing it. It will be on busses and billboards across the nation if Romney wins the nomination. And it will be the image people take into the voting booth on Election Day.

(h/t to izoneguy for the tip)

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • texabama

    That adds an extra dimension to the picture.

    • heraklios

      yet they tear down one conservative after another if they start showing momentum in the polls

      • tomatin

        Right now all the bases energy is being spread around. So when the LSM attacks Bachman, Perry then Cain the defense is never coherent.

        Believe me the LSM is keeping it’s powder dry on Romney and guess what since the mainstream GOP did not nominate a true conservative the base will not defend Romney either.

        I know I won’t.

    • courdeleon02

      This article is completely ridiculous. Romney has consistently polled as the strongest GOP opponent against Obama. I think that the panic in the White House is directly related to articles like this. Articles that are meant to mislead the GOP base into nominating a so called real conservative. The real fact is that the WH fears Romney the most because of his more presidential appearance, his debating skills,his command of the issues and facts as well as his ability to win the independent voters. A hard line conservative would go down to defeat since most people in this country have moderate views not those of the radical right or the radical left. Romney is that perfect candidate. We would do well to nominate him for he is a sure winner. What is most important in this election is that Obama be defeated.

      • Tbone

        Take out “Romney” and you can insert McCain or Dole.

        Why don’t you become a rightwing Democrat, you sound like one.

        • snowshooze

          And that is part of why we are all so exited..

      • tomatin

        When Romney win’s the nomination the only argument for supporting him will be at least he’s not Obama.

        Then you have the gall to call this post a lame argument.

      • swamphermit

        If the liberal Romney is “Electable” in the Republican party, then I will definitely vote for Obama! Well, unless we get a Third Party candidate against both Obama and Romney. Romney and Huntsman should not be running on the Republican ticket.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          You’re really lost. dKos is the other door to the left.

      • clowngirl

        Acknowledging that a lot of bad press could bring down his support? Every time somebody, besides Romney, has come up in the polls the MSM has suddenly gotten very busy looking for negative stories. Even if there isn’t dirt there they go trying to create some. ( See the desperate attempt to smear Perry with “NiggerRock”.)

        It’s taken for granted that the front runner will undergo intense scrutiny, but somehow with Romney — who has be considered the front runner since day one — the scrutiny never happens – except on conservative sites like this.

        Much of the press seems to enjoy propping Romney up– see the Washington Post’s recent hiring of a Romney blogger presented as a conservative voice. Not openly as an over the top Romney supporter. (though it’s obvious enough)

        Since it’s acknowledged the negative press can bring a candidate’s numbers down and it’s obvious on its face that Romney has been given (outside of the conservative media) MUCH more positive press than the other candidates. Then, rather than saying “Hallelujah Romney polls even with Obama! Let’s nominate him now!” we should be worried that he’s only polling even or very slightly ahead of Obama when the liberal media is almost completely holding it’s fire.

        We should be amazed that Newt, who from the start was hit with silly negative press (like stories trying to make a scandal out of how much jewelry he buys his own wife with his own money) then had much of the media treating his candidacy as hopeless and a joke ( despite the fact he authored the Contract with America, led the GOP to its first majority in 40 years, rose to a position 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency and accomplished a number of other things that Mitt Romney can’t remotely compete with ), and now is being subjected to very eager scutiny on any number of subjects — we should be impressed that Newt who has been given such rougher treatment only polls 4 points behind Romney in head to heads with Obama ( last I checked)

        It’s also worth noting that Newt’s positives have gone way up over the course of this pre-primary season. If he can improve his image with Republicans who are primarily who’s probably paying attention to the debates– then he can do it with independents and moderates once the General Election starts.

        We also have no idea how Romney would deal with hostile press. Isn’t he still ducking Fox News?

        • avagreen

          Good post, clowngirl.

          • clowngirl

            n/t

      • romeyers

        about someones debating skills (I want them to run my country not a debating society). I don’t care how presidential or clean and articulate he is, (he could be a purple troll with a stutter) as long as he can do the job. I want someone that will stand up to the Congress, the media, the polls, the lobyists, who will do whats right for the country without “compromise”, without caving, without worrying about re-election ( I think someone who could do that wouldn’t have to worry about being re-elected). I don’t want someone who is OK with Obama care as long as we call it by another name (Romney care maybe?) Polls are crap! They can be made to say anything anyone wants them to say by tweaking the numbers and questions asked. The current establishment is OK with Romney because he’s not a “sure winner”. The only way I’ll vote for him is if the party chooses him as the candidate and then only to get rid of Obama, although I have a bad feeling that if Romney is elected we’ll be getting Obama part II

      • landersonz

        I’m in partial agreement with courdeleon02 — I think Romney MAY have a better chance at being elected than any of the alternatives, and I think we should avoid killing any chance to beat Obama at this early stage of the game. Let’s stop trying to kill Republican candidates!!!!! We need to keep all our possibly viable candidates alive and kicking until we get further into the race. SO STOP DISSING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES!!!

        • earlgrey

          in the election away. I remember before Mitch Daniels said he woudn’t get in how every one was trashing him. He’d be much better than our options now.

          If Red State is looking to dampen enthusiasm for 2012 elections it is working on me at least. I’d love to see Perry, but if I can’t have him I’d settle for Romney (I am stocking up on nose plugs and air sickness bags). Newt is just too unpredictable and undisciplined.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            We should sit down, shut up, and let our betters pick our candidates for us.

    • richard90

      The reason that Obama?s ?Mitt Romney is just a rich white SOB? argument won?t work is simple. There are three fundamental flaws with Obama?s proposed argument against Romey.
      1) Romney turned around or started from scratch, nearly 100 privately held companies or corporations during his nearly 25 years in private equity development. On average, each of these companies today employs approximately 300 full time employees. Some employ 10 times that number. When the leftists throw out this meme, Romney will fluidly and easily counter punch with this simple fact?.?I created and saved more jobs in my little tiny private equity business than Barrack Obama has done with the entire US economy?
      For every job that was lost when Romney?s firm was ?downsizing?, more than 4 jobs were either saved, or the employee was hired back at the leaner and meaner ?new company? within one year. This is the nature of business, and most Americans understand it. Bottom line, Romney created far more jobs than were lost, and the data will speak to it.
      2) While many conservatives don?t like the idea of the individual mandates in the Massachusetts health care plan, one fact is clear–The plan was written and passed with the principal goal of providing health insurance to the states? poor, under insured and uninsured. In other words, the law was intended to help the 99%!!!! When Obama?s team produces all the ads about Romney being unsympathetic to poor, minority, unemployed citizens, Romney again counters that ?I was the first sitting Governor to craft and deliver a health care plan that addresses the needs of the poor and unemployed or underemployed.
      3) Finally, Mitt will be able to state emphatically, that ?I put my personal money, where my mouth is. You may wonder how this concept will aid Romney, but it?s quite simple. Mitt Romney and his family have, in the last 30 years, donated millions of dollars to charity, have founded a number of nonprofit agencies, and supported dozens more with their own, ?big money?. Although it would not likely be employed by Romney in an open debate, if Obama opens the door to Romney?s personal regard for poor and working class folk, Romney might be inclined to toss out the fact that he?s donated millions, while Obama has donated less than 4% of what Romney has over a similar time frame.
      There may be reasons not to like Romney, but this belief that he?s unelectable versus Obama is hogwash.

      • gekster

        Just how many jobs did Romney create at Bain, and how long was he employed or afiliated with them.

        • richard90

          I’m still researching this metric. It’s at least 255,000… But could be much higher. Staples alone employs 90K.

          • gekster

            acording to Willard hinself,

            from:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney#Business_career

            Romney came from behind to win the Massachusetts Republican Party’s nomination for U.S. Senate after buying substantial television time to get out his message, gaining overwhelming support in the state party convention, and then defeating businessman John Lakian in the September 1994 primary with over 80 percent of the vote.[6][63][64] In the general election, Kennedy faced the first serious re-election challenger of his career in the young, telegenic, and very well-funded Romney.[60] Romney ran as a fresh face, as a successful entrepreneur who stated he had created ten thousand jobs, and as a Washington outsider with a strong family image and moderate stands on social issues.[60][65] Romney stated: “Ultimately, this is a campaign about change.”[66] After two decades out of public view, his father George re-emerged during the campaign as well.

            The key part here:
            Romney ran as a fresh face, as a successful entrepreneur who stated he had created ten thousand jobs,

            So by Romneys own account, he only creayed 10K jobs.
            And that was in his 17 year, not 25 year, association with Bain.
            (1977-1994)
            (graduated in 1975, worked for Boston Consulting Group in 1976)

            It’s ok, all you Romney supporters miss that, since you and yours don’t actually do reaserch on what you’re talking about..

          • Wiseman

            Romney can easily turn the Bain attacks into a positive light. He can state that Bain invested in solid start ups to help them grow and then took over companies in trouble and restructured them so that they would survive and grow. As president he will audit the federal government agencies to see which ones need to be restructured or eliminated.

          • acat

            Romney should have hit McCain much harder then.

            This year, though, Romney has to deal with distrust by both the Tea Parties and #OWS, and for related reasons.

            The Tea Partiers see Willard – based on his record as governor – as a tax-and-spender, not a cutter. The #OWS crowd see him as a big-business insider. There’s no way for Romney to slide away from either half of his record without running more on the other half …

            If Willard runs as Gov. Romney, he can’t win the primary – the Tea Parties sink him. If Willard runs as CEO Romney, he has a harder time winning the general, the Dems will “class warfare” him hard.

            It may not be right, but it is what is.

            Mew

          • Scope

            Romney’s Bain Capital successes would have been appropriate campaign material. I actually believe that his Bain and Olympics successes were considered his greatest strength. Once the meltdown hit a few months before the election, if Romney had been the nominee, he would have lost to Obama as badly, if not worse than McCain.

            And yes, since the 08 season, the onset of the Tea Party movement, the current OWS movement, and the thirst by so many for financial sanity, he is only playing well with his 25% base, who refuse to see that what once was his strength, has become his liability. Saying that he is the only one who is electable against Obama is nothing more than a made up media propaganda tool.

          • acat

            (not that there’s anything wrong with it)

            My recollection is that there were significant economic concerns prior to the “credit crunch”, and that Romney – then as now – did not hit hard enough during the debates to get out of McCain’s shadow.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I don’t know why you think his record is bad. He cut taxes, didn’t raise them.

            Is your concern fees? Romney sides with Reagan’s philosphy on fees. Same with closing tax loopholes. Reagan quotes and specifics on Romney’s record are covered at WhyRomney.com

            Also, I don’t believe you’ve answered my point about Kjellander. You assume Kjellander is lying, Romney doesn’t make that assumption. It looks like the worst you can accuse Romney of is believing someone who you think (but can’t prove) is lying.

          • acat

            I’ll ignore that this is a topic shift on your part, as we weren’t discussing Willard’s dismal record regarding “taxes and fees”. Let’s start there.

            First principle. Government produces nothing, it only consumes.

            The question, therefore, isn’t whether “taxes” or “fees” go up or down, it’s whether government revenues and debt increase. Under Romney, debt did decrease, somewhat, temporarily but revenues rose quite a bit.

            Using the word “fees” as distinct from “taxes” is disingenuous, although what I’ve come to expect from you.

            Regarding Kjellander, I am very confident that he is lying because of the company he kept. Last time I checked, Ryan, Romney was trying to look squeaky clean – but his association with Kjellander calls that into question for me.

            Remember, courts find “Not guilty”, not “Innocent”, and image counts for a lot.

            Remember, also, that the other half of the Illinois Combine, the Dem half, is where Obama came from. Care to bet on whether he knows the truth? If there’s any dirt there, you can bet it’s coming out in the general. Given what I do know of Kjellander, and how Illinois corruption works, I’d prefer not to take that bet.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I was referring to your above statement “The Tea Partiers see Willard ? based on his record as governor ? as a tax-and-spender, not a cutter.” That’s why my response is not completely off-topic.

            As far as calling me disingenuous, I really am surprised that you would say that. Are you prepared to call Rick Perry disingenuous for stating that he never raised taxes in Texas, even though he raised fees by several billion?

            I directed you to WhyRomney.com but you seem to have an aversion to visiting there. For the record, I don’t make money from the website and don’t get paid anything for people visiting.

            But here’s part of what I wrote at WhyRomney, about fees. Note that Reagan favored fee increases. Are you prepared to call him disingenuous for favoring fees while opposing tax increases?

            Escerpt:

            Some people believe Romney?s increases in fees are identical to taxes. On the contrary, Romney saved millions of tax dollars by ending the taxpayer subsidizing of fees. A fee covers the cost for a special good or service provided to an individual by the government; when a fee is not high enough to cover the cost of the service provided, taxpayers end up subsidizing. Romney shifted the burden from the community onto the individual who benefits from the service provided.

            Every state raises fees to keep up with the cost of service. Texas Governor Rick Perry, for instance, has accurately stated that he has not raised taxes. He has however raised fees by several billion dollars. In MA, some fees had not been raised in a very long time.

            Ronald Reagan was an outspoken proponent of fees. For instance, here is one of Reagan’s many statements: “The third component of the deficit reduction program involves user fees, or more appropriately, the recovery of costs borne by the taxpayers generally, but that predominantly benefit a limited group of businesses, communities or individuals … it is simply inexcusable and intolerable that yacht owners escape without paying even a small part of the Coast Guard services; or that commercial and general aviation are not paying the cost of the air traffic control system that ensures their safety; or that ship and barge operators do not pay a fair share of the costs of waterways maintained by the Federal Government. Our user fee package corrects these and similar shortcomings in current budget policy and will contribute significantly toward reducing the deficit” (February 8, 1982).

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            not “escerpt” lol sorry

          • acat

            re-label a tax as a fee and claim to have cut.

            I am under the impression that Perry held the line on taxes but raised fees, although that’s certainly off-topic, as is Reagan – who cut the top income tax rate significantly, just as Perry has proposed to do.

            Again, government *produces* nothing, it only *consumes*. Therefore, while fees are more targetted than taxes, they’re all a hand in my wallet.

            Did Romney raise revenues? If so, then – semantics aside – he increased taxes.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            That’s not a rhetorical question. Did you take the time to understand my argument before responding to it? If not, then why should I take the time to write out comments that you aren’t even going to try to understand? I feel like you take my comments for granted and aren’t interested in understanding and discussing the substance of what I say.

            Believe it or not, I am quite open to the possibility that I may be wrong about things I say. But you won’t ever show me that I’m wrong if you aren’t willing to discuss the substance of what I say.

            Rick Perry and Reagan are related because you are apparently using a doube-standard. Perry increased revenue, and so did Reagan for that matter.

            Here’s something for you to think about. Do you care more about what other posters think of you here, or do you care more about delving deep and getting to the truth? Are you here to show people that you are cool, or are you here to have substantive discussion? If everyone else on this website turned pro-Romney today, would you still maintain your anti-Romney tone or would you “fit in” by starting to recite your lines early? What really motivates you, is it truth?

          • acat

            I find your last paragraph to be some of the best comedy writing I’ve seen in a long time.

            Yes, I read your comments. Yes, I reply to your arguments. You, however, continue to dance around issues. As a libertarian, I respect your right to further beclown yourself.

            Romney lowered taxes, but the amount of revenue taken in increased – this indicates the size of the bureaucracy didn’t shrink.

            This is in contrast to Perry, who raised revenue but who added more than one new service – interdiction of illegals crossing the Rio Grande, for one example, so the size of the bureaucracy increased.

            That’s the same model as Reagan, who decreased tax rates, increased revenue, and poured the new revenue into weapons research and a military build-up that forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy.

            The comparison is faulty, Ryan.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            I shoulda known you don’t believe in dog.

      • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

        You make great points. :)

    • newsscooper

      Yes, I agree. The lamestream media attack any legit conservative who surgest.

      Many people forget that Michele Bachman had a first surge that made her the GOP Presidential Primary frontrunner.

      A long line of conservative men had their shot and fizzled. Rick Perry and Herman Cain surged and fizzled. Ron Paul is a great man but a Libertarian. Mitt is too closely associated with ObamaCare and has peaked.

      And even if secular conservatives can forgive Newt for his soft-on-illegal-immigration stand and being a consummate insider, some Evangelicals still view him as a serial adulterer. And Huntsman is too liberal and too late.

      That leaves Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann. And while Rick espouses many principled stands stands, conservatives don’t trust him since he backed liberal Arlen Spector against Conservative Pat Toomey.

      According to WebToday.tv this leaves Michele Bachman for a second surge. I tend to agree.

      • davesinsanantonio

        I mean, come on!!!

        What policy proposals has she brought forth that would get the base to rally to her support??? Just because she hasn’t admitted that there is no longer any interest in her campaign and is still in it does not equate to a “surge” in support. Hanging around is NOT the same as having support!!!

      • Common_Cents

        There will be no more resurgence of Santorum, Cain, Huntsman, or Bachmann. Gingrich’s support is growing more solid and could bite into Romney’s support as well. Romney and his proxies will have to start attacking Gingrich as a threat, and gingrich will smack down Mitt on Dec 10.

        Perry has an outside shot if he can place 1 or 2 in IA and 1 or 2 in SC. He would have to have a ground game surprise and defy the multiple polls.

      • carolynr

        While she was accusing Perry of getting money…you need to see how “innocent” little young Michelle and gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in Federal Grants for Hubby’s Trans-gender…or whatever you call it, clinic.

        How do you like that…we’re spending money to convince people they are not Gay…on our dime. Didn’t know that did you. WOW…Michelle Sexy Solyndra.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    But IMHO this theme is a bit overplayed and tired.

    Is America really against personal wealth creation and electing people who have been successful in the business world? Time was in this country, people wanted that for their children. In fact, time was, that was something we wanted in our elected officials. Whatever happened to talk of wanting “someone who has been successful in the private sector”?

    Is the new standard one must have gratuitous service to the government sector and we dismiss out of hand anyone successful at creating personal wealth? Is Obama and OWS right- we should take down the private sector and sneer at anyone that has accumulated wealth? Hardly.

    There are many reasons I don’t care for Romney. But this doesn’t happen to be one of them. Nor would I ever buy anyone’s propaganda which is nuanced in a way that attempts to link financial success with evil.

    • acat

      Sure looks to me like “the 1%” are held in contempt.

      Toynbee has some interesting thoughts on what that means for us as a society, but that’s rather beside the point….which is that Mitt is the worst possible candidate to try to explain to the #OWS and sympathizers why government (not Wall Street) is the problem.

      Mew

      • theredrider

        The meme that he and George Soros are creating is: “It’s not Obama’s fault that the economy sucks.”

        Just think what would have happened to an elected Democrat in 2008 if s/he even suggested that Bush does not deserve the blame for the bad economy.

        But now that a Democrat is in the White House, they have to create a new meme to explain why: (a) Democrats run the country and (b) the economy sucks.

        Thanks for repeating this TPM Cafe talking point, acat! It’s certainly not pertinent to the real issue: that Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and their cronies are anchoring the economy to the bottom of the harbor and that no recovery is possible while they are in charge.

        • acat

          and I’ll get right on it.

          Fact is, #OWS must be taken into account. It is “the big lie”, but that isn’t the pertinent point – the point is that Romney is utterly the wrong one to battle it.

          It really is this simple:

          Mew

      • ajdx3

        because #OWS actually represents 99% of Americans.

    • streiff

      1. most people are not opposed to being successful

      2. in today’s political climate most people aren’t big fans of investment bank types, especially ones that headed a chop shop.

      personally I don’t have a problem with Romney and Bain. He did what he was paid to do: turn a profit for his limited partners/investors. I do, however, think that will be enough to sink him and I doubt seriously that you’re going to find anyone on our side defending him on that.

      • theredrider

        Don’t repeat it.

        Put out a blog about how rich people aren’t the problem. They’re the ones that we need to rebuild the economy that our government is burdening with excessive taxes and regulations.

        The picture you posted and this diary don’t belong on this site.

        • streiff

          and when you have your own blog you get to make those decisions.

          I think Romney would be a disastrous candidate and a disastrous president. Right now he and his minions are pushing him as the most electable candidate. He isn’t.

          This isn’t a DNC meme. This is real. The man made a lot of money. He also put a lot of Americans out of work while doing it.

          Playing ostrich doesn’t work all that well.

          • donald_24

            Romney’s history at Bain and laying people off will make him unelectable. If the Obama team wants to save money on attack ads, all they ahve to do is re-air the ones Kennedy made in 1994. Those were very effective ads that featured the people Romney laid off and allowed Kennedy to win even when he was behind in the polls.

            The fact is that in this economy, politicans who laid people off are not going to win. Barbara Boxer was in a tough re-election campaign last year against Carly Fiorina. Once she started mentioning all the jobs that Fiorina outsourced when she was at HP, the election was over. She beat Fiorina by a wider margin than the polls predicted. Romney is another Carly Fiorina.

          • Tbone

            than Carly.

        • clowngirl

          We need to know the baggage and potential negatives on any candidate we might seriously consider nominating so as to weigh how it might be used against him in a General Election.

          Streiff is providing a service in uncovering some of Romney’s baggage — and I agree with his opinion that this picture and his work for Bain Capital is likely to be very damaging.

          Right now this isn’t widely known nor is any of Romney’s other baggage (and everyone must have some form of baggage) and his numbers are almost certainly artificially high.

      • Marcus_Traianus

        Your two points share much in common and create a very slippery slope. Can we simply nuance them into one statement and say people are opposed to wealth creation by “Wall Street” types? Why is that and what’s next after that…other corporate types that have been successful? Furthermore, who are the hated, so-called “1%” are they all investment bank types? Hardly.

        Methinks the trap is to hate the most easily hated and ride that like a bronco. Then bring in anyone that “looks” like them. It’s a dangerous game that is divisive and played out very badly in history. Today, Obama has done provided the rhetoric and his anarchists,communists and other hooligans are running the ground game

        By the way, I could simply be new to the issue, but I can’t find anything Romney did at Bain that was illegal or directly attributed to job losses.

    • theredrider

      It’s like my RedState record-player keeps skipping a groove.

      It is a lot easier to be against someone on this site than to be FOR someone. Think about it. To be against a candidate, say Romney for example, you don’t have to defend any of the statements made by Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Herman Cain. Because you’re not FOR any of them.

      You’re just against Mitt Romney. And then the parrots pick up on your meme and they start moaning in unison, “Noooo, not Mitt Romney. Anything but that!” And the cycle continues.

      Mike Huckabee is no Romney-bot. Not by a longshot. But he recognizes that Romney will be the nominee and that Republicans who attempt to be against Romney (note that I said nothing about being FOR any candidate) are harming the interests that they claim to stand for.

      Erick, Neil, Bill, and Streiff have accepted the first half of the above statement (they realize that Romney is the likely nominee, if not the inevitable nominee), but not the second half. They believe that having Mitt Romney as president would be as bad as having BHO as president.

      They could have made this argument in 2008, when it looked like the original flip-flopper, John McCain, was about to seize the GOP nomination and undermine every conservative advancement made in the last 20 years. But they didn’t. They could have made this argument in 2004 when Bush, certainly not the conservative purist that they are now demanding, was running for re-election. But instead, they got in line with the party’s nominee.

      I’m tired of this overplayed meme. Can we talk about something that is more constructive? The “Romney is the worst thing that can happen to the GOP” is nothing but a BHO/DNC talking point.

      • acat

        so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

        Some of us *did* make the case that Bush 2.0 was not optimal. He turned out better than this cat had expected, but .. mostly because we held his feet to the fire.

        Some of us *did* make the case that Gang-Of-14 McCain would be worse than Obama. I know I had it made to me – repeatedly – on other conservative sites.

        Romney is not the worst thing that could happen to the GOP. Fine. He would, however, require a hell of a lot more work – holding feet to fire constantly – compared to a Perry or a Gingrich.

        Mew

        • theredrider

          Gingrich: Recently said that child labor laws are “truly stupid” and suggested that kids under 14 need to have more access to janitorial work.

          Not even mainstream Republicans can get on board with a statement like that. I’m not sure which group the statement was designed to appeal to. But Gingrich is shooting himself in the foot with statements like that.

          Freddie Mac. Huge debacle. The kind of debacle that Streiff, Erick, and Neil would be blogging about today had Mitt Romney been the recipient of over a million dollars of Freddie Mac’s “generosity” in exchange for either promoting or not bad-mouthing the institution most responsible for the global meltdown. Absolutely unacceptable.

          Perry? I don’t see it. His 53-second brain fart was only the caboose on a train of gaffes. Gardasil, an action, not a gaffe, bothers me a lot more than any of Perry’s gaffes. I don’t trust Perry to be able to make good decisions under pressure, which is one of the pre-requisites for a top-tier presidential candidate. And Perry is polling in the low single digits, tied with Rick Santorum for “least-likely to become president”.

          • acat

            Start with Kjellander. I’ll wait while you go and do your homework.

            Mew

          • streiff

            don’t tell me how to blog or what to blog about. The fact that I’m here and you aren’t indicates to even a casual observer that I know a helluva lot more about both than you do.

            Second, I don’t care about who hired Newt Gingrich’s company. Were I concerned about who paid who I’d be blogging on Bain Capitals ties with the Iranian regime.

            Gardasil was an action recommended by the CDC. Now it is recommended that boys as well as girls receive it. A lot of us think reducing the incidence of cancer is a good thing, obviously YMMV.

          • auntvick

            Is the candidate with the experience to do the job. He has been Governor for 10 years! You can bet the farm he can and does make decisions under fire. Good decisions. You cannot stay in the highest position in state government, for 10 years without a track record of good decisions. If you want to consider a 53 sec. stumble all there is to know about some one, you are nothing more than the shill for Romney I believe you to be. How much are you being paid anyway?
            Perry is polling low because people like you don’t allow voters to hear the truth about all of the candidates. You stuff everything you can about your own opinions every where you can. You’ve already “chosen” who you want to “win” so every one else is done in your eyes. I don’t want any one to “win”. I want someone to “sacrifice” their own ego in order to preserve our country and our way of life. Rick Perry is willing to do this. He is not running for president to stuff a few feathers in his hat. He is running for president to reverse the wrongs done the last several years by progressive nuts. (those are my words,not his) p.s. You can change the word “you” to any person or group during this election cycle, it’s still true.

          • auntvick

            Rick Santorum is another candidate who IMO can leave his ego at the door and work for the good of all americans. He is not appreciated for that either. The rest of our GOP candidates are going to have a hard time with that. They all have huge egos.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • carolynr

            Can’t make decisions….wow…what about all those JOBS that keeps Texas growing. Real dumb. What about keeping taxes low…real dumb…what about tort reform…lowering insurance rates…real dumb…what about “conservative” judges…real dumb. So, your big beef is with Gardasil.

            Well…here is an enlightenment..but feel free to google. Cervical cancer is an epidemic. Why…because there is a virus that causes it. Why does it have to be given to innocent little girls (I could vomit with Bachmann for that…because she voted for it in her state)…BECAUSE they must be sexually INACTIVE. Why do we have checks and balances…to make sure that laws are applied properly. Was there an opt-out in Perry’s bill…yes….reason Santorum wants opt-in is because parents don’t know what the heck is going on these days…they’re too busy with other things rather than family and values. So…TX does give the vaccine and it is an opt in.

            GWB nominated Harriet Miers for SCOTUS…it was shot down. I think it was a good decision…I don’t think she was qualified. Meanwhile…you ought to be looking at Elena Kagan to be recused…because if you are sincerely worried about mandates…the ONLY HEALTH ISSUE THAT DEMOCRATS GIVE A CHOICE ON IS ABORTION.

      • Langley

        For all his flaws and departures from conservative orthodoxy, John McCain was more electable than Mitt Romney. While McCain may have caused us major heartburn for some of his positions, at least he had firm positions and didn’t magically wake up with a new political belief system before every election.

        • streiff

          at least McCain had some conservative values and instincts even if he didn’t have the fire or energy. Romney has neither.

          • Langley

            I will give Romney this, he would have a lot more fire and energy than McCain did in going after Obama. On that front Romney would be better than McCain.

            But when it comes to record and beliefs and consistency, Romney is a disaster.

            If you think RedState and conservatives are tough on Romney, wait til the White House is done with him. They will redefine “scorched earth,” and the worst part about their attacks on Mitt’s flippiness is that it will all be true.

          • theredrider

            Romney is for extending the Bush tax cuts (conservative position).

            Romney is for reducing government regulations and waste (conservative position).

            Romney is pro-life (conservative position).

            Romney fought against gay marriage and did more to fight for the marriage amendment than even George W. Bush did.

            Romney has been endorsed by Chris Christie, Ann Coulter, David Brooks, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and a host of other conservative stalwarts.

            Romney has both conservative values and instincts. He wouldn’t be where he is today if he didn’t.

          • acat

            I want a candidate who will trade it in.

            This is not complicated.

            Mew

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

            NT

          • gekster

            from:
            http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

            excerpt:
            ?Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor?s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the ?statute?. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.

            What is anti gay marriage about that.

          • theredrider

            When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to same-sex marriage. “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union,” said Romney in an October 2002 gubernatorial debate. He also voiced support for basic domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. Romney won the endorsement of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, a Republican gay-rights group, who in 2005 accused him of reneging on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He also opposed an amendment, then before the General Court, that would have banned same-sex marriage and outlawed all domestic partnership benefits for gay couples. When campaigning in 2002, Romney’s stated position was that “All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”

            Romney strongly opposed same-sex marriage during his governorship. He emphasized his desire to “protect the institution of marriage” while denouncing discrimination against gays and lesbians. “Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians,” Romney said in 2004.

            On June 2, 2006, Romney sent a letter to each member of the U.S. Senate urging them to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment. In the letter, Romney stated that the debate over same-sex unions is not a discussion about “tolerance”, but rather a “debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage”. Romney wrote, “Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.”

            Romney’s letter was his second effort to persuade the U.S. Senate to pass the Defense of Marriage Amendment. On June 22, 2004 he testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, urging its members to protect the traditional definition of marriage. “Marriage is not an evolving paradigm,” said Romney, “but is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all of the people of Massachusetts.”

            Romney attempted to block implementation of the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that legalized same-sex marriage in 2003. Romney criticized the decision as harming the rights of children:
            ?They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults?Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.”

            Romney supports the rule of law. Once the law was passed, he worked to change the law through legal channels. But he didn’t attempt to subvert existing law through unconstitutional means. Did you expect him to lead a pitchfork mob to Faneuil Hall?

          • streiff

            nt

          • sethellis

            Come on man. You could at least TRY to give a reasonable reply here. It’s like you’ve given up. You just insult their intelligence and move on. If you have facts to counter what was posted then let’s hear them.

            When your ego grows larger than Newt Gingrich’s there’s a problem.

          • theredrider

            He writes well-constructed, if not well-founded, diaries.

            But he can’t dispute a well-founded argument.

            He uses name-calling and “don’t make me ban you” to win arguments. But he doesn’t win the point on the issues.

            So, if you disagree with Streiff, be prepared to be called a “rombot” or to have various borg/klingon/wrath of Kahn epithets hurled your way. But ultimately, he will concede your point by not trying to win the argument on the issues.

          • buddyp

            Streiff (or anyone else),

            Forgive me, but I’m new and perhaps you can help me with what may be a technical problem.

            I can’t see how I can create a diary. The help section says to click the ?Create New Diary Entry? link under the masthead, but I don’t see any such link. Is there something I can do?

            Thanks and sorry for the intrusion.

          • gekster

            You say he is against gay marriage, and I show he issued the cirtificates.
            Another one of playing both sides of an issue.
            Cut and dried.

          • theredrider

            If you served as a leader on an elected body, say, city council. And the city council voted against you on an issue. And you were then called on to hand out the license or the certificate that the other side had one, would you be a hypocrite if you didn’t scream, “Then I don’t want to play anymore!” and ran home in tears.

            Romney lost the gay marriage fight. But not for lack of trying. He just ran out of ammo in a commonwealth that didn’t care enough about the moral issues to fight with Romney.

            So you are, in fact, telling only part of the story when you try to frame Romney as being “for gay marriage”.

          • gekster

            “There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.”

            But it does coincide with your willfull ignorance.

            There was nothing to fight against.
            It seams misinformation is all you’ve got.

          • tomatin

            With ever argument for Romney being conservative I can post 5 examples where he was a phoney.

          • Carol Tarasewicz

            Thank you for Mass Resistance link, I live in MA and I forgot timeline and about faces of Romney in same few months about gay marriage. I remember being humilitated that MA was the first state to allow it. They will not let us put it on the ballot here.

            I have Romneycare against him. I could go on and on about how much it costs people that pay for insurance but I will spare you. It’s a disaster.

          • gekster

            It is but one of many I have bookmarked.

          • izoneguy

            Perry is for extending the Bush tax cuts & then making them permanent. (conservative position).

            Perry is for reducing government regulations and waste,
            and closing several major departments.(conservative position).

            Perry is pro-life. Always has been and always will be. (conservative position).

            Perry has been endorsed by Steve Forbes, Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Oklahoma U.S. Senator James Inhofe, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Congressman Jeb Hensarling, Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions, and a host of other conservative stalwarts.

            Perry has both conservative values and instincts. He wouldn?t be Governor of Texas for 10 years if he didn?t.

          • changeforrickperry

            What was that he was sayin’? Mitt Romney endorsed by “Chris Christie, Ann Coulter, David Brooks, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and a host of other conservative stalwarts.” Uh….conservative stalwarts? OK, whatever. Certainly as far as Christie and Coulter are concerned. Bobby Jindal, Jim Inhofe, Sam Brownback, and Brian Sandoval are more what I’d call stalwarts–but to each his own, I guess.

          • theredrider

            Perry supported Al Gore after Al Gore put out a book called “Earth in the Balance” and argued therein that human beings would destroy the earth during our lifetimes.

            Perry signed an executive order requiring teenage girls and some pre-teens to get vaccinated against an STD. (liberal position)

            The conservatives in Texas were the ones that stopped this executive order from being enforced. Rick Perry never admitted that he made the wrong call on gardasil or that he did it because he got over $100,000 from Gardasil through the Republican Governors’ Association (RGA).

            Perry has acted as both a liberal and a democrat in his past and he is now trying to flip-flip back to where conservatives want him to be.

          • acat

            you’re now going to try to make it about Perry?

            You could at least get some new material.

            Perry was a Dem, but left it behind before Gore stopped needing to appear a blue dog to win in Tennessee.

            As for Gardasil, I’ll note that several other States now mandate it, and their opt-out options are much harder than the one Perry put in place in Texas. Further, is it a liberal position to oppose cancer?

            If you’ve given up on defending the indefensible (Romney) at least do your homework first.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Not exactly his strong suit.

          • Scope

            Ronald Reagan was at one time a Democrat also. Michele Bachmann began her political career campaigning for Jimmy Carter.

            To say that Perry got a $100,000 donation, while in the Republican Governors Assoc, from “Gardisil” is so absolutely laughable it makes ones side hurt. Gardisil is the name of a vaccination, and I highly doubt that a vaccine can send money to anyone. Man you are deranged.

            As to your Gore connections to Perry, Perry has had at lease 5-6 lawsuits filed against the EPA for their man made global warming regulations. What other Governor has filed as many lawsuits against the EPA?

            Perry has apologized for his EO on Gardisil, including in the debates. He said to the American population listening to the debates that he went about the Gardisil issue the wrong way. How many more times does he have to apologize for a mistake that he readily has admitted, multiple times.

            You must, must provide factual information that “Gardisil” gave the RGA money because of Perry’s Gardisil issue. That ought to be a good one.

            The more people have deconstructed your arguments against Perry, the more you just throw jello against an invisible wall, hoping it will stick with someone.

          • Scope

            It always comes out in the wash. The more someone is pressed to back up their statements, which the RS members are excellent at weeding out, the more stupid some become. I guess it just shows the level of intelligence of the RS community that always prevails.

            If you don’t have the mental acuity, the honesty and decency, or the ability to support your arguments, then I think RS is beyond your pay-grade.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses. Sadly, I don’t think we can expect many to admit it.

          • gekster

            Oh, that’s right, to you it is. ;)

          • Bill S

            First, he said “trashing,” not “bashing.” and he did admit that Mitt is an imperfect flip-flopper, so we are making some progress.

          • gekster

            /nt/

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            …as I’ve always been honest about Romney’s shortcomings. I’ve never been interested in people thinking he’s great – simply in keeping the candidate-vetting honest. Which, under the reign of the Perry apologists and the sufferers of Romney Derangement Syndrome, it hasn’t been.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            And you know it.

          • heraklios

            Romney is still a scumbag and the others are infinitely better.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            .

          • heraklios

            if he really thinks he is a conservative or that he will ever be President of the United States

          • gekster

            ….

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Can’t you?

          • acat

            That’s been proven over and over ad nauseum, Calvin.

            Mew

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            Prove exactly what I said to prove.

            I must say, acat, pretending not to understand the meaning of small, very clear sentences is an…interesting…strategy…

          • acat

            Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses

            Quit projecting.

            Mew

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            2.) It’s not the statement I was referring to, and you know it.

          • acat

            You’ll want to run away now.

            Your first post in this thread is the one I quoted.

            Mew

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            The statement I was referring to was Gekster’s mischaracterization, which was abundantly clear. Your first reply to me – “What, prove that Romney tries to have things both ways?” – is also a mischaracterization.

            Now, if you’re done wasting my time……

          • acat

            Romney does like to have things both ways. This has been proven, ad nauseum. Or, have you forgotten the Ryan Larsen diaries?

            You have referred to those who dare to point out Romney’s faults as “bashing”.

            As for wasting time, you can walk away from this conversation at any time. In fact, I encourage you to do so. You’ll look less foolish.

            Mew

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            …and “What, prove that Romney tries to have things both ways?” is obviously not what I was asking Gekster to prove.

            But, as your lack of either honesty or literacy has now been proven beyond all reasonable doubt, I think I will walk away. Enjoy your glass house.

          • acat

            Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses.

            Mine’s concrete block. Come back, next time mommy lets you use the computer.

            Mew

          • gekster

            Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses.

            So pointing out the truth to Romney supporters is ‘trashing’ them.
            (mybad for saying bashing, I did get that wrong)
            Pointing out the truth about Romney is trashing his supporters.
            That can’t be any more clearer than that.

            Thanks for the backup acat.
            It seams Calvin is like Romney.
            It’s not what he says, it’s what he really meant when he says it.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            You’re not even bothering to come up with superficially-plausible distortions of my words. You’re completely governed by base emotions that compel you to circle the wagons around the politicians of your choice, and to lash out in the most vapid ways against any perceived enemies of your favored Narrative.

            Simply pathetic. Is nobody else at RedState bothered by this?

          • gekster

            I am not circleing anything around any candidate.
            Other than pointing out to theredrider that since he couldn’t defend Romney he was into bashing Perry,
            I have not mentioned anyone else besides Romney in this thread.

            And you did say:
            “Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses”.

            To which I replied:
            I didn’t know posting facts about a candidate was bashing.
            Oh, that?s right, to you it is.
            (you can infer and assume all you want, it was a reply to your
            comment I have posted above)

            So it is quite evident that when posters dispute statements posted about Romney with known facts, to ‘you’ it is trashing them.
            (and I have backup for all the facts I have posted)

            So since I am refering to and using your own words, I am lying.
            I am also governed by base emotions?
            Sorry, I don’t know where you get that.
            Also you are implying I am pathetic.
            And you complain about ‘trashing’.
            Way to go.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            To any sane or honest person, this: ?Many of the people trashing Romney supporters for backing an imperfect flip-flopper are doing so from glass houses?…

            …does not suggest this: “when posters dispute statements posted about Romney with known facts, to ?you? it is trashing them.”

            You have not made any serious attempt to substantiate your false claim. All you have is your dishonest denial of the obvious: on this website, commenters are routinely treated – by commenter and moderator alike – like subhumans for no other offense than expressing support for Mitt Romney, while Rick Perry supporters are given a near-total pass for all the offenses Romney supporters are (sometimes fairly, sometimes not) accused of – dishonesty, hypocrisy, insults, excusing liberalism from their guy, excusing flip-flops from their guy, you name it.

          • gekster

            1. It is not a debate, just stating a fact. Something Romney supporters have trouble with.

            2. I have not said who I support, not once.

            3. If you say so. ;)

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            has been stupid, because you’re incapable of making a rational argument. Now whether that’s because you’re ignorant, uneducated in the ways of debate and argument or just plain stupid is up to the reader, but those are the only three options.

            My advice guys, ignore the fool.

          • http://rightcal.blogspot.com/ Calvin Freiburger

            but your venom is also a clear violation of RedState’s posting rules. Whether or not the moderators crack down on you will be extremely illuminating.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            That was mbecker being nice.

          • gekster

            You can understand his frustration and need to lash out.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I like Gekster, because I don’t think he does it on purpose, but I know exactly what you’re talking about. He’s very loyal to his cause, I’ll give him that.

            By the way, I actually do disagree with the flip-flopper charge. Have you taken the time to research the pro-Romney response to those charges? My website, WhyRomney.com responds to many of them.

          • gekster

            I’ve noticed your comments today and decided to be nice to you and refrain
            from replying. Don’t drag me into this now.
            And you need an ouija board to talk to Calvin.
            He didn’t know when to quit when warned and is now a ghost.

            Please leave me out of your discussions about Willard the Rat today.

          • acat

            Gettin’ inappropriate piercings tryin’ to straddle the barbed wire fence…

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            What about my diaries, acat? The content of those diaries was not hashed out in the comments, if that’s what you mean to imply. The content was largely ignored by people posting comments. If you had read and not just skimmed the diaries, you would have known that.

          • streiff

            Earth in the Balance was published in 1992. Perry became a Republican in 1989

            I’ve had it with your pathological detachment from the truth. Bye..

          • ceili_dancer

            Perry switched parties in 1989, and Gore’s book came out in 1992.

          • ceili_dancer

            That must be why they pay you the big bucks. ;)

          • Langley

            Maybe history’s not your strong suit, but the South used to be a one-party show. That one party was the Democrats and it included many conservatives.

            The Democratic Party shifted to the left and their hold on the South began to break. Then you had old-timey conservative Democrats (including Perry) and liberal Democrats. Over time the shift of conservatives out of the Democratic Party they no longer could associate with got us to where we are now.

            Seriously? Calling out a conservative Texas state legislator for being a Democrat in the 80s? And ignoring his positions since then (see my addressing of your Gardasil and immigration points elsewhere on this page)?

            You can do better than that. Just say something more relevant to current events, like “Perry’s dumb because he had a brain fart for 53 seconds!”

            Note: You aren’t allowed to make the brain fart comment unless you’ve never ever had one yourself.

          • heraklios

            so what does your point prove?

          • greyeagle

            Obviously, you know nothing about Governor Perry. He has been a wonderful Governor for the state of TX for 10 years. He has been making tough decisions for all of those 10 years for an area that is larger than many countries of the world. Gardasil was never passed by the Legislature, so NO doses were ever given. Parents in TX always can OPT out of vaccines. Now you think Obama makes good decisions? What a joke! A good part of Perry’s problem is the constant trashing by the liberal media, and supporters of other candidates. Perry is a staunch conservative and has always been. However, the GOP elite wants Romney (which the majority of voters don’t want) and a weak candidate, which Obama wants. The GOP convention will be a doozy.

          • vaaztx

            Roughly 127,977, babies are killed each year through the process of in vitro fertilization ? at least if one accepts the definition that discarding a fertilized embryo amounts to abortion and murder.

            And not one, not two, but three of Mitt’s five sons have used in vitro fertilization to procreate.

            So I ask, how many abortions have occurred in Mitt’s family? How can he be pro-life when so many of his grandchildren have been murdered?

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            He was against all of those positions before he was for them, and some quite recently.

          • carolynr

            The heck with the Bush Tax cuts…get with a flat tax and get rid of this tax system that has all kinds of loopholes in in. I can understand why Romney would want it permanent…that way it keeps his rich friends employed.

            He for reducing government regulations and waste….record does not indicate that.

            He pro-life…well he says he is now….but then…when and if he’s president…that might change.

            Romney had a dual position on marriage.

            Chris Christie is not CONSERVATIVE…he is anti-government unions. Ann Coulter, Davis Brooks, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham left their conservative principles at the door to endorse a man that is no different than Obama.

            The only thing I will give Romney is that he stayed married to the same woman…that’s it. Conservatism is about honesty and values…and you don’t change them on the stump to get elected.

        • theredrider

          I’ll wager $50 on the proposition that Romney, if nominated, will win more states than John McCain did.

          Romney puts Michigan, New Hampshire, and Florida in play right off the bat and Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Ohio in play if he makes good choices and finds a theme that resonates with independent voters.

          McCain could not rally the base or independents. Consequently, we lost in North Carolina, Indiana, and a host of other states that reliably went for GOP candidates before McCain showed up.

          • acat

            Conservatives showed up for McCain. Well, for Palin anyway.

            It was the squishy middle who stayed home.

            Look at the county-by-county maps comparing both Bush 2.0 election wins with McCain’s loss, and it becomes quite clear.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            “unaffiliated voters” and moderate Republicans?

            Did it ever occur to you that these voters are needed to win elections?

            Or are you assuming that a Gingrich/Perry ticket would scare the 35% to 40% of Americans who consider themselves “conservative” so badly that they would all go out an vote 4 times for the ticket?

          • acat

            How could Romney attract those who McCain could not?

            Despite the media meme to the contrary, when conservatives run *as conservatives*, they win. This .. doesn’t help Romney much.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            The polls show that Romney attracts a larger percentage of the population than Gingrich or Perry. The polls show Romney leading in Michigan and New Hampshire, something that they never showed for McCain.

            Conservatives can run as conservatives as long as the rest of the country understands that the conservative candidate is not against them.

            Hence, George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservative” meme and McCain’s “common sense conservative” meme.

            The base will show up when they have a candidate who they trust. The base trusts whichever candidate that can beat the incumbent democrat. All this Romney-bashing doesn’t move us forward. We just spin around like a dog (or cat, if you prefer) chasing its tail.

          • acat

            I guess math is another subject you didn’t do well in?

            Mew

          • theredrider

            the anti-Romney meme.

            You fail to recognize that Romney has polled above 25%. Or that no GOP candidate this year has polled above 35% in a poll done by any company besides Zogby which is the worst polling company out there. I did very well in math. I tutor students and my kids in math. Do you need me to show you why you’re wrong?

          • acat

            Arguing with me about numbers does not change that, all it does is remove all doubt about your ability to listen to and understand an alternate point of view.

            Mew

          • Menlo

            Of course opinions will fluctuate over the next year, but why is Romney currently the only one even remotely competitive with Obama despite being equally well-known?

          • streiff

            hilarious. Your guy can’t break 25%, not matter what happens to the other candidates and you sit around playing with electoral maps.

            Your guy ran against McCain in 2008 and had his ass handed to him.

          • theredrider

            the name-caller has run out of substantive things to say.

            Have you hit that point, Streiff? You have nothing else more substantive to say so you’re just going to go to name-calling?

            Fine. But I won’t join you. I want it to be clear to everyone that you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion but name-calling.

            And Romney did break 25%. Recently. It is your group and people like Rush Limbaugh that are hell-bent on keeping conservatives from realizing that Mitt Romney is the only conservative that can win. You keep repeating it over and over as if the common sense conservatives will just run away from you or get banned by your fellow moderators.

            I don’t see how you think that you are contributing to the conservative cause by tearing down the only Republican who can beat Obama. You must love Obama.

          • streiff

            you really don’t have much to say about that, do you?

            I really don’t have time to deal with anyone who says Romney is a conservative in a non ironic way. He’s not. Saying that he is marks you as a person whose opinion has no value.

            Supporting Romney is neither conservative nor common sense if you are one.

          • theredrider

            I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say, “you really don’t have much to say about that…”

            What are you talking about? Are you talking about the ability that you have to slander those with opposing views?

            I’m not jealous. You have that ability and I have the ability to see which candidate can beat Obama. Imagine what we could accomplish if we all kept our eye on the ball.

          • streiff

            my eye is on the ball. I want to beat Obama. I don’t want to go through the Mitt Romney Bob Dole experience again.

          • theredrider

            And, for the record “your guy” had HIS ass handed to him in 2008 by a guy who thought that there were 57 states in America and who promised to put the U.S. on a socialized, single-payer health care plan.

            Still want to call names, tough guy?

          • Langley

            This isn’t tearing down. This is a preview of what Obama and the DNC will say about Romney – a rather tame preview, I might add.

            Obama is already going to run hard on class warfare. Unfortunately, even though class warfare is economic stupidity, it sells well to voters. Obama couldn’t dream up a better opponent than Romney for a class-warfare fight.

            I will vote for Romney over Obama. Doesn’t mean I have to like doing it, or like the man, or that I can’t have my own thoughts on what that election matchup would look like.

            PS. Any response to what I said about the McCain/Romney bet? Don’t forget taht 2008 had that whole credit crash crisis thing. McCain was doing fine in the polls before then, and never had a prayer afterwards: http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/polling/index.html

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Romney dropped out when conservatives like Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were saying he could win. The problem was Huckabee splitting the conservative vote.

            As for the 25% figure, the anti-Romney vote has never fared much better than that either, when coalescing around a Romney alternative. You seem to be assuming that the whole 75% is against Romney. If that’s what you think, I disagree because Romney does well in the favorability ratings. I think maybe 30% is against Romney, 10% is for Ron Paul, 20% or so is undecided and that leaves 15% who support someone other than Romney but aren’t particularly anti-Romney.

            In a different comment I noticed you said something about Romney not being conservative, as though that were an objective fact. But since the make-up of Romney’s core is speculative, I’m assuming you’re referring to his positions. Now if you want to say he had previously taken some non-conservative positions, such as on abortion, I can understand that criticism. But, using abortion as an example, he has stated that he would sign a human life amendment. I think that’s a conservative position. You might say, “well that’s just a position, that’s not what he actually believes,” and you are welcome to think that, but that’s not an objective fact. Another example is the Bush tax cuts. Romney says he will keep them if he is elected President, and he says he always favored them. You might counter by pointing to the anonymous person who was present in a private meeting almost ten years ago who claimed Romney ducked a question about endorsing the Bush tax cuts, but that seems like “he-said, she-said” and certainly does not constitute an objection on Romney’s part to the tax cuts. But even in the worst case scenario about his past, is the position itself of extending the Bush tax cuts not conservative?

            I admit I can’t read your mind. Would you be willing to explain what you are referring to when you say Romney is not conservative, and state whether you believe that is objective or subjective? Thanks.

          • acat

            If the 15% who “aren’t anti-Romney” existed, some subset of them would have migrated to him every time another candidate collapsed.

            Didn’t happen.

            The 20% who you call “undecided” have decided – they don’t like Willard.

            (and you’re also wrong on the Ron Paul percentage, based on his showings in 1988 and 2008, he’s really at 5% .. the rest is line noise)

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            You are assuming the 15% and 20% are against Romney. He might not be their top pick, but that doesn’t mean they are anti-Romney. He might be their third or fourth pick, for example, but I don’t think these are the “anybody but Romney” types. I say that because those ones tend to coalesce around whoever looks like the best alternative to Romney. And that group when banned together seems to only total about 30% or so.

            I am also making my own assumptions, but the point is that there are different ways to look at the data. And since Romney’s favorability rating is (I think) above 25%, that means the remaining the 75% is not anti-Romney.

            I would like to see the field narrow to Romney and Newt, because I like Newt and in fact he’s my second favorite of the group. But some people don’t like Newt. I don’t know how many. But I would love for Romney and Newt to have one-on-one debates. I think those would be substantive and would give Romney a chance to show how deep he can delve. I think Romney would shine in one-on-one debates with Newt.

            But I disagree with your Ron Paul analysis. In light of how he fared in the Iowa straw poll, I think his supporters are going to make it to the polls. It isn’t far-fetched to chalk 10% up to Ron Paul.

            I think one plausible scenario is the field narrowing and polls showing Romney getting 35%, Newt getting 35%, Paul getting 10%, and 15% either undecided or devoted to anyone else who has remained in the race. But even if Newt had more than 35%, I don’t think he’d get above 45%. Because I don’t think there are as many anti-Romney voters as you think. But we’ll see how it plays out. Like I say, I wouldn’t mind Newt so I would be very pleased with a field that is narrowed to those two.

          • heraklios

            will migrate out of the Republican Party in November if Willard is the nominee. A three way race, Obama/Romney/Ron Paul, would look like this: Obama 45%, Romney 40%, Paul and others 15%. same with Donald Trump or Gary Johnson. If Sarah Palin jumped in it might look like this: Obama (D) 45%, Palin (Ind.) 30%, Romney (R) 25%

            Face it, this country is NEVER going to elect Willard Mittens Romney President!

          • Langley

            Interesting proposition, but I think the premise is flawed.

            McCain was doing well in the polls late in the summer and improved with the addition of Palin as VP (forget everything you may think about her since that time – when she was added, the ticket got better).

            Remember the credit crash in Sept/Oct during that campaign? Right before the election? McCain actually had a shot. With the economic calamity that occurred with Bush in the White House (regardless of the reasons for it, and on top of the Bush/Republican fatigue that people already had), Obama had a perfect storm to win election

            I do think Romney would win more states than McCain. That doesn’t mean that on the issues Romney is a more “electable” candidate.

          • theredrider

            will win more states than McCain did. I think that most conservatives are with you there.

            But when you say that “on the issues, Romney is [not] a more electable candidate”, I’ve gotta ask, “More electable than whom?” McCain? Gingrich? Perry?

            I think that Romney is more electable than any of these. Polls seem to bear this out.

          • Langley

            Notice I’m “conceding” that based on a lot more than simply McCain and Romney as candidates. I’m “conceding” based on what actually happened to the country right before the 2008 election that threw a real monkey-wrench into McCain’s campaign. Saying that Romney would win more states than McCain isn’t really “conceding” a whole lot.

            Gingrich also has a flip-flopper/promoting liberal policies problem,, honestly (Medicare Part D, individual mandate, couch sitting with Pelosi, etc). He has just been at least a little more consistent of a Republican (he never ran away from Reagan-Bush, or slammed the Reagan tax cuts, etc) than Romney has. He never ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in an election. At his base, Gingrich does have conservative leanings and a general belief in Republican ideas and policies. Gingrich would be awesome debating Obama, I might add.

            My guy is Perry. I think he’s consistent, has a solid executive experience, and has the common-sense conservative instincts. He has had stumbles but (a) he’s greatly improved at debating, (b) we’re not electing a celebrity debater, but a President who has to actually run stuff, and (c) his job-creation background in Texas (as opposed to, say, Romney’s Bain Capital back ground) would be dynamite against Obama’s terrible unemployment numbers.

            Flame away.

          • Langley

            Saying that Romney is more electable just based on the polling now is a non-starter for me. Polls change. Half the country (I’m spit-balling here…) isn’t even really paying attention right now. There hasn’t been a general election campaign between Obama and the Republican candidate. There hasn’t been coalescing of conservative voters behind one Republican nominee.

            I’m not going to just pick a nominee based on some numbers that a polling company came up with, and not look at the big picture. And the big picture for Romney is not good.

          • theredrider

            to dig up some of the bad quotes that Romney made.

            I can find dumb things that Gingrich and Perry said THIS MONTH.

            I hate arguing about who is more consistent. There is no way that anyone will ever win this argument.

            What liberals and some conservatives fail to realize is that the financial meltdown of 2008 was caused by the U.S. government using its power to force banks to lend money to people who were risky bets. Newt Gingrich helped in this process.

            Romney didn’t get his hands dirty with Freddie Mac as Newt did.

            Romney can give the private sector the tools that it needs to rebuild the country. Perry can’t do that. Perry doesn’t understand the private sector as well as Romney and Cain do.

          • oldlady

            Is that why more jobs were created in the State of Texas than the entire rest of the nation? Is that why all these big companies (like Amazon) are relocating to Texas? Just wondering…..

          • Langley

            His job creation record in Texas is proof of that.

            And Romney was in favor of some kind of amnesty for illegals as recently as the last election cycle. The many, many flip flops, from 1994 and beyond, are well-documented. I think Romney’s a good businessman and would prefer him to Obama, but I don’t think he has bedrock conservative limited government beliefs.

            I know Newt was involved with Freddie Mac. Newt also pushed for Medicare Part D passage. He was also in favor of an individual mandate.

            Newt’s not that great but I prefer him to Romney. I prefer Perry above all others.

          • retire05

            stats for the unemployment rates of both Massachusetts and Texas between January, 2003 and January, 2007, when Romney was head honcho in Massachusetts.

            Although Texas started out with a higher unemployment rate, 7%, I believe, Rick Perry, through working with the Texas legislature lowered that rate down below 5%. Mitt Romney, on the other hand, only lowered his rate 8/10 of 1 percent.

            So the man you claim can give the private sector the tools to rebuild the country, didn’t do such a bang up job in his own state when he had the chance.

            And no, I don’t have to go all the way back to 1994 to dig up stupid stuff Romney said. I can go back to before he left the governor’s office in Jan. 2007 and find plenty of stupid statements on Mitt’s part. The only reason Mitt tacked right was to try to run a more conservative than John McCain. But his governing record tells an entirely different story. Even if Mitt supporters do want to excuse Mitt’s liberal ways by claiming he had no choice in a blue state.

            Bull hockey. As a Republican governor, it was Romney’s responsibility to show his state that conservative ideals work better. At that, he was a major fail.

          • carolynr

            When Mitty was Governor…his state was 47th out of 50 in job creation…and what was it about Perry…oh…that’s right…he does not understand the private section…that is why his state is FIRST IN JOB CREATION…PRIVATE SECTOR.

          • Tbone

            conservatives hated having to vote for McCain, they won’t even bother with Romney

          • Xasteius

            There’s no chance that OK is voting for Romney in the primary. I’d suspect that’s a likely Perry pickup (or Cain). Every county went for McCain in the general, however.

          • theredrider

            How do you know what conservatives will do next year?

            Were you appointed as their speaker? If so, I didn’t vote for you.

            You don’t speak for any of the conservatives that I had Thanksgiving dinner with yesterday, almost all of whom are Romney supporters.

            If they voted for McCain, they’ll definitely vote for Romney. Polls show that independents in states like Ohio, Florida, and Michigan like Romney better than any of the other Republicans. Oklahoma will go red in 2012. I’ll put 100-1 odds on that proposition. Feeling lucky, Tbone?

          • Tbone

            “You don?t speak for any of the conservatives that I had Thanksgiving dinner with yesterday, almost all of whom are Romney supporters.”

            LOL.

            Anyone who supports Romney is not a conservative. Period. End of story.

          • acat

            Non-unique form of stupid.

            Mew

          • davesinsanantonio

            If we had some ham we could have some ham and eggs.

            If we had some eggs.

        • donald_24

          McCain flip flopped on the tax cuts and amnesty. He even said during his 2010 re-election camaogin that he never referred to himself as a maverick. Except that he did. Lots of times.

          • Langley

            McCain did flip on tax cuts. He didn’t so much flip on amnesty, he was just brow-beaten into submission by the conservative base.

            I never said that John McCain was a perfect candidate (dear God no) or that he was 100% consistent. But did he change his entire political belief system multiple times over, on every issue? No.

            A flip-flop or two is to be expected from most politicians (they are politicians after all). How I wish Romney only had a “flip-flop or two.” How I wish.

          • theredrider

            McCain got together with Ted Kennedy and got an amnesty bill through committee that was so liberal that Bush said that he wouldn’t sign it!

            McCain also ambushed conservatives on ANWR which is one of the reasons that gas is so expensive. McCain has his own agenda. Whenever that agenda coincides with what conservatives want (like his hawkish attitude on every single foreign conflict) that is just a coincidence.

            McCain is definitely a defense conservative (of the Scoop Jackson vein, not the Ron Paul vein). But not very far to the right on social or fiscal issues.

          • Langley

            This is getting a little off-topic since John McCain isn’t running for President, this year or ever again.

            But I assume you are referring to this bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_America_and_Orderly_Immigration_Act_(S._1033)

            That may be the one that Bush threatened to veto.

            Most people do remember this bill, backed by McCain, Bush, Kennedy, et al that conservatives had to rise up and defeat by popular outcry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

            Note in the second link that the Comprehensive Act was based partly on the earlier McCain-Kennedy bill, and the same players were there.

            All that being said – McCain was for amnesty, of course. He was roundly criticized for that position. Then he said he “would build the goddamned fence” if conservatives insisted on it, hence my comment on being “brow-beaten”:
            http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/03/mccain-grumbles-about-having-to-build-the-goddamned-fence/

            Note that HotAir article does push readers toward Mitt in 2008, since he was seen as the anti-McCain (funny how this all plays out…).

            Then you have Mitt Romney, Immigration Hawk! from the other night. Except while he tries to act like Captain America now with regard to the border, he’s been in favor of what Gingrich was talking about just a few years ago: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/23/war-gingrich-and-romney-now-accusing-each-other-of-supporting-amnesty/

            Bottom line – Mitt Romney is a used-car salesman, and not a very good one. Like I said I’d vote for him over Obama, but he makes John Kerry look like a model of consistency. On top of Romney’s windsock tendencies, you have his background with Bain that makes him a delightful class warfare opponent for Obama (hence this post).

            Back to our original programming…

            PS. I’m not trying to prop up McCain, I wasn’t a fan of him being the nominee. Wouldn’t be a fan of Romney being the nominee either. We can do better, and shouldn’t just nominate the “next one in line” because he really really wants to be POTUS yet again.

        • blooch

          as the next “Not Romney”. Mitt just takes turns as the next “Not *That* Romney”.

          And for some reason, I think of “Mad Men” when I look at that picture…maybe it’s because Don Draper there in the middle has identity issues.

  • heraklios

    and all I get is threats from the moderators to have me banned from the site! No way in hell I would ever vote for Mitt Romney; he goes against everything our country stands for. He is slimy, dishonest, of the lowest character and unworthy of any position of influence in our society or government. I’m glad someone else finally recognizes this.

    • theredrider

      You’ve been saying, if I may paraphrase, that Perry is the only Republican that you will support.

      That is what got Neil to threaten you. You can call candidates “slimy”, “dishonest”, or whatever you want, but know that these terms apply to every politician. They apply to your hero, Rick Perry. They definitely apply to BHO. They apply to Newt Gingrich.

      All this in-fighting helps the Democrats and doesn’t move the conservative football forward at all.

      • heraklios

        I like Perry as much as anyone but I have consistently said I would support anyone in the field but Romney. I like Perry but not any more than the others.

        Also, for your information, Romney sets a new standard of slimy. He possesses absolutely no morals. His personal character is beyond reprehensible. No, these descriptions do not apply to “every politician” Mitt is in a category all to himself.

        • Bill S

          You posted promoting the idea of the formation of a third party. And I repeat: do it again and you’re gone.

  • donald_24

    One Dem SuperPAC is already using the Romney photo in their ads. Apparently they are not even waiting for Romney to get the nomination.

    When I first saw the photo, I thought it was Photo Shopped. Even if I had the kind of networth that Romney has, I would never pose with money sticking out of my pockets or in my mouth.

    • sethellis

      The claim you are attempting to dispute is that Romney is the most electable. Romney might have some serious vulnerabilities, but there is an inherent comparison when we say “most electable”.

      If the comparison is between Newt and Romney I think Romney wins hands down. The American public is already starting to reject the OWS attack on the rich. Meanwhile, I doubt they will ever forgive Gingrich’s past in lobbying.

      There is of course Perry. The vulnerability here is that people think he’s a bumbling fool. A certain level of competence is required to be President, and most don’t think Perry reaches the mark. Romney might be seen as a wall street jerk, but I’d rather have the jerk than the idiot. Maybe Perry redeems himself, but it remains to be seen if he can pull that off.

    • theredrider

      Dem SuperPAC’s. It’s like there’s a fifth column here that is so intrinsic to the fabric that it’s on the front page. And if you call someone out on it, then you’re a “rombot” or a “hive-minder” or a “fluffer” or whatever.

      I refuse to use Democrats’ talking points. That makes me more conservative than many of the front-pagers here.

      • Bill S

        you would see than another commenter posted that before streiff used it.

        I’d dial it down if I were you.

      • izoneguy

        Disagree -

        Supporting Romney is not a conservative thing to do.

        We have blown apart every stance of Romney.

        You may “feel” you are being conservative by supporting Romney,
        but in reality you are not.

        The RINO’s in DC love Romney because he is one of them.

        • theredrider

          Is Chris Christie a RINO? How about Jim DeMint? Ann Coulter? Sean Hannity?

          I support Romney because I want a Republican in the White House and I believe that he is a conservative. You can blow opinions out your blowhole all day long but that isn’t going to change what I know to be true.

          RS is now only interested in validating itself. It’s that old story of how everyone loves an underdog but only roots for top dogs. No front-pager on RS wants to get caught supporting the one Republican who can win next year. And the excuses are sounding weaker with every passing week. Finally, you will have to admit that you just don’t care about winning elections. You’re a hermit-conservative, waiting for your Parcifal to arrive.

          • izoneguy

            Chris Christie – RINO – yep
            Ann Coulter – RINO – yep

            DeMint & Hannity have not endorsed Romney.

            I don’t want a Republican in the White House who will
            destroy conservatism. This RINO push is all about
            purging conservatism from the Republican party.

          • heraklios

            +1

          • federalfarmer1

            Seriously, get a grip. Reasonable conservatives can disagree without being rinos. Romney is the most electable. The liberal media will try to make hay about romneys time with bain, but its a tack that won’t get them anywhere. Obama cost the country far more jobs than romney. Wait until gm motors and more banks go down. Romneys biggest problem is getting conservatives excited, but folks will realize how high the stakes are and line up behind him. Still, he’s an establishment guy and won’t do much to advance conservatism. So vote Newt!

          • gekster

            when she endorsed Christie, and then when he didn’t get in,
            she endorsed Romney.
            Conservatives endorse other conservatives.
            Rinos endorse other rinos.

            You should get a grip.

          • heraklios

            and she’s one crazy b*tch to boot!

      • streiff

        the Romney campaign talking points are an insult to human dignity.

        • theredrider

          nt

        • heraklios

          +2

  • thinkfirst1

    After nearly a decade of Mormon-funded campaigning for the GOP nomination, Romney ought to be the best-campaigner, but he’s still the man who lost to the man who lost to Obama. He is also the man who lost to Teddy Kennedy after flip-flopping on pork-barrel spending to copy Kennedy. Willard “Mitt” Romney, wants us to trust his latest make-over? No sale.

    The problem with Gingrich is not really his craven abandonment of his hospitalized wife for a younger babe, while he criticized Bill Clinton for serial-adultery, but the ease with which he sold-out conservatives on global warming and other vital challenges for the sake of money and publicity. (Who can forget him posing with Nancy Pelosi?) He also lacks executive experience – the presidency requires executive skills!

    Cain’s real problem is not sexual harassment but cluelessness on many domestic and foreign policy matters and a resume that is as “enhanced” as Obama’s. Godfather’s was never “near bankruptcy” until after Cain ran it down from a $130m to a $30m company while employed by Pillsbury. Cain’s church, where he is an assistant pastor, has as a “major” influence the radical violent racist (anti-white) separatist Muslim Malcolm X … is that evidence of good judgment or more of the same as Obama and the not-so-
    reverend Wright?

    It’s too late for Bachmann, Huntsman, Johnson, Roemer, and Santorum … and Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul – a utopian-Libertarian isolationist pretending to be a Republican.

    Let’s get real. The 11-year record of increasingly-conservative leadership by Texas Governor Rick Perry is the best we will get in 2012. He stumbled out of the gate and is as imperfect as every other human – but he learns, has excelled the last two debates, and is already taking the battle to Obama in his campaign ads. He is respected in Texas and in the military, has battled the Feds for years to deal with the open border, and has positioned Texas to attract jobs while Obama has chased them away.

    • theredrider

      His current look says, “I have no idea what I stand for”.

      It also has shades of “I refuse to memorize my own talking points.”

      Perry doesn’t have any credibility with me. Not after gardasil/Merck and his immigration position.

      • gekster

        You get lamer by the minute.

        Did Hello Kitty Island Paradise deny your registration.

      • Langley

        On immigration:
        You mean the immigration position where he’s had to spend Texas dollars on border enforcement because the Feds won’t exercise their responsibility?

        You mean where he opposed sanctuary cities in Texas? Where he opposed drivers licenses for illegals?

        The notion of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants didn’t sit well with me either. Then I looked at the rest of Perry’s record. And I looked at the whole thing pragmatically – the Feds already require states to pay for illegals’ education K-12. These are kids who were brought here by their parents (i.e. not of their own volition). The requirement is 3 years living in Texas for an illegal child, 1 year for a citizen. It has no bearing on the college admissions, just on what the price will be.

        The bottom line for me on this is, Texas has an almost 2000 mile border with Mexico. That border is not secured, and not by Texas’s fault. The Texas legislature passed the legislation based on what was economically pragmatic (give them a tuition break when they’ve already been educated K-12, or put college out of reach and they are more likely to end up on government dole). The Texas legislature, who nobody would accuse of being liberal, passed this legislation overwhelmingly and veto-proof. Perry signed it because he also made the judgment call that it was a net positive for the state given all the surrounding details.

        You have the luxury of not having to govern a border state like Texas for the past decade. Perry doesn’t. On one particular policy he went with a near-unanimous Republican legislature in a direction that you disagree with. And for that you “don’t trust him.” OK, your call dude. I guess Romney knows better because he has governed a state on the border and has consistently opposed amnesty. That last sentence was not true.

        On Gardasil:
        Look, the CDC now recommends HPV vaccine for boys. Other states have also mandated the vaccine. Every state requires some vaccines for kids who go to public school. This was a vaccine to prevent cancer, with an opt-out. It was opt-out, rather than opt-in, to get insurance coverage.

        The bottom line on Gardasil is that it wasn’t an outrageous policy to implement, it was just done the wrong way procedurally (via executive order). Perry has said that he made a mistake going that route. When has Romney ever admitted to making a mistake politically? Even Newt has stated that getting on the couch with Pelosi was one of the “dumbest” things he’s done.

      • Langley

        If you don’t know what Perry stands for (limiting the scope and size of the federal government), you haven’t been paying attention

        If you don’t know his “talking points,” you also haven’t been paying attention. 20% flat income tax, 20% corporate tax, no tax on SS benefits, open up drilling in this country, no more energy subsidies or credits besides R&D, part-time Congress, limiting terms of federal judgeships, etc etc. He’s talked about these in interviews, debates, speeches, forums, and so on and so forth.

        If you’re basing Perry’s lack of “talking points” on debates earlier in the race, well he did get in a little late if you didn’t notice. Romney had years to make a milquetoast 59 point plan. Perry jumped in and has gradually rolled out dynamic policy ideas in a much shorter time span.

        • cbartlett

          I just wish the media would quit bashing Perry – or, actually, they tend to ignore him more often than not. And I mean ALL media – including Fox. The constant, constant polling showing Perry at single digits is so discouraging. I took just enough statistics classes in college to learn to look at what is behind any “percentage” quoted in any media statement. Some of these so-called “polls” that Fox News is quoting have percentages based on 400 or 500 people – in the whole country? Give me a break! I live in a conservative college town in Texas and even though our county would probably vote at least 90% for Perry in an election, I could probably find 500 Dems hiding out somewhere that would answer a poll and make it look like he’d lose by 98%. Perry has certainly come in from behind in other state elections. Sure hope he can pull this one off

      • turkeyotooley

        You fear Rick Perry. Your job is to shape conservative opinion to prevent Perry’s candidacy catching fire. Repeating the mantra that “Perry is dumb” in various forms is silly propaganda. It might have worked in the past, but conservatives are tired of being told how to think.

        You are either hired by the Romney campaign to do what you are doing or you are seriously deluded about Romney’s “electablility.”

        Romney is a complete disaster of a candidate. The one thing he has going for him is the Establishment machine and a number of political operatives sent to shape opinion on conservative websites.

        But Romney propaganda is failing on this site (thank God) and Romney is being exposed for the complete fraud he is.

        In fact, Rombot persistance in trying to circle a square and declare Romney’s “inevitability” has motivated me to join those who declare that Romney is the worst thing to happen to conservatism and the Republican party in a long time.

        The fact that you have the gall to use propaganda tactics (bandwagon, ad hominem, cognitive dissonance, etc.) to advance a false narrative about Rick Perry just emboldens me further.

        In fact, you Rombots may want to completely rethink your strategy. I was content to engage in political discourse in conversation with friends, but I am now angry enough to begin posting AGAINST Romney on a number of conservative websites.

        Now you can more fully appreciate Rick Perry’s timely sentiment: “Oops.”

        • westcoastpatriette

          to defend Perry as the phony Rombots continue their campaign to discredit him. It is disgusting and makes me wanna put on my fighting boots, too. Thanks for coming out in Perry’s defense.

  • donald_24

    At least one good thing that will happen if Romney loses to Obama (and yes, there is a silver lining) is that it gives the GOP 4 years to go out and find a better crop of candidates… people like Bobby Jindal, Bob McDonnell, Brian Sandoval, Allen West, etc. The 2016 GOP primary, if there is one, will be VERY strong. And if Joe Biden is the 2016 Democratic nominee, a ham sandwich can beat him.

    • Bill S

      It didn’t work then and it’s unlikely to work now. The GOP continues to operate in “heir apparent” mode.

      • theredrider

        We don’t jump on the bandwagon with untested insurgents the way that the Dems jumped on board the insurgent Obama campaign in 2008.

        But there are some good candidates out there who will be sea-worthy in 2016 if we somehow don’t win next year.

        Jon Huntsman is a great candidate and should try again. I also like Bobby Jindal, Tom Coburn, and Jeff Flake.

        Nikki Haley would also be a great candidate in 2016. Also a good pick for Romney if he needs a smart, conservatve running mate.

    • heraklios

      I would rather lose to Barry O in 2012 than have a RINO (Mitt Romney) elected. Mitt Romney would destroy the conservative movement, would cost us Congress in 2014 and would put the Democrats in control for a generation. Better to swallow 4 more years of Barry O and get a real conservative in 2016 than vote for a RINO like Romney. I think enough conservatives agree with my opinion on this to insure that no way does Romney ever sniff the White House.

      • tomatin

        I totally agree Romney has a good chance to destroy what Reagan did if elected.

        For one thing not in 100 years will Romney end Obamacare because it’s his jewel too.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      IF the GOP loses to Obama then there wont be anything left to matter.

      I am serious about that. We will be in a major great depression with hyperinflation. There will be riots in the streets and most likely a martial law in our major cites.

      This is no exaggeration. There is absolutely no evidence that the democrats (or half of the republicans) know what they are doing or have any idea of just how bad things are. They will continue to play their political games until the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards.

      I will give Romney credit that at least I think he is smart enough and has enough financial knowledge that he can see us about to fall to pieces. Perry would be an even stronger advocate for reform and cutting spending.

  • satchman3

    It shows successful business people who have jobs and are making money. That’s something this country needs more of not less. If Obama wants to run against jobs and profitability represented by Mitt Romney he’ll get his clock cleaned.

    Even my nanny-stater left-wing liberal friends won’t defend OWS any more. Their day in the sun is up. They can only pray that somebody uses pepper spray or tear gas on them – that’s all they’ve got.

    • acat

      even though the Dem mayors of several #occupied cities have shoved the protestors out of the way, the anger – the *same* anger that fueled the Tea Parties, I’ll note, only without the Tea Party understanding of who to be mad at – is still there.

      My gay communist associate, who has followed #occupy{majorcity} quite literally from the front lines, tells me that they’re going underground, not going away.

      Romney is caught between a rock (his political career) and a hard place (his bankster career) .. and cannot successfully argue his way out of either. He’s literally the worst positioned candidate for this.

      Mew

      • satchman3

        and it’s getting harder and harder for the hippies to avoid that conclusion.

        I agree that the protesters are still angry but my point was that the sympathy from the voting population at large is waning significantly. Early in the movement I think they were a sympathetic group but their failure to produce an agenda and a leader leaves them a rudderless failure. They can go underground but they won’t be influential.

        It may be wishful thinking but I’m hoping to see a backlash against the freeloaders. I find their situation reminiscent of when the unemployed went on strike in France.

        • acat

          can possibly make the case.

          I suspect the Dem mayors who have shut down #occupy know that they’ll be up for re-election but the occupiers won’t.

          Mew

          • theredrider

            is not, and never has been a part of Washington or it’s culture.

            He’s an outsider. That’s how he makes the case. Republicans who become president generally run as outsiders.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Romney’s been in politics just as long, the only difference is he just isn’t very good at it.

          • theredrider

            Can you also make this claim: “this other Republican is better at politics than Romney”?

            Newt is terrible at politics. He’s good at the quid pro quo. But he doesn’t keep his word.

            Same problem with Rick Perry.

            And Cain is just a rabbit lost in the woods.

            Romney’s the best candidate that we have.

          • Langley

            Newt: Long-time Member of the House, Speaker of the House (agreed that he hasn’t always kept his word – but to say he “fails at politics” is just false)
            Perry: Has won every election he’s ever run in, and successfully run the state of Texas for a decade.

            Cain: agree with you there.

            Romney: lost to Ted Kennedy after trying to run to his left and denouncing Reagan-Bush. Won one election as a proclaimed pro-choicer (among other things). Didn’t seek re-election because he would lose. Started changing his tone towards the end of his term to gear up for a POTUS run. Didn’t work out. Running again.

          • acat

            The mood of the country is sour on big banks and wall street, not just D.C.

            Mew

          • satchman3

            Romney has more business success to talk about than anyone else in the race. More than any of the other GOP candidates and more than Obama. If the race is about understanding what makes business successful and how jobs get created he can draw on business success that none of the others have.

            People that don’t understand business will try to beat him up on corporate raiding or similar claptrap–he’ll clean their clock with their ignorance about business.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      values. He is pro business, has been a competent exec in and out of government and will make a good contrast with a community organizer that organized America around food stamps.

      I am for a tea partier and hope we don’t end up settling for Mitt, but i don’t fear the tales the MSM and Dems can spin over Mitt any worse than anyone else. The main problem for Mitt is the RomneyCare effect of muting criticism of ObamaCare.

  • mariagomez

    Redstate is an influential website that I have enjoyed for a long time now. But I’m having a hard time understanding what appears to almost be vendetta-like anti-Romney postings.

    Romney is no threat to Governor Perry. And the supporters that Gov Perry lost all went first to Cain, then on to Gingrich.

    I doubt that even one lost Perry supporter went to Romney. Thus, I don’t understand the anti-Romney stuff. Should you be focusing more on Gingrich?

    Peace to you all.

    • mariagomez

      No, I’m not what you call a Romni-bot, though I have been trying to defend him on this site. And no, I’m not Mormon either.

      Mitch Daniels was my first choice, then Paul Ryan, then Chris Christi (yes, I get that Christi is not truly conservative, but I love hearing him talk smack to the unions.)

      I will support whoever the Republican nominee winds up being.

      • jaykali

        Its hard to say bc you don’t really know how candidates will do until they start campaigning

    • acat

      Romney isn’t.

      Mew

      • theredrider

        The same Newt who ran to the left of Democrat Jack Flynt in 1974 and 1976. The same Newt who got together with Pelosi and Harry Reid on global warming? The one who took cash from Freddie Mac?

        Please. Newt just likes to hear himself talk. He is whatever you want him to be.

      • RedRedhead

        Every single republican running for president is a conservative (With the possible exception of Ron Paul),

        If Mitt Romney isn’t conservative enough to be considered a conservative what positions do you need to be a conservative?

        He’s pro state’s rights
        He’s pro-business
        He’s against high taxes and redistribution of wealth.
        He’s pro-life

        If your metric is more than this, can a ‘conservative’ possibly win national election?

        I’m seeing a sort of undercurrent of ‘Once a governor of a liberal state, never a conservative.’ and it’s been bothering me.

        • gekster

          Holds a position because it is a core belief.
          Something Romney lacks.

        • donald_24

          As governor, Romney raised taxes and was pro choice. Not to mention that the individual mandate and the fine for non-comliance itself is a tax.

        • tomatin

          How can you call someone pro-life when he threw the cause under the bus just to get elected in MA.

          Romney sat down with NARAL and said he would do nothing to stop abortion.

          So Romneycare=Obamacare is conservative now.

          • esquip17

            He’s a former Mormon bishop. Of course he’s pro life. Look we all agree abortion is wrong, but what’s wrong for letting states decide? You can’;t tell people what to do in America. Half the people think abortion is a right, Ithink their wrong but is it worth losing the white house? What’s wrong with seeking private sector solutions to unwanted pregnancy? This is pointless! I would never diss another Republican that might be our shot at getting the socialists out.

          • Tbone

            he is also pro-abortion.

          • heraklios

            or something like that….

    • theredrider

      At least you see what’s going on here. To remain relevant, the front-pagers feel like they must stop Romney.

      Actually, if they helped get Romney elected, they would also remain relevant, but then they’d have to (gasp) flip-flop!

      It’s silly. No one should marry himself or herself to any candidate. Nor should we kid ourselves about how one guy is the “pure conservative” in the race. The pure conservative doesn’t exist. We must make our pick from the human beings that are running this year.

      • satchman3

        this too will pass

        • avagreen

          BTW, who “they”?

          The folks that have been pointed out Cain’s foibles? Which he kept providing?

  • breaves

    She is the one that I really wanted. Sarah is the reason I changed my registration and voting habits from Democrat to Republican. Sarah opened my eyes to many things and I am forever grateful to her for that. I was formally a “progressive” Democrat and Sarah helped me realize how those worldviews were destroying our society and our world. I do not know who I will vote for in my primary, but it won’t be Mitt.

    • westcoastpatriette

      What specifically did you learn from Sarah? Maybe you could teach us how to win over more progressives by sharing more detail about your conversion.

    • donald_24

      Because Sarah Palin is more interested in staying at her current job and making 7 digits a year. There, I said it. Sarh Palin knew full well that she was not going to run for president in March when Fox News suspended their contracts with Gingrich and Santorum, but kept pretending to run for president in order to boost her ratings. Had she been serious about running, Fox would have suspended their contract with her in March as well.

  • heraklios

    Romney has never worked at a real job a day in his life. His wealthy/celebrity governor father got him into Harvard, then got him a job on Wall Street. He pushes some paper around for 20 years, lays off workers and destroys companies, and get credited with being a genius. He becomes a far left liberal to win in MA then immediately announces conservative positions to try to run for President. The man doesn’t have a sincere, honest bone in his body. He is worse than any used car salesman, lawyer, or politician. In sum, he’s a person who would have earned nothing but scorn and contempt from most honest hard-working Americans in a past age. He’s not a true American.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      Romney is an alien planning to take over the Presidency!

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        • acat

          Mew

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            I wonder when they’ll remake this one…

  • texasref

    If the LSM won’t do the vetting of Romney (they sure seem to love vetting everyone else), then we will have to vet him ourselves.

    Can we now all agree that Romney is unelectable?

    • heraklios

      Brother

    • tomatin

      The LSM is waiting for Romney to win the nomination before the vetting begins.

  • jaykali

    At least he’s had a real job. He can put up young Barry with a cigarette in his mouth on city buses.

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      .=.no.text.=.

      • jaykali

        As far as I can tell he was hoping to win the presidency on his Foreign policy strengths, the problem was the country was wanting to bring our troops home and focus on demostic issues most notably the banking crisis. And he was never very persuasive on that central issue. I think Romneys pitch is much better and more in line with the electorate this time around.

        • tomatin

          How is Romney going to do good on the central issue when he was on the wrong side of the central issue?

          I can see the Obamabot commercials now.

          • gekster

            You have some info we don’t know about.
            That would be interesting.

          • tomatin

            He bought profitable companies and bankrupted them .

          • gekster

            He left Bain in 94 when he ran for the Senate.
            What did he do after that, that contributed to the crises.
            It would have to have been during the last 4-5 years.

          • tomatin

            with their love affair with fannie and fredie But people will look at Bain and just associate it with Wall Street failure. Maybe I should not have said crisis but believe me the LSM will focus on the failures of those companies and tie Romney to Wall Street.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            I will be very very very very ticked off if they do not start some investigations of these two obvious crooks.

          • gekster

            Romney had nothing to do with the wallstreet colapse,
            and anyone saying so is spreading misinfomation.
            Lets just stick to the facts.

          • jaykali

            Personally I think the Democrat machine WAY overestimates the common man’s so-called hatred for Wall Street. Remember in like 08-09 they thought a wall street bill would be popular and thought they could tie Republicans to main street and I think it was met by a collective yawn. Sure OWS is in a fit of rage ab Wall Street but does the common independent think Wall Street is more in the pocket of Republicans than Democrats? And do they care. I mean everyone has 401ks and whatnot – do we really want to punish our savings accounts?

            I think ppl are much more laser focused on jobs and the state of the economy and are more likely to see Republicans and conservatives as business friendly which I think is more in style this time around than big govt spending projects which have been tried and have failed. I dont think raising taxes is going to be a political winner in the end.

          • davesinsanantonio

            highly unrealistic to expect the Dims and their lapdog media to.

            For the majority of the voting public, Mittens will be seen as a Wall Street “insider”, and that is worse than a D.C. insider. And “facts” won’t be able to dispel that perception. And, the Dims will play on that perception right up till Obummer’r re-inaugural ball!

            Nominating Mittens will guarantee Obummer’s second term. And, for all you slow learners out there, Obummer will do more damage in his second four years than the GOP can fix in twenty!!! In fact, I doubt that there will ever be another free election in this country without major bloodshed. So, saying that you hope for Obummer to win so we can finally get a conservative majority in Congress is ignoring almost all of human history. If the Dims win in ’12, then legal conservatism, and the Constitution, will be all but dead. The Bill of Rights will be effectively abolished all the while the Dims will be praising it. They have a history of saying one thing and doing the opposite. Especially if it will cement their hold on power.

            So, if you love America as it once was, and have hopes of recovering it and our prosperity, then you better do better than Mittens. And, even then you better keep a sharp eye on the Marxist in the White House and his Weathermen cronies who have already planted bombs in this country, and will be happy to do it again!

          • jaykali

            You would be more likely to say Mitt is a fat cat Wall-street /like/ the ones who caused the Wall Street crisis. There is no doubt the opposition will go for that angle. But you have Gingrich out there who had his hand in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac like during the period when the crisis came ab so he looks alot more like someone you could directly blame in my opinion.

  • donald_24

    Romney’s business record is a complete sham. When Romney was at Bain, 5 profitable companies he took over went bankrupt.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ

    • tomatin

      The Romneybots just ignore his real record.

      • jaykali

        I havent really heard much in the way of specifics ab Romneys record. I’d really like the rest of the VP candidates, I mean presidential candidates to actually /debate/ him ab it and see what his defense is. So far he barely has to defend anything.

  • tomatin

    Why on earth would any true conservative want Romney to get elected?

    Romney would kill any good integrity we have with the conservative cause. He would no doubt time and time again do what the polling tells him and not lead like a conservative.

    Every conservitive in this field has question makrs but Romney should be wearing the old Batman, Riddler costume with all the question marks. It’s bad enough mainstream conservatives have backdown on cutting spending. Romney would probably end up caving on raising taxes even.

    I would vote for Romney but face it he’ll hurt the conservative cause win or lose.

    • jaykali

      I dont think ppl look at Romney and say, ‘wow this is a hardcore conservative’, I am going to judge conservatism based on this guy. I mean he was a Massachusetts governor, I would think most ppl would see him as potentially a bi-partisan guy that could accomplish some things.

      • davesinsanantonio

        with good hair, that they would be wary of buying a used car from.

        The Dims, and their MSM lapdogs, would be all over his flip flops, and probably run ads with videos of him saying one thing and then saying the opposite, so that nobody will know where he really stands.

        In fact, except for wanting really badly to get elected, I don’t think even Mittens knows where he stands!

        • esquip17

          We need a slick Wall Stree guy!! Such socialism! Shame on you Red Staters! Class warfare! What is wrong with portfolio income? Cronyism is the problem, not speculation. Save the socialism, I shouldn’t have to make that point here!

  • donald_24

    Can someone please explain to me why conservatives keep accusing Obama of class warfare? It does not seem to be an effective strategy. The more class warfare rhetoric that Obama uses, it seems the better his poll numbers do. In fact, if you listen to Obama’s speeches, like the one he give at the bridge in Boehner’s district, it is as if he likes being accused of class warfare. He actually enjoys it.

    FDR engaged in class warfare during his re-election campaigns, Guess what? FDR was elected 4 times.

    I am certainly not defending class warfare, but I will not defend ineffective campaign strategies.

    • jaykali

      I mean it seems like it does to some extent. I think calling it class warfare is trying to point out that it is a political tactic, not a solid leadership aspect of his presidency.

      • davesinsanantonio

        the only “leadership aspect” of his presidency. Other than “campaigning” there has been no “leadership” in his presidency.

  • tomatin

    The only reason Romney leads polls against Obama now is because Romney has been RUNNING FOR SIX YEARS!

    The only difference in these poll numbers against Obama is that most Independent voters don’t know the names of the other GOP candidates yet.

    • wacowboy

      but every news story for the past three years has had the phrase “presumptive nominee” when speaking of Mitt.

      I barely born at the 1980 election, but wasn’t Reagan trailing Carter by some 20 points — we all know how that turned out. picking a horse now because he currently polls even with Obummer is silly

  • tomatin

    Everytime you right about Romney’s record you leave out his past positions.

    One things I use to be able to count on with conservatives was the fact they stuck with their principles.

    First with McCain a littl eand now with Romney allot we are suppose to look the other way on the past conservative credentials.

    With Romney we will lose, period because the public will find out he’s a phoney.

    • donald_24

      Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. Both are liberal. Both flip flop. Both don’t excite their base. And both were considered by their base to be the “electable” candidate. 2012 is a repeat of the 2004 Democratic primary. The liberal base wanted Howard Dean the same way the Conservative base wants Rick Perry or Herman Cain. But they went with the boring flip flopping liberal because he is supposed to be more “electable.”

      Wake up people. History is repeating itself right in front of your eyes. And I am not the first one to draw a comparison between 2004 and 2012. Plenty of people smarter than myself have done it as well.

      • acat

        The difference being, the majority of Dem voters had qualms about Howard Dean because of who he was.

        I don’t think the same thing is true about Gingrich or Perry, although it is fair that people have been left wondering what to believe about Cain.

        Mew

        • tomatin

          I don’t know how Dean would have gone but we are leting the LSM elect Romney. Dems let the LSM elect Kerry because the traitor was suppose to have some kind of credibility with war.

      • tomatin

        I wrote below how this year is for conservatives like 2008 was for left wingers.

        We have a chance to pick a real conservative like the Dems picked a socialist and are we blowing it listing to the mainstream GOP that lost last time.

      • wacowboy

        thing for weeks. Although I won’t claim to be one of the smarter ones around here.

        Mitt is the GOP version of John Kerry. What blows my mind is that so few others see it.

      • jaykali

        I dont think Bush was as weak as Obama is now tho so if he had been maybe he would have lost.

  • donald_24

    If Romney is the nominee, he won’t even win his home state of Massachusetts. Can anyone recall a president who lost his home state and won? Maybe I should ask President Gore. He lost Tennessee.

    • A_Ready_Repub

      BUNK!

      • davesinsanantonio

        Just writing “bunk”, even if in all caps, is not really an argument.

        Argument: Statement of logic or fact.

        “Too many people quarrel because they do not know how to argue.”

        So, your one word “rebuttal”, complete with exclamation point, does not equal an argument. So, if you have something cogent to add, please do so. I would be interested in reading it. Thank you.

  • tomatin

    Believe it or not this same lame electability argument was going on with left wingers in 2008. They had the establishment candidate Clinton and the candidate that got the left wing base going Obama.

    We are in an election this year that we can’t lose with Obama. So there is no reason to go for the “safe” candidate.

    I guess everyone forgets that McCain’s best polling numbers were right after he picked Palin so moving right made McCain MORE electible but McCain flubbed it up by letting the LSM define Palin instead of him doing it because face it he does not have conservative principles like the one’s Palin has.

    So why tick off the GOP base and shoot ourselves in the foot AGAIN. For some LSM created word “electability” when it didn’t work in the past.

    Perry or Gingrich will get the base fired up to no end. The only reason the base is not fired up now is because Romney is in the race and we are letting the LSM define Perry and Gingrich and force feeding us Romney. If we only had one or two true conservatives challenge Romney now Romney would be polling third against Obama.

    • avagreen

      About the LSM forcefeeding us Romney, and defining Perry and Gingrich.

      I, of course, prefer Perry, but Gingrich would be better IMO than Romney.

      I can stand that frozen smile and that one strategic lock of hair falling on his forehead along with the rolled up sleeves for just so long. *staged*

    • jaykali

      I think Obama could win in certain scenarios. I dont think anyone knows for sure whether or not Obama can win. But he’ll have a lot of money and a lot of class warfare rhetoric and he will try to make the argument that the Republican will be ‘way worse’ than he. Time will tell if this will work.

      I have already counted Cain out, in my opinion you have Gingrich, Romney and Perry (holding on by a thread). Gingrich doesnt have money or retail campaigning skills and he has as much or more baggage than anyone else. Perry has a lot of flaws and his fundraising is starting to dry up I’ve heard. Now if one of these guys surge, sure they’ll get more money but you know Huckabee ran a great campaign last time around and he still didn’t get much money. I mean money really does matter. If you have 5-1 commercials in Obamas favor that means you have constant negative ads telling you not to vote for this scary, extreme Republican candidate and less anti-Obama ads. This will definitely be the most negative cynical campaign ever waged in a presidential campaign. So I do not except Michelle Bachman’s assertion that anybody could win. I think she is the first example I’d list, the media has no problem easily casting her as a ‘crazy lady’ you dont want near nuke controls.

      I am just kind of down on this field altogether. I was much more positive before all the campaigns begin. Now that we’ve seen all the flaws these candidates have its easier to see how Obama could exploit them.

      • jaykali

        I know we think its going to be an hour of Gingrich or somebody just killing Obama on any one of a million disasters hes overseen (does the oil spill even make top 10??) but I can promise it will be 50/50 at best bc the moderators will make sure that Obama gets equal time to focus on the Republicans record and baggage. The media will absolutely be complicit in arranging the questions, subjects, etc on and if that doesnt work Obama just wont agree to do very many. If I were Obama I’d just do a handful: CNN, ABC, NBC, get those friendly moderators and make as much of the debate ab criticizing the Republican as possible. If he comes out a push that would be a big win for him bc he is going to dominate the airwaves.

      • tomatin

        I should have said we can’t lose if we pick a real conservative.

        I don’t underestimate the effect of money either but Romney’s money is already drying up with max donors. All ads are going to have to be third party ads for Romney. You are just not going to get conservative working folks supporting Romney. That’s how you beat Obama get our the real working Americans.

        You just can’t win with a candidate who is on the wrong side of Obamacare.

        • jaykali

          But look if he wins the primary conservatives will support the Republican candidate. And moreso in this election than in ones past.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            seems to be that the left will be offended by Romney’s success.

            But when Romney takes care to not offend the left/moderates by using honey rather than vinegar, such as when he explains why cap-and-trade is a bad idea, he gets criticized.

            The truth is, no one knows who would ultimately be the most “electable” candidate 11 months from now. But the only objective evidence at our disposal, the polls pitting various Republicans one-on-one against Obama, Romney often fares best. So this diary is pretty subjective and unbalanced. It’s an attack piece, apparently not at attempt at objective analysis.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            ..

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            His apparent greed, in the true and literal sense of the love of money.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            in the picture, not much different in principle from huge novelty checks which show off the amount of money on the check. I don’t see how you get “greed” from it.

            I heard that when Romney went back to save Bain he only took one dollar as payment. Same thing as Governor of Massachusetts, and pretty much the same thing with the Olympics. He seems to be obsessed with solving problems, not with money. In fact, if you watch the video and read the accompanying commentary on this piece I think you’ll look at Romney with a new insight.

            A fun picture, probably intended to celebrate after the hard work that went into a particular success, probably isn’t the best way to judge his character. Will it be unfairly used against him by lefties? Probably. But as conservatives I think we should acknowledge that their future attack isn’t going to be very fair.

          • acat

            pretty much since greed was identified as one of the seven deadlies.

            Where have you been?

            Do I think Romney’s silver spoon or Bain success should count against him? No. However, when dealing with an opponent whose wheelhouse is class warfare, why should we send such an easy target?

            Mew

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I *doubt* he’s a greedy person, but that picture will paint him as a greedy person to a lot of voters.

            Surely you can admit that?

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            what about Donald Trump? When he was considering a run, boasting about how he has the real money and that Romney is small-time by comparison, I didn’t hear anyone on the right say that would be a liability in a trump candidacy. You might have been saying that, but all the people I was talking to at the time didn’t say it.

          • heraklios

            He was just trying to keep his name in the news/self promote

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            A great many of us thought Trump would have zero chance. Of course, a great many of us wanted nothing to do with him at all.

            I guess you just weren’t paying attention also when Perry was zinged for merely having lunch with Trump.

          • acat

            xkcd.

            Second, the Left will not be “appeased”. They will be offended, it’s what they *do*, it’s who they’ve been since the 1960s hard-left takeover started.

            Willard “Mitt” Romney will get the full Palin/Joe-The-Plumber treatment – and then some. He will be called racist, he will be called a trust-fund baby, he will be called an obstructionist. There is not one thing you or Willard can do to change this, Ryan.

            If Romney is even a quarter as clueless about the true nature of the left as you appear to be, Ryan, after having his {backside} handed to him *repeatedly* in Massachusetts, he’s not qualified for any elected office.

            Mew

          • davesinsanantonio

            especially those run by lefties!

            For there to be ANY objectivity in a poll they must report all of the exact questions asked, in they order they were asked, the exact makeup of the sample, etc. Most do not report all of these things. For example, most polls ask more questions than they actually report on. In addition, many polls say in the “report” that they asked a certain type of person, but almost always fail to break down the geography and the demographics. Asking “1000 people from across the country” is misleading if all the respondents were from the east and west coasts and none in the South, Midwest or Mountain West.

            The history of polling has been that the early polls have almost no connection with the final election results.

            Let us see how the actual primaries and caucuses begin to turn out before we try to say how the general election will be.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            I agree polls are not perfect, but they offer something objective even if it’s only an imperfect glimpse. It’s good to realize the imperfections of any evidence one looks at. But polls, especially when different polls are consistent with each other, offer something tangible.

          • davesinsanantonio

            There are a lot of conservatives who go burned last cycle, and who will just stay home if we nominate another softy flip-flopper. You don’t rouse the base with a lukewarm “it’s my turn” type. To get the base fired up, and to get indys to get on the bandwagon, you need a nominee who has a track record, good character, and a plausible plan, who does well on the stump and in the crowds during campaign stops and meet-and-greets. Look closely at the candidates for these qualities and nominate the best one who meets these criteria. Don’t nominate the guy the MSM lapdogs are slavering over! Remember, the debates are not the sole criteria for picking the person to carry our banner.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            Republicans won’t even care what they say anymore.

            But I don’t believe conservatives stayed home, I think some were duped by hope and change. So were a lot of the middle that will vote for a good Republican candidate, but went with Obama because of the hype, because of the historic election, and because McCain didn’t show leadership.

          • jaykali

            Is that conservatives are going to stay home in 2012 bc they didn’t get their favorite candidate. Complete BS.

  • AndrewHyman

    I dunno, but I doubt voters will be swayed one way or the other by the silly photograph in this blog post. At least he wasn’t bowing down to any foreign potentate. The Romney campaign might even use this photograph, with a caption like: “Vote Romney: He’s Been Generating Financial Success For Decades and He’ll Do It For America”. Sounds like a winner, no? :-)

    • acat

      Do you think those pictures may have had any impact?

      Mew

      • AndrewHyman

        All those pics (Kerry, Dukakis, Palin) were impactful the year they were taken, not thirty years later.

      • sunshinek67

        :O

      • sunshinek67

        nt

        • gekster

          • sunshinek67

            :(

        • acat

          with other, less fortunate turkeys in the background.

          Mew

    • A_Ready_Repub

      Yep says MittForMe.

  • A_Ready_Repub

    I love it when you conservatives pick each other to death. It entertainment. Especially Erick’s comments. He sounds like a Nootie. You can’t run an ultra right candidate today and win. Check out the other old white haired guy with the bleached blonde Barbie Doll wife…not so much. United we stand, divided we fall so look out!!

    • tomatin

      I tried to compute this phrase but it said “does not exist” on the screen.

      None of the people running against Romney are “ultra right”. They are just not “ultra flip floppers” like Romney even issues like pro-life where conservatives should be most principled. Even McCain did not waiver on murdering babies but to Romney it’s just another issue to flip flop on.

      • gekster

        when a poster uses something like “you conservatives” he is probably a troll or moby.
        He is just here to stir up crap.
        I’ve been around long enough to know the signs.
        I’m not saying don’t reply to him,
        just be aware of who you might be replying to. ;)

      • tomatin

        It really sounded fishy to me but I’m an old coot and new to this thing.

        • gekster

          ..nt..nt..

        • tomatin

          I probably need to tone it down a bit. I’m just so angry that we are going to blow it again this time. We just can’t do four more years of Obama and even Romney winning would be some what like saying we could not win with a real conservative.

  • A_Ready_Repub
    I love it when you conservatives pick each other to death. It entertainment. Especially Erick’s comments. He sounds like a Nootie. You can’t run an ultra right candidate today and win. Check out the other old white haired guy with the bleached blonde Barbie Doll wife…not so much. United we stand, divided we fall so look out!!
    • sunshinek67

      Plenty of others Gerson @WaPo, Fox News lots of choices out there that represent the establishment lined up with your candidate of choice.

      No amount of bots that enter into these RS rooms are going to null and void, invalidate, a man’s successful career in the AirForce and three terms of Governing over the worlds 13th largest economy for the last 10 years, Commander in Chief over 20,000 Texas National Guard troops, working on an international front with our southern neighbors and a 1,200 mile border.

      Maybe he hasn’t expressed himself in the way that the American Political Idol audience demanded, but that’s what makes him authentic, and reconciled with a very broken system, taxpayers should be demanding radical different from the norm. I wouldn’t expect many more Washington establishment insider endorsements, and even the pinhead journalists like JRubin that promote them, because Perry is a different candidate , an agent for change. Why shouldn’t we get excited about that~

    • turkeyotooley

      I’m sorry it had to come to this. Cognitive dissonance towards one of the weakest Republican candidates to come along in a while has led to this.

      Romney is a colossal disaster as a candidate. Let me count and explain the ways:

      1. Romneycare / Obamacare / Robamneycare / Whatever —

      If Romney is the Republican nominee it removes the biggest weapon we have against Obama. Try to imagine for a moment the sick feeling in the pit of our stomachs when Obama turns to Romney in a debate, gently shrugs, and tells Mittens, “I don’t know why you are complaining — we followed your lead on this.” Romney can offer no principled distinction between his version and Obama’s. Romney nullifies voter anger towards socialized medicine. That’s a lot of anger to waste. We are told not to worry, Romney will grant waivers. Since Romney says just about anything to pander, I have ZERO confidence that he will do what he says he will do. Besides, we don’t need a waiver; we need the sucker repealed.

      Perry will be able to clobber Obama with Obamacare repeatedly without losing credibility with voters.

      2. Epic Class Warfare –

      Fair or not, Streif is absolutely right. Romney gives Obama the ability to use the full class warfare playbook. Many voters are deluded and easily manipulated by mass media. As disingenuous as the class warfare line of attack is it has proven to be quite effective. Romney perfectly fits the image of privileged aristocrat who will step on the working man to make another buck. In the picture, he is standing around young blue bloods with hundred dollar bills in their mouths. Unreal. I bet he’d like that one back. A Romney nomination galvanizes the OWS crowd and embitters the working class man struggling to put food on the table for his family. Obama’s lies about the rich become so much more enticing to the easily beguiled when you run an aristocrat like Romney.

      Compare that to Perry who grew up in humble beginnings in Paint Creek, TX. Class warfare would not work with Perry, but would backfire. Perry’s background and directness resonates with working class men and women. He has the ability to pull Blue Dog and old Southern Democrats into the GOP tent.

      3. Foreign Affairs

      How is Romney going to convince the electorate that he would be a better Commander-in-Chief than Barak Obama? In a debate, Romney will try to project strength and lecture Obama on foreign policy. Obama will gently chuckle and say, “Poor Mittens . . . didn’t you get the memo? Osama bin Laden was eliminated under my administration. And oh yeah, we ousted Omar Gadhaffi too. What was that you were saying?” Freaking disaster.

      What military experience does Mitt have to enhance his credibility in the minds of the average voter? Oh, that’s right — he doesn’t have any. But the average voter is going to follow him just because he can skillfully spout off neocon talking points. Give me a break. Better the devil you know . . .

      And what of Rick Perry in this matter? He fares much, much better. He is a commanding, decisive figure, which is a stark contrast to both Obama and Romney (hmmm). He also served as a pilot in the U.S. Air Force. He doesn’t come across as an opportunist when he criticizes Obama foreign policy. Not all independent voters will roll with Perry, but he will still gain many others.

      4. Flip Flop All the Live Long Day –

      Politicians are generally considered unprincipled. No surprise. When a politician’s shameless pandering leads him or her to be branded a flip-flopper, however, there is a huge problem. Go ask John Kerry how hard it is to shake that label. A vulnerable neocon Bush was able to win against flip-flopper Kerry. The label completely defined his candidacy.

      It is quickly solidifying in voter’s heads that Romney is a notorious flip-flopper. Soon that idea will be ingrained in the electorate. Changing minds at that point will be a tall task. But it worked for Cobb in Inception, so maybe you could pull it off.

      Rick Perry? Good luck branding him a flip-flopper.

      5. Romney’s Plan Stinks

      A 59-point plan for reforming our government, but very little in the way of substantive changes is not going to cut the mustard. There is nothing particularly memorable about the plan. It’s like Miyagi trimming the bonsai tree in Karate Kid. A trim here, a trim there.

      We need a sledgehammer. Rick Perry’s got one. Cut, Balance, and Grow. 20% Flat Tax (optional, homeowners / charitable deduction). Impressive Energy Plan (parts of which can be accomplished without Congress). Proven job creation. Tort reform. Part-time Congress. Etc. Etc. Etc.

      6. Romney’s Campaign Ads Stink

      Bland. Meh. Blech. Uninspiring. Good luck against Obama who had Big Media portray him as a messianic-type figure. Ugh. Romney v. Obama in the campaign department is going to be ugly . . . for Romney.

      Perry? His ads are ridiculously good. I read somewhere that he has some talented young guy help him with his ads. Someone wrote that Perry’s rollout campaign ad was like watching a trailer for a Michael Bay film. That’s legit. You need that level of firepower going against the One.

      7. Establishment Backlash

      Romney thinks RINO endorsements are going to help him. No, sir. They are ticking this voter off. And I’m not alone.

      I liked Chris Christie, before he endorsed Romney. After he endorsed Romney, I put him on my “Shady Republican” list. All that talk about Christie being a straight shooter was complete nonsense. He was dealing in half-truths when discussing Romney. Way to savage your credibility with me, Christie.

      So heads up to the following clowns I take less seriously now because of their Romney support: Coulter, Hannity, Medved, Hewitt, O’Reilly, Ingraham, Rubin, SRN media, FOX news, etc. FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES WILL WORK AGAINST ALL OF YOU. This little charade where the “conservative” talking heads are in the tank for Romney is ticking me off. Not only will I change the channel (which I already have), I will passionately argue to others to stop listening to you because you are lying to people.

      I am seriously considering knocking on doors and talking to people because of the propaganda spewed by the likes of Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and the Rombots.

      SO KEEP MESSING WITH THE SASQUATCH!

      And all you RINO Repubs are on notice too: An endorsement for a weak-sauce liberal candidate like Romney puts you on my list. You are not convincing me to support Romney. You are convincing me to support your opponent in the primary. Are you listening, Thune? Ayotte? You better quit with your silly charade, Bachmann.

      Who will benefit? Perry.

      Man, I am ticked off.

      8. There Are More Reasons, But it’s Leftover Turkey Time

      More to follow . . .

      • donald_24

        I would also add that Romney’s record at Bain of laying people off is going to hurt him too. Romney might like to talk about his business experience in the GOP Primary, but, in the general election, it will be a MAJOR liability. He laid people off. He fired people and then re-hired them at a fraction of their old pay. He took away their benefits. He bankrupted 5 companies.

        • turkeyotooley

          I didn’t know that. That will go over real well with the electorate.

          Didn’t Mike Huckabee say that Romney looks like the guy that fired you? That is a hilarious line, but I hope I don’t have to hear it during the general election.

          You know that Obama is going to find people that were fired because of Bain Capital. It’s not going to be pretty. It would be a 2012 version of a “swift boat”-type ad that was so effective against John Kerry, who could be Romney’s long-lost twin. Romney does have better hair, though.

          • donald_24

            Obama does not have to look hard for people that Romney laid off. They are rright here. You can just re-air all of the old Kennedy ads and save money.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=R_8pMO8afI0

        • tomatin

          Face it Romney no matter if he takes off his tie and wears jeans just is not part of the real GOP base working Americans. He’s an elitist period. When voters see the guy that looks like the guy that laid you off like you said they are just not going to be excited about him.

      • donald_24

        Also, Romney is lying when he says he will grant ObamaCare waivers to all 50 states. He cannot. ObamaCare can only be repealed through Congress. The bulk of ObamaCare will require 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to repeal. And if Romney somehow beats Obama, he will not have 60 votes in the Senate. ObamaCare will be around much longer than most peoople think.

        On top of that, the Democrats will try to ake it politically toxic to repeal ObamaCare by making the GOP vote to repeal individual parts instead of the whole bill. So the GOP will have to vote seperately to repeal the ban on pre-existing conditions, the ban on lifetime and annual caps, and allowing kids to stay on their parents’ plan until 26. These specific provisions are popular with the electorate and voting seperately to repeal them could backfire.

        • turkeyotooley

          You nailed it.

          You see where the “electability” argument stretched beyond all proportion leads? Mitt Romney. The guy who laid the groundwork for legislation that is so thoroughly destructive.

          Robamneycare is a slap in the face to limited government principles. Since when did conservatives pass legislation that unabashedly increases the size of the State. Shame on Mitt Romney and other faux conservatives who craft these “solutions” that put us into bondage to an oppressive government.

          Robamneycare also does great damage to constitutional jurisprudence. The Commerce Clause has been twisted and stretched far beyond rationality since Wickard v. Filburn. Now Robamneycare gives our wonderful oligarch judges the opportunity to weigh in and make constitutional Congress’ power to legislate just about anything in our lives. I am cautiously optimistic that the originalist wing of the SC will strike it down, but Kennedy is always a wild card. We need the Justices to strike it down, but they have a track record of fuzzy jurisprudence.

          Seriously. This is what it has come to. Do the Mittbots actually think this through? Do they know how awful a candidate Romney really is? Do alarm bells go off when the MSM is giving your guy a pass, but is desperately trying to hold a guy like Perry down?

        • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

          Obama has used them, to get unions off the hook for instance. So why wouldn’t Romney be able to use them?

          Of course, Romney has also consistently said he would repeal Obamacare. But that takes time. The waivers are temporary relief.

          • acat

            Any temporary relief could be just that – temporary – if we end up with a Dem POTUS in 2016 and haven’t done a full repeal.

            Waivers do not eliminate the taxes, they do not remove the hundred bureaucracies spawned by Obamacare, they do not offer a stable tax environment, they don’t even return us to the lousy system we had in 2007.

            Waivers are not enough.

            Romney now says he wants to repeal, but .. as with many other Willard-isms, he started by trying to be on both sides of the issue.

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Romney said he wanted to repeal Obamacare all along. Why are you claiming otherwise?

          • acat

            Romney may have said he’d like to see it repealed, but clearly he’s not managed to get the word out.

            One would imagine, given how major a problem the parallels between Romneycare and Obamacare are, he would be trying harder to do so.

            You know, like sitting down for interviews….

            Mew

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            The reason Romney’s critics aren’t aware of what Romney has said all along is that they get their information from other Romney critics. And I explained it in my open letter to RedState, so you should have known. Critics repeated that claim over and over as though it was true, without ever actually looking into it. Which reminds me, have you actually been to WhyRomney yet?

          • tomatin

            Really this is getting old. The point is he has no credibility not only on Obamacare but many conservative issues. He will say anything now but it’s what he did that matters.

            I’m not getting anything from critics but then again his own words and actions are the worse critics he has if you care about conservative principles.

          • turkeyotooley

            Romney’s SAID many things. Did you see the new DNC attack ad posted on the frontpage?

            Brutal.

            Why in the world would any conscientuous voter take anything Mitt Romney says seriously?

            Rombots like to point to his rhetoric, but so what?.

            Candidates like Perry, Gingrich, and Paul have much stronger records to back up their rhetoric

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            What did he say in the Newsmax interview? Was it just about the waivers? Like I’ve said before, waivers do not contradict repeal. He can’t repeal on the first day, but he can issue waivers and then work toward repeal.

          • acat

            If every State gets a waiver, the pain is reduced – but the bureaucracy created doesn’t go away. Further, future tax uncertainty, which is a huge drag on business growth, gets even worse with waivers because what can be waived can just as easily be un-waived.

            It’s a move from a nation-of-laws to a nation-of-executive-fiat… and it’s very hard to grow a business without reasonably predictable expenses and liabilities.

            Romney may have said all this – in fact, as “the business guy” candidate, he {darn} well better have said all this – but for better or worse, the money quote has been the half-{ahem}ed “waivers” bit.

            In the interest of fairness, I’ll point out that Perry had a significant brain fart during the debates.

            Mew

          • tomatin

            yet red states still provide Medicaid because they want the federal dollars. At least Perry pushed back on that.

            Anything but full repeal is betrayal. Again the GOP uses it’s base to take back part of congress only to not deliver.

            Oh and Romney ever passing anything near the Ryan budget or balanced budget amendment even if it passed congress forget about that too.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            On Mitt’s Plan to cut spending: “Look at what he put out! This is a great development. It shows that the elusive adult conversation is taking place, but all on one side…I was very pleased with these kind of entitlement reforms.”

            And of course Romney has always said he would repeal Obamacare.

          • aesthete

            Paul Ryan was being nice.

            It’s the most timid and status quo of all major plans that I’ve seen, from Simpson-Bowles to the Paul Ryan plan. Even that dreck that the RNC put out a while back is better, in terms of concrete cuts.

          • acat

            He wants to tune up the federal behemoth, change the oil, adjust the clutch, and keep on truckin’.

            I want someone who will recognize that, like a ’74 Chevy Caprice, we have a government that is too big, too heavy, too inefficient, and with far too few features we demand from the private sector.

            Mew

          • tomatin

            Then we’ll all end up with rationed care to pay for blue states socialized medicine.

            Calling an opt out a solution just shows Romney would be just as bad on the issue as Obama.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Romney said all along he wanted to repeal Obamacare.

          • tomatin

            To Newsmax he said he would offer waivers. He might have said he wanted to repeal it too. So what? He has no credibility on the issue and when he was actually in office he invented Obamacare.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            more interested in attacking Romney or interested in making sure the things you say are true?

          • tomatin

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyjnzJtQPD8&feature=related

            Are you more interested in attacking me than listening to the truth is what really matters?

            Like I said you can spin it by saying the “truth” is what he says now or what’s on his website. But the reality is he said both and worse passed the same thing as Obamacare when he was governor of MA.

            You can’t dispute that as being false.

            Thereby the opinion I have on the man is he will do one thing and say another. That’s why he has no credibility with me and many conservatives. You can attack us for our opinions but we know the truth and to deny the truth we would have to forget everything the man use to stand for and said before he decided to run for president.

            Look if it was one or two issues or a less fundamental issue it would not be a problem. If Romney had vetoed Romneycare it would be different. Signing Romneycare even on the state level means he believes in big government and government intrusion on personal freedom.s. He’s betrayed a fundamental conservative belief. Playing semantic games just does not cut it.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            He never said waivers would be a “solution” which you implied that he said in your earlier comment.

            But waivers do not contradict repeal. The two things go hand in hand. That’s not a flip-flop.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Are you more interested in attacking Romney or interested in making sure the things you say are true?

            That’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to know which you are more interested in.

          • turkeyotooley

            Mitt’s words are meaningless.

            You are responding to criticism by saying what Mitt said he will do. That doesn’t quell the concerns of a large (and growing) Republican electorate.

            Mitt’s actions indicate that he can be easily manipulated. His speeches seem totally focused on giving what a particular audience wants to hear. I am shocked that some of his campaign advisers haven’t stopped him from his constant pandering. It is rapidly eroding his campaign.

            Honestly, how do you think Mitt would respond to the clamor of the Washington press corps, the moneyed Beltway interests, and the corrupt political establishment in D.C.? He is not a threat to them; he will placate them. Do you honestly think Mitt has the stones to say “no” to D.C. culture?

          • snappy101

            Since Mitt Romney has been on every side of almost every issue, what kind of Supreme Court justices would he appoint and how can you be so sure?

      • tomatin

        Let’s face it Romney destroys the Republican brand completely and he’s the reason the GOP voters are sour on this field no matter what people say.

        We conservatives expect strong, independent, decisive leaders from our candidates and Romney is the anti-GOP candidate in all regaurds. He is a Democrat candidate just like Kerry (good point I got from another poster).

        Even with the economy this is going to be a base election and Romney is not a base candidate.

        The worse part is if Romney wins. He’ll destroy conservatism He has no conservative principles and will govern based on polls like Clinton and Obama.

        No matter what the LSM says people want authentic candidates not ones that are plastic creations.

  • donald_24

    I’m not sure Gingrich is going to excite anyone. The guy was getting paid $30,000 an hour as a Freddic Mac “constultant.” He supported the individual mandate as recently as last spring when he was on Meet the Press. He made the “right wing social engineering” comment. And he has a habit of putting his foot iinto his mouth, like when he made that comment about replacing school janitors with children or that he learned a lot about the Greek debt crisis by taking a cruise off the Greek Isles. I was especially appalled when he said during the debate that, as president, he would lauch covert attaks on Iran so that they can remian deniable. It’s kind of hard to deny a covert attack when you just announced on national TV that you are going to launch them. They do, after all, get CNN in Iran.

    • westcoastpatriette

      motto is: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b.s.” The sooner he goes away, the better. His arrogance is really starting to get on my nerves.

    • reggie182

      Newt to my knowlede has never called for the elimination of child labor laws. What he has expressed is a desire to realize a certain amount of reform in them.

      I fail to see what is wrong with a 12 or 13 year old being able to earn cash by working a limited amount of time at their school. They aren’t being sent to a labor camp or a sweatshop. Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of comments online from people who are saying that what he proposes is akin to child abuse.

      It is not. A lot of us earned money mowing yards and washing cars at that age. It teaches a work ethic and appreciation for money. Newt’s idea has a lot of merit and should be explored. He thinks outside the box, and that is one of the things I like about him.

    • tomatin

      Who cares if he got money from them. He’s playing the corrupt system Dems created.

      The only thing I have against Gingrich was his line on the Ryan Budget. Even his line on immigration was blow out of proportion by the LSM. He did not say he favored amnesty, we let the LSM put words in his mouth.

      I would love a Gingrich/Perry ticket or visa versa.

      The only reason I lean a bit toward Gingrich is I know he would destroy Obama in a debate. But believe me I would be 1000% behind Perry and still think he has a much better chance to win then the LSM says.

  • donald_24

    If the GOP candidate wants to beat Obama, he must talk about the ecnomy. Forget everything else. Forget social issues. Forget foreign policy. It’s the economy stupid.

    The economy is in much worse shape than the govt. is saying. I did my black Friday shopping yesterday at a large strip mall home to several big box stores and I was expecting huge crowds and no parking. When I arrived, I was able to find an abundance of parking spots in the front of the lot, the check out lines were short, and people were not buying expensive items. I only saw 1 or 2 people buying flat screen tvs. Most people were buying necessities, like food. If someone wanted a 70 inch flat screen tv at a good price, there were 10 of them in boxes sitting there waiting to be picked up. And this was in a denseley populated area of northern New Jersey, not some mall in the middle of nowhere.

    • tomatin

      If we had a candidate that could credibly campaign against Obamacare we would win in a landslide because the voters hate it.

      It also works into the economic message so well.

  • donald_24

    And for the few Christie supporters out there or those who like Romney because Christie endorsed him, Christie is now in full agreement with liberals like Frank Lautenberg and Chuck Schumer when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

    http://www.northjersey.com/news/134481193_Christie_opposes_handgun_leniency.html?mobile=1&c=y

    • turkeyotooley

      Christie made a stupid political calculation when he made his endorsement for Romney.

      It was all about placating the old guard party bosses and moneyed Republican interests. I find it very hard to believe that a man so outspoken about the need for fiscal restraint in New Jersey can so quickly turn a blind eye to the abysmal failure of Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romneycare is blowing a hole in MA’s budget. Christie–the “straight shooter”–proceeded to make the case that Romney should be the standard-bearer for the Republican party. Poor, poor judgment.

      The endorsement probably won’t hurt him in NJ, but it made his future presidential aspirations much more difficult. Skeptical southerners will remember how easily controlled he was by the Establishment interests and will look for other options.

      • heraklios

        America was never going to vote for that fat*ss for President anyway, this year or in the future.

  • changeforrickperry

    And yes I did write this. Dedicated to our absent companion pttx333, and sung to the venerable tune of “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.” (Perchance
    Rudolph was a Republican? He didn’t have a blue nose…never mind.)

    (*drum roll*)

    You know Bachmann and Perry, Santorum and Huntsman,
    Herb Cain and Ron Paul and Gingrich and Johnson
    But do you recall the most famous flipper of all…?

    Willard the Chronic Flipper
    Had a sad predicament
    When asked for his opinion
    He would change from day to day
    All of the RedState members
    Used to laugh and call him names
    They wouldn’t let poor Willard
    Charm their precious votes away

    Then one festive Thanksgiving
    Willard told a fib:
    “Wolf Blitz, my first name is Mitt,
    And I’m mighty proud of it!”

    Now we at RedState call him
    “Willard” just to tell the truth–
    “Willard the Chronic Flipper,
    You’ll not charm our votes away!”

    (Apologies to Herb Cain, Rudolph, and all the poets who find fault with my non-rhymes–I’m not that talented.)

    • romansdaughter

      LOL, I love it!

      • changeforrickperry

        (*bows at the waist*) It’s the least I can do to dirty up Willard’s cloak of inevitability, which is lookin’ pretty shabby at this point.

  • earlgrey

    I read that David Rum might leave the party if we don’t nominate Romney or Huntsman. Seals the deal for me.

    • tomatin

      I read that and remembered Frum said Obama was not that bad last election.

      • capeconservative

        think we should listen to their wise advice. Don’t know just when it will be, but one of these days they will awaken to learn we have been ignoring them for some time.

        The media has been infiltrated by the liberal/progressive movement to the point that, with very few exceptions, those with a ‘conservative’ label fail to even get our attention or earn our respect. Long live Thomas Sowell and Victor Davis Hanson!

        And here is my post from Part I – I arrived a little late to the party so I’ll just paste it here.

        Regardless of who holds the top spot, I believe conservatives WILL vote in 2012. We showed we COULD effect change at the local levels all across the country in 2010 and I sincerely believe we WILL step up to the ballot box to duplicate (or triplicate) our past success!

        Mitt Romney is NOT the man to lead our party in 2012 – our country is in dire straits and must have a strong CONSERVATIVE leader who will direct and guide our ship of state back on course! Mitt has demonstrated he can garner no more than 25% of the vote…even with NO negative press. That is NOT the type candidate we need!

        As a MA resident, I believe he abandoned us – we were ‘used and abused’ as he failed to take his term of office seriously. We were only a launching pad for his presidential run. He could have stood up to the judicial ruling about the homosexual marriage – had he done so, perhaps the ball never would have started rolling all across this nation – a nation blessed and a nation that has grown and prospered under good Judeo-Christian values! He put his personal desires above the good of the citizens of the commonwealth of Massachusetts and for that I cannot vote for him. Saying that, however, does not mean I will not vote for every other CONSERVATIVE on the ballot…I WILL vote for a return to a UNITED States of America. The days of devisive rantings from our chief executive will be OVER!

        Has no one considered the fact that the 2012 Obama re-election campaign is based in CHICAGO??? Has no one considered how Obama has won every election since he ran for office???? By using the dirty Chicago Democrat political machine and smearing each and every opponent…and those methods will continue until November 2012!

        Watch how Mitt’s $20 million CA home – his staff advising Obama on Obamacare – his signature on bills he should NEVER have signed…his constant flip-flopping and on and on and on – it’s all going to hit the fan if he ends up the R candidate. He will NOT get a primary vote from this household!!!

        • tomatin

          I think conservatives will come out in the primaries.

          I’m from GA and I don’t see Southern folks coming out in droves for Romney. He would make VA, NC and FL much closer than folks want. Yeah Romney might be better in some states like MI but I’m telling you what I hear down here from folks is aweful.

          People just don’t know how much Romneycare hurts him and that’s the reason he can’t get over 25%.

          Like you said about the media they want Romney to win because they think he will be safe and not really conservative. But that love affair with Romney will end whne he goes up against Obama. Remember the media LOVED McCain before he went up against Obama. Then they started writing about all his houses etc…

          Lastly like you said, I can’t get over the fact he not only signed but pushed for Romneycare. That was the biggest conservative betrayal I can remember. Why not just put us in chains?

          Then he does not promise to repeal Obamacare with a GOP congress. He’s going to give states waivers. Oh great so me in GA can pay for a socialist’s health care in NY.

          My blood just boils when I think of things like that.

          • http://www.whyromney.com Ryan Larsen

            Romney has consistently said he would repeal Obamacare. He’s said it over and over again in the debates and on the campaign trail. In fact, he always opposed Obamacare, even before it was passed.

            There’s a lot of misinformation out there. I always try to hear both sides before convicting.

            And you probably know Newt Gingrich formerly supported an individual mandate. He changed his position on that, but so has Romney – in the sense that if Romney could go back and do it differently, he would not impose a penalty on those who don’t purchase insurance. Instead, he would offer a tax credit, since purchasing insurance removes a liability from the state’s shoulders.

            And it’s not as though the mandate was signed into law with malicious intent. The people overwhelming supported it, and conservatives like Jim Demint and even the Heritage Foundation. Romney didn’t realize until years later that some people would take it as an affront to liberty.

  • giatny

    I am beginning to think these anti-Romney tirades
    are being promulgated by the left. The Republican
    Party has established a near perfect streak of
    stupidity since 2011 began. The move towards
    Gingrich suggests they intend to maintain that
    streak into 2012. The country can not survive
    another minute of Obama, nor is it inclined to move
    180 degrees to the other extreme. I strongly
    suggest that those believing Newt is electable to
    study his history, his flip flops on health care,
    immigration, climate change, etc., to name a few.
    Equally as important is his inability to handle
    power with maturity. His own party threw
    him out of the Speaker’s job. The opposition
    research on this man is justifiably encyclopedic.
    Wake Up or prepare for Obama for 4 more.

  • sowa1

    if you vote against Romney or Newt or whoever the Republican Candidate is, you are a fool. The Supreme Court will be all Liberal for years and years, everyone in this Country will be equal (POOR), and the debt will triple, Obama gets 4 more years, you can say goodbye to Freedom and hello to Socialism or Communism. Stop listening to Obama and the Democrats, who will not tell the truth to the American People, who blame Republicans when it is the Democrats that will not pass anything the House has sent over.Democrats who will not work with Republicans and have not for over three years. Romney would not be a bad President or Newt . Stop destroying there chance to save this Country.

    • nathanalbright

      …is to make sure that our nominee is not Mittins (alis Willard) for the General Election. Then all this hyperbolic concern about genuine conservative Republicans not wanting to vote for an obvious RINO will go away, as (hopefully) will Willard, so that he can stop running for office and maybe acquire some bona fides as a conservative before trying again.

  • http://www.periodictablet.com superamerican

    Romney might just make capitalism popular again. He might make Americans understand that business is what creates jobs. He might stand face to face with Obama and beat him at words.

    I’d guess that the Church of Latter Day Saints will be subject to devasting attacks on “cult” and polygamy. No matter whoever is the Republican candidate the media and Obama’s machine will seek to emasculate or kill.

    Only Romney’s presence, lack of moral difficulties, management abilities, and money can beat Obama’s attack. And Romney’s VP will have to be better than Hillary, who I guess will replace Joe.

    • turkeyotooley

      Are you kidding?

      Let’s take your post apart a bit at a time:

      1. “Romney’s presence” — What presence? So he can deflect questions in a debate, equivocate for thirty seconds, and deliver half-baked one-liners without stuttering. Big freaking deal. He is defined as a serial flip-flopper. He is drawing comparisons to John Kerry. Not good. He is not a commanding and decisive figure a la Perry, or a consistent speaker like Ron Paul. Romney is a passive figure. Obama–a weak politician if I ever saw one–actually looks more decisive and commanding compared to Romney and that is completely unacceptable.

      2. “Lack of moral difficulties” — If you mean personal failures a la Gingrich, then you may be right. Or you could be wrong and we will find out during a general election campaign. But his (multiple) views on abortion will be considered a moral difficulty for conservatives to stomach; Romney’s years at Bain Capital will be portrayed as pure greed by the left, another moral difficulty.

      3. Management abilities — He seems to be a capable manager, but we don’t need a manager for a broken State. We need a reformer. I have no doubt that Romney possesses the skill and acumen to keep our broken Republic from completely disintegrating. His “leadership” will merely delay the inevitable, if he is elected. Without a doubt, Obama’s policies harm this country. But Mitt’s even worse, we will still proceed with destructive policies under a Romney administration, but conservatism will be neutered and scattered. A remedy, if it comes at all, will probably take a generation.

      4. Money — Maybe. But Romney’s financial backers invested in a dud of a candidate. I would be mildly amused to see the look of regret on their faces when Perry steals Iowa and South Carolina.

  • carolynr

    Well…it has taken me some time to read all of the posts. Apparently, Willard has become a little worried about the endorsement of Gingrich and has decided to come into true “Conservative” territory. Not a good idea Mittybots….go where you are liked…the fence sitters, aka…Independents.

    You know, I have thought about this campaign for a very long time and how we have these surges and how the press spins reactions. This is what I think has happened. I believe that Obama and his minions (say like Van Jones or Soros’s many orgs.) were behind the “Nhead” discovery…which had nothing whatsoever to do with Perry. One area around here is known as Trackrock…it was known by that name way before I was even born.
    However, Obama with his constant drumbeat of divisive action, pitted Cain and Perry against each other. Cain played the race card along with our supposed Conservative pundits…and Cain rose.

    Then came Cain’s accusers…again..all about division. man against woman…using sexual division…right out of Obama’s playbook. What did Cain do…blame Perry again. Why? It’s Obama signature “method” of dividing a country. However, Cain’s inability to properly explain the complexity (I mean that word), wherein 999 becomes a JOBS plan was over the top, his inability to explain that a national sales tax would be a tax hike and his lack of knowledge of who the world’s suppliers of oil, not to mention foreign affairs took him out of the field. I know, Herman is still saying that he was set up…but that is a replay of Obama…blame Bush. It seems Mr. Cain had no problem blaming Perry without PROOF.

    Bachmann…you know how I feel. But as an after dinner mint…why did her husband receive hundreds of thousands of FEDERAL money to convince people not to be Gay? That is our money…Michelle. The MSM painted her as a “flake” and set the stage for her to be counted out. Besides…where are her other issues besides Obamacare?

    Paul – Too far off the mainstream. We need a strong military defense or they will take over this country…if they haven’t already and Paul will let them…all in the name of human rights…even if they aren’t citizens of the USA.

    Santorum – Tried…but NOT fiscally Conservative.
    Huntsman – He is the one to do in Mitty…not Gingrich.

    Gingrich – this is going to be a party for Obama also. However, is Newt the Republican’s version of Charlie Rangel? Ethics violations…how can the pot call the kettle black. Obama knows this…and while Gingrich is smart…how’s he going to get rid of past positions? His past positions in many cases, agree with Obama and that will lose the Conservative vote. How can you sit next to Pelosi on Cap and Trade and then promote Drill Baby Drill?

    Mitty – Well didn’t OWS come along just in time. Also…today…we find out the Fed gave $7 TRILLION in bailoutsto banks. How does a hedge fund manager of Bain Capital fare with the voters and those people out of work? In fact…while he was attacking Perry on In-state tuition (wherein graduates would become payers rather than takers), DETROIT, his home state will file bankruptcy this next month. What’s he going to do about the Big Three…bail them out…or let them sink. So…we lose Michigan…which we would anyway,,,because they have to sink to swim…i.e., renegotiate union contracts through bankruptcy.

    That leaves one candidate. Rick Perry. Well…not so articulate…but then…lots and lots of plans to bring us back on line. Conservative views…good marriage…How would Obama attack him? He could call him dumb…but then…Obama without his lover (the teleprompter) isn’t that great either. I believe that this administration…through the Fair Doctrine…has let the networks know…you say ANYTHING POSITIVE ABOUT THIS GUY…and you lose your licenses.

    Obama believes in the Saul Alinsky playbook…divide and conquer…repeat until they believe and put out as much negative propaganda as possible…that way people either believe it…or they just tune out.

    That’s who is behind this…Obama. He will paint Republicans as divided…when in fact…he divided them himself. Not only that…we only have THREE CONSERVATIVE candidates…Bachmann…and that won’t work, Santoroum – not fiscally responsible…and Perry with the record to prove it.

    • Common_Cents

      We saw Romney get flustered when challenged, obama is a spoiled kid and will self destruct when confronted face to face.

      gingrich said it would be fine if obummer used a teleprompter, for untimed in depth lincoln douglas debates. LOL

      Obama is a spoiled name calling bully that will fold when challenged.

    • turkeyotooley

      I disagree with several things, but overall I think you are spot on regarding O’s divide and conquer strategy. I would also say that Establishment Repubs are using the divide and conquer pretty effectively. Look at most “conservative” media out there. They can’t be trusted at all. Fox News is a joke. Roger Ailes and his minions are in the tank for Romney. Expect CNN to pull in a significant amount of Fox viewers in the next 6 months because people are getting tired of Fox propaganda. SRN media is also in the tank for Romney. Clowns like Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved are eroding conservatism from within. They need to be called out for the neocon frauds they are. You want to know what happened to the Republican party? Spend time listening to Medved and Hewitt and you will hear the ideology that is propelling the Republicans toward Whig status.

      I agree that Rick Perry is the one to support, hands down. Best record (by far), tremendous political skills (people will see), and the best platform. He is also a very good speaker. Listen to his speeches (many without teleprompter) and his dialogue with press. Very polished. Very direct. He is great at distilling political ideas in small words and phrases. He is battle-tested and has had great success with tremendous opposition. So he isn’t a great debater, but so what? He is improving. Also, the skills that are used in a televised debate really do not translate to success as President. They simply don’t. How many Presidents debate issues in a format like the Republican debates? They engage in persuasion through speeches and through press interaction. Perry excels at both. Equivocation, evasion, and condensed responses are praised in debates. But do we really want candidates who excel at THOSE particular skills? Of course not.

      I disagree with you about Ron Paul. He is an amazing candidate. He is a terrific candidate. He and Rick Perry are the only two strong reformers that we have to choose from. My problem with Paul is not so much with him as it is the electorate. Neoconservatism has really polluted conservative ideology and we have been fed a steady diet of neocon propaganda for over fifteen years now. I don’t think the electorate appreciates the wisdom of Paul’s foreign policy. I won’t get into it now, but suffice it to say the issue with Pakistan helps confirm some of what Paul says about our foreign policy failures.

      I don’t like Bachman at all. I think she is an opportunist. Once I realized that she is using her campaign to protect Romney for VP consideration, I lost all respect. Because she so vigorously opposes strong Tea Party candidates like Perry and Paul and kind-of sucks up to Romney, it makes me think that she is trying to manipulate the Tea Party. So far, it’s playing out that way.

      Cain is in over his head. Forget about the allegations. He is in over his head. His 999 plan would be a nightmare. He also went soft against Romney. If you can’t fight against conservative principles by effectively opposing a serial statist like Romney in the primaries, how in the world are you going to do battle against the Dems and Washington establishment? (Did you get that, T-Paw?!) Nope.

      Gingrich. To his credit, he is light years better than Romney. But he is not the answer. Also to his credit, he does have conservative achievements that he can point to. But he does not paint the contrast that Perry does. He is tied to D.C. and it is hard for me to see him changing that culture. I feel a lot better about him than Romney, but I don’t feel good at all about Gingrich.

      Santorum . . . meh.

  • newsscooper

    Even though it is true any Republican candidate if elected would be a better choice than Obama however according to numerous insiders there are some skeletons in his closet that when the Dem’s and media release will create a scandal so vast it could damage the Republican brand if elected. Beware of those the Media favors in coverage for they will be their choice and will be defeated. Pay attention to those being ignored and standing on the side lines for in that bunch is a winner and our next president.
    Good luck to them all. They are all patriots.