« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Unelectable Mitt Romney

By: streiff (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2011 at 09:31 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Generally speaking, I think the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson is the most profoundly stupid and uninsightful writer on any editorial page in any paper in any country. But file this one under “Blind Hog/Acorn”.

Moderator Wolf Blitzer opened Tuesday’s Republican debate by introducing himself and adding, for some reason, “Yes, that’s my real name.” A few moments later, the party’s most plausible nominee for president said the following: “I’m Mitt Romney, and yes, Wolf, that’s also my first name.”

But it’s not. Mitt is the candidate’s middle name. His first name is Willard.

And people wonder why this guy has an authenticity problem?


For a while Dem strategists have been making public pronouncements on Romney’s seeming inability to distinguish fact from fiction and his near pathological instinct to make his audience believe he is just like them. Even Jon Stewart has poked fun at Romney’s flip flops.

When the election season started I was convinced that even though I did not like Romney, he was the most electable candidate in the pack. Since then I’ve changed my views. Romney can’t win in a general election because very few people, outside the 20% who like his hair and a handful of devoted fluffers, will vote for the man.

He will lose a lot of conservatives because we fear that he will energetically return to his past persona as a liberal New England governor if he is elected. As the GOP winning the Senate in 2012 is very close to a “gimme” we have to ask: can conservatism survive a President Romney and a Senate Majority Leader McConnell?

He will lose a lot of GOP, as opposed to conservative, support because he is a supremely smarmy and untrustworthy character whose core value is defined by a strong belief that he should be president and nothing more.

While Plouffe and Carville are validating our feelings about Romney’s squishiness, the real attack, the one that will strip away the moderate center that Romney has been relying on is waiting in the wings.

Obama can’t attack Romney as a flip-flopper because many of the flips and flops Romney has held dear at one time or another are actually Obama’s own positions. The Romney response to that line of attack in a national election is easy: I held that position then but have sense developed information that makes me believe it was incorrect and I have changed it and everyone want’s a pragmatic president who can change his mind, right?

The main attack will be on Romney’s long time affiliation with the corporate chop-shop known as Bain Capital. In an environment were most people are concerned about their jobs and virtually everyone is angry at Wall Street, Romney will be the perfect poster boy for the 1% that the “99%” rails on and on about.

So abandoned by conservatives, the GOP, and moderates who is left as his logical constituency? The same tiny group of admirers that follow him today.

I don’t know if Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry can beat Obama. What I am positive of is that Mitt Romney cannot win a general election against any national Democrat figure. The only saving grace is that he probably can’t win a GOP primary either.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • nathanalbright

    …otherwise we’re going to feel like Mayans in 2012.

    • streiff

      win or lose we’ve probably seen the last of Mitt Romney as a Republican. He’ll probably run in 2016 as a Democrat.

      My real fear about a losing Romney candidacy, rather than a losing Gingrich/Perry/Bachmann/Cain candidacy is that Romney is going to devastate us down ballot across the country because the base will not turn out to vote for Romney and a lot of the base will act upon this impulse by sitting out the election rather than just not voting for Romney.

      • nathanalbright

        That’s pretty serious business. But this sort of mistrust makes it very difficult for anyone who supports Mitt to gain much support from here.

        • streiff

          my comment about him running as a Dem was tongue in cheek but I think he’d be equally at home running as a “competent, pragmatic, and electable” Democrat.

          • nathanalbright

            ….maybe a bit too kindly.

          • romeg

            N/T

          • nathanalbright

            …well, Herbert Hoover was a Woodrow Wilson Republican. What does that say?

          • theredrider

            most wanted to be like. He wanted people to think of him as the new TR: unafraid to rock the boat if it was in the best interests of our nation’s future.

            I’ll take a TR over a BHO any day of the week.

          • daveinthed

            Have you heard all the names this guy has come up to disparage Romney supporters. And just because we support Romney doesn’t mean we don’t support the others. In fact, I support ALL of our candidates. Clearly, you don’t. And the childish names you keep calling people reveals you to be beneath the level that I expect from columnists on RedState.

            I’d have to go back and copy/count them up. But there are many, and most of them are not pretty. Reminds of leftists who use vile tags for those they don’t agree with.

            Seriously, RedState, I’d examine this guy’s dialogue. It’s disgraceful, his calling Romney supporters “bots”, “fellatists” etc…

            Truly a fool of a conservative that embarasses and diminishes what most of us stand for.

          • acat

            take it to the contacts page.

            (hint – streiff’s a moderator, ‘s why his name is in red)

            Mew

          • theredrider

            “fluffers”, Wow.

          • streiff

            it is a very accurate analogy of how most Romney supporters behave.

          • acat

            (wait .. we *are* doing #OWS gags, right?)

            Mew

          • theredrider

            nt

          • theredrider

            lol

          • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

            Late to the party, but I had to add my $.02.

          • streiff

            it is a very accurate analogy of how most Romney supporters behave.

          • theredrider

            some of the posters here fawn over moderators and say, “Listen to ____” “Don’t mess with _____” “______ is a tough guy.”

            All the tough guys I know wear uniforms. I’m not about to fawn over someone simply because he gets to post on the front page of a blog that is read by less than 10% of the conservatives in this country.

            And very few people get their marching orders here. The pro-Perry posters here would be pro-Perry whether this site supported Perry or not. A sign that this site was actually moving the conservative football forward would be if this site were able to get conservatives to rally behind a single Republican. This site’s inability to do that has proven its impotence.

            But it does have a function as an echo chamber and a testing lab for ideas. At it’s best, RS lets conservatives know when there is some sneaky legislation working its way through congress and gives conservatives the tools they need to stop that legislation.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Now you can feel better about fawning over us.

          • theredrider

            Twice in my case.

            But I don’t fawn over front-pagers the way that some people here do. They’re just people like everyone else.

          • acat

            Now, go educate yourself about Romney.

            I’m still waiting for your answers to:

            1) How to change the zeitgeist so it’s more in Romney’s favor
            2) The significance of Kjellander.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            I’ve looked it up and there is no “there” there.

            Changing the zeitgeist is an interesting proposition because it involves convincing fellow conservatives that they should resist something that they are reflexively and impulsively doing: playing “burn Romney”.

            You can burn any person with quotes taken out of context, old photographs, the old “guilt by association” game. Ask Sarah Palin. Ask Dan Quayle. Ask George W. Bush. Ask any of the Republicans who have had the left-wing harpies after them.

            Instead of “burning Romney” let’s focus our energy on burning Obama and the left-wingers who are busy raping each other in our public parks (supported by YOUR tax dollars). That would be a far better use of our time and the bandwidth here.

          • acat

            in selecting and *retaining* a known criminal as his Illinois campaign chair?

            Are you from the Nixon wing of the party?

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          • Aaron Gardner

            is the day it stops being useful to the conservative movement.

          • theredrider

            Republican candidates, it will BEGIN to be useful to the conservative movement.

            Obama is loving every “slam Romney” blog on RS. He loves that stuff. It helps him get re-elected. Which helps him take your tax dollars and give it to people who can’t afford a computer because they refuse to look for work.

          • streiff

            than Mitt and all his Mittens.

          • theredrider

            in 2004 when he decided that he could not, in good conscience, support stem cell research or gay marriage.

            When did anyone here, as an elected official, change the course of a state’s (or Commonwealth’s) destiny?

            If only conservative purists are allowed to be nominated, then how will a conservative ever get elected? Was Reagan a conservative purist? Not by today’s definitions. He raised taxes as governor of California. That would make him unacceptable to the front-pagers here.

            Romney did not raise taxes as governor, is pro-life, is against gay marriage, is a lifetime member of the NRA, and is for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. But that isn’t enough, is it? He has to have held all of these values throughout his adult life.

            Therefore, he is being held to a higher standard than Perry, Gingrich, or Cain has been held to. It makes no sense.

          • acat

            when he chose not to seek re-election.

            The only reason it isn’t over .. Mitt has a bodacious bankroll.

            My guess is, if he loses the nomination, his wife and kids (and dog) will encourage him to seek a less expensive hobby.

            I understand punkin’ chunkin’ is fun… perhaps Mitt could try that.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            Mitt made a conscious decision when he turned his back on the liberals, the progressives, the moderates, the Democrats, etc. that William Weld, Paul Celucci, and Jane Swift courted.

            Mitt knew that he did not embrace the same values that all of the above people and groups embrace.

            Just like Reagan had a “road to Damascus” conversion in the 1940′s when he saw that his party, the Democratic Party, no longer stood for American interests above socialist concerns, Mitt Romney saw in or about 2004 that the moderates who supported him in 2002 did not share his values.

            And he would not have amassed the support that he has today if he did not appeal to conservatives. He got more conservative support than McCain in 2008 in states like Michigan and Colorado. He also had a lot of conservative support in 2008 from rock-ribbed conservatives like Jim DeMint, Dana Rohrabacher, Ann Coulter, and many of the front-pagers here.

            Back then, even pro-choice, pro-gay rights moderates like Rudy Giuliani counted front-pagers here among their supporters.

            I predict that Romney will get the nomination and then beat Obama. Pessimists will whine and boo-hoo about this but there were pessimists on the other side in 2008 who were screaming that American would never elect a black president.

            Pessimists aren’t leaders. They’re not good at building anything. Only in tearing things down.

          • acat

            to be the conservative nominee today.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            the Republicans have shifted further to the right than where we were in 2008, not because Romney has shifted to the left.

            The trouble is that the non-Republicans in this country, not necessarily all Democrats, but still essential to the presidential election, have not moved to the right with the Tea Party.

            There is a vast swath of the American population that doesn’t identify with either the Tea Party or OWS. Whichever candidate wins a majority of these voters will be in great shape next November.

            I guess my memory is longer than most people’s but I can clearly remember Romney getting more support here in 2008 (when there was also a “stop Romney” crowd here but less destructive than they are today) than he is getting today.

            And Erick wonders why Romney won’t sit for an interview with him…

          • acat

            You said it yourself, the country has further polarized. Why are you surprised that the guy who ran just slightly to the right of John “Amnesty” McCain is, today, seen as less than a stellar conservative?

            Oh, and by the way, it’s not just Erick who Romney won’t sit down with – when was the last time Candidate Romney was questioned by *any* media?

            Mew

          • porkandcheese

            A “Republican” put his career on the line by opposing gay marriage? I don’t care if it was Massachusetts — and Romney chose to run there as a liberal instead of running as a conservative or in a red state — but Republicans support traditional family values. Romney opposed his own legislature to impose gay marriage by executive fiat. He ordered his Dept. of Public Health to implement gay marriage rather than face a protracted court battle or get his hands dirty. He promised the Log Cabin Republicans before elected that he would “keep his chin down” like a boxer rather than fight for conservative values. Romney goes along to get along. And no, he will never have public opinion forcing more conservative positions onto him, because “the public” is lobbyists, bureaucrats, staffers, media flacks and straight up crooks and parasites. Romney will never challenge DC culture.

          • center77

            him in the Republican Party in order to get the party to move left towards their position. Does anybody need any more information than that? Plus there is the many flip flops, which are still happening to this day. I am not really sure why anybody that is for Romney ever tries to argue he is anything near credible as a conservative. The only valid argument I?ve ever heard anybody say about nominating Romney is that he runs against pretty even in the polls, which in reality means very little why the left wing media play soft ball with him. In Romney’s own words he was planning to become a sleeper gent of sorts, so when you Romney supporters expect us conservatives to be nice to him, it sounds like a huge joke. Besides the Romney campaign has shown nothing but contempt to conservatives, which alone deserve our distain.

          • tomatin

            He said he would do nothing to end abortions as governor.

          • streiff

            the word is “fellatisto” not “fellatists.”

            And you omitted “fluffer.”

          • Bill S

            Next comment. Or you’re gone.

          • theredrider

            What if he took a break to go shopping or spend time with the family?

            I’ve never seen behavior like this before.

          • streiff

            with moderators bad things can happen. You might want to pay attention.

          • theredrider

            Not picking a fight.

          • courdeleon02

            Its people like this who will not vote for Romney . They are willing to allow Obama to destroy this country rather than depart from their ideology. This is a sad commentary but when they see the financial collapse of this once great nation perhaps they will change their minds. How sad this is.

          • marybeth7

            with you. I am a tried and true conservative. Have been from birth I believe, I will not vote for Romney nor would I vote for Cain. Haven’t you ever heard that sometimes it’s better to deal with the devil you know? At this point Obama is half lame if the republicans can take the the Senate he will be just about totally lame. In essence there isn’t much he would be able to do anyway.

          • donald_24

            I will not vote for or against a candidate simply because they have a D or R after their name. I ‘m with courdeleon02 and will not vote for Romney or Cain. I don’t trust Romney’s flip flopping and Cain’s lack of foreign policy is appalling. I know more about foreign policy than he does. I know what the right of return is. I knew that China had nukes. I knew that the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan. If Cain debated an AP History high school student, he would get destroyed. I would give Cain a second chance if I saw he was making a meaningful attempt to study foreign policy, but he is not. He has made zero improvement.

          • donald_24

            Should have said “I’m with marybeth”

          • samfox

            embodied in Mitt, then you are “Truly a fool of a conservative that embarasses and diminishes what most of us [Constitutionalist conservatives] stand for.”

            Romney is a chameleon. He changes his position on issues to match his audience. Mitt is one of the most duplicitous candidates I seen in many a year! He is easily worse even than McCain & is slowly getting closer to surpassing even 0 as a serial liar.

            The reason we can’t support many of the R candidates is because they are, save two, NEOCONs, RINOs &/or CINOs. Mitt, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, Cain…all are plants to insure the big govt ‘progressive’ agenda of Collapse The [US] System keeps on rolling. They are to this election cycle what McCain was to the last one. Insurance for the big govt destroy the USA cabal that is deeply rooted in the ‘Federal’ Reserve, the ‘progressive’ movement & groups like the CFR. Newt is a member of the CFR.

            Santorum is a war hawk who has no clue what the US Founder’s foreign policy was/is. Bachmann voted to extend the ‘Patriot’ Act & took govt $ while talking against the practice. Though these two are not quite as bad as the aforementioned, they are not true conservatives either.

            That leaves us with Ron Paul & Gary Johnson, the only two who truly want the Constitution back.

            SamFox

          • theredrider

            First, Romney is pro-life. The Democrats have never had much room in their “big tent” for pro-life conservatives.

            Second, Romney does not believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to create a land where gay marriage was a civil right. If they wanted to do that, they would have done so. Romney fought against both gay marriage and stem cell research as governor, angering Democrats, progressives, and liberals alike.

            The Democrats will occasionally welcome a pro-choice Republican like Jim Jeffords or Snarlin’ Arlen, but they really can’t tolerate a pro-life, pro-family conservative.

            They would be more likely to welcome Charlie Crist (a McCain supporter who tipped the balance to McCain in 2007) than Mitt Romney. Romney fooled a few progressives into voting for him in 2002 and that is the unforgivable sin on the left. You can flip toward them, but you can’t flip against them.

          • gekster

            We know more about Mittens than you think.
            And blind allegience does you no good.
            The simple fact that you can’t see the facts lends you no credability.

            I think you should go to a site that you can handle better.
            One where facts don’t matter.

          • theredrider

            violates one of the rules here.

            Please review them.

            I’m not blindly allied with any candidate. I know more about Romney than you do. If you claim to have “facts” that show that Romney has no credibility, then I have facts (real facts) that show that Perry and Gingrich COMBINED have less credibility than Romney.

            So the issue is not “where can we find a candidate who has never changed in his adherence to conservative norms”. The issue has always been “which candidate can beat Obama”.

            Streiff is doing everything he can to try to convince conservatives that Romney is not the candidate who is most likely to give Obama a run for his money.

            But it’s a tough sell that is based on Streiff’s unfounded opinions, photographs and statements taken out of context and which qualify as “Democrat talking points”. So, to sell this tough sell, Streiff repeats his meme often. Uses name-calling and threats to silence his opposition, and relies on followers like you to help him establish that his opinion is the only legitimate one that can be expressed.

            He is wrong about that. I’m here to let you and the others know that there is more than one legitimate opinion when the issue is “who can beat Obama”. Vive la difference!

          • gekster

            I have showed you several facts, as others have, to dispute your claims, but blind allegience keeps you from seeing them.
            Pointing out you go to a site more inline with your misinformation is not breaking any rules.

            And Strieff is just pointing out facts that you choose to ignore. (comes with the blind allegience thing)

            And I think you should go to a site that is easier for you to handle.
            Hello Kitty Paradise Island has free registration.
            Maybe you can get a grownup to help you register.
            And just to help you along, the Golden Orb is in the NE side of the island inside a cave.
            Now go and have fun.

          • sunshinek67

            I am curious to know how Perry has less credibility than Mitt Romney.

            “If you claim to have ?facts? that show that Romney has no credibility, then I have facts (real facts) that show that Perry and Gingrich COMBINED have less credibility than Romney.”

            *Governor Perry’s 3-term in TX versus Mitt Romney’s one-term in MA.

            *Perry’s 5 years in the AirForce, retired as Captain versus Mitt Romney’s ZERO military experience, draft dodger at that.

            Well, Perry never led a hedgefund investment corporation and made filthy millions for himself and his investors by swallowing up existing companies, slice and dice, thousands of workers losing their jobs.

            Loser~

          • samfox

            have done research & not been taken in by lame stream fringe media & don’t take what candidates say at the ‘debates’ at face value.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3etUOq7hVE

            SamFox

      • RichmondG30

        and returns the most evil politician ever hold the office of POTUS for another four years of wreaking havoc on our nation, then the MSM will have been proven correct. They have been saying that the conservative wing of the Republican Party are ideological purists who are willing to see the party crash and burn before supporting a “moderate”.

        There are dozens of real conservatives I would prefer to Mittens (Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindall, Bob McDonnell, or even Perry, Newt, Bachmann or Santorum), but if none of those names are on the ballot come November 2012 I will support Romney.

        If your argument for letting BHO have another four years rather than let a flip-flopping moderate in, then I urge you to consider the damage a Barack Obama not encumbered by the need to get re-elected could do:

        REGULATORY AGENCIES. Another four years of economic stagnation or worse, we may not be able to dig out during our lifetimes.
        SCOTUS. Consider what BHO’s next Supreme Court justice will look like, and if you argue that since the R’s will control the Senate they will be able to block the real radicals, then dream on. Won’t happen. There are enough squishy R’s in the Senate to virtually guarantee BHO’s nominee a vote, especially if the nominee is female, black, Hispanic, gay, etc.
        CZARS. Give BHO four more years to rework the government framework without Congressional oversight, installing Leftists throughout, and it will be nearly impossible to dismantle the system.
        OBAMACARE. One candidate at least SAYS he will repeal Obamneycare. One is determined to defend it to the death. If you like OBAMACARE, then put BHO back in charge and your children and grandchildren will be forced to beg government bureaucrats for potentially life-saving medical treatment for years to come.

        If you like what this EVIL man has done for the past three years, then put him back in for another four.

        • streiff

          take 1996 for instance.

          While I have the same concerns that you enumerate I think that having a GOP House and Senate will act as an effective curb on them. The real question is do we believe that Romney Administration regulatory agencies would act much different than Obama agencies. Where at least a GOP Congress will push back on Obama, we can’t rely upon McConnell to do the same with a President Romney.

          Will McConnell oppose Romney nominating more David Souters? I don’t know.

          The fear of the “czars”, I think, is overblown. They reside in the Executive Office of the President and have no permanent staff or organization.

          • theredrider

            getting Kennedy and O’Connor appointed.

            As long as we’re on the subject, it was GHW Bush’s tunnel vision on the issue of whistle-blower laws that led him to distrust Ken Starr and to put a lot of faith in David Souter as his High Court nominee. William Loeb convinced John Sununu that Souter was a “stealth conservative”. Sununu convinced Bush. Apparently, John Kerry was also convinced because he voted against David Souter’s appointment.

            McConnell will probably do what most Senate leaders do when their party controls the White House: create a list of priorities and work to achieve as many of those objectives as he can.

            He won’t be able to get anything positive done as long as BHO is president. My only goal for next year is stopping BHO from getting re-elected. By any (peaceable) means necessary.

        • medamorphus

          I refuse to believe that the “base” is so short sighted and so unthinking that they would sit out the election rather than vote for Romney. Anybody, and I mean ANYBODY currently in the primary is a 100% improvement over Obama. So what is the supposed logic here, that the base is upset because our candidate is not as conservative as we would ideally like, so we sit out so that a full blown Marxist/Socialist can continue to govern as President? Good grief, how does that help? We push for the most Conservative candidate in the primary, and VOTE Republican in the General. This is the most important election in most of our lifetimes…we don’t sit this one out because we didn’t get our first choice on the ballot.

          • streiff

            is a lot different that arguing whether it will happen.

            It may not be wise but it will happen

          • WarEagle01

            if Romney wins the primary. This is not 1996 and Barry 0zer0 is no Bill Clinton. Personally, I’d go vote for a dead bloated poodle lying on the side of the street if it means getting that SCOAMF out of the White House. His choice of running mate will be key, however, in determining if the base does anything more than just show up at the polls to vote.

          • theredrider

            Plus, there was no government shutdown in 2011. The shutdown of 1995 hurt the GOP badly in 1996. It rallied the base at first. But then that rally ended with Newt threw in the towel and gave Clinton everything he asked for. Clinton said “kiss it” and Newt did what Paula Jones refused to do.

            The base will turn out in 2012. Along with them will be independents who are now trending against Obama. All Obama can do is hope that his OWS minions can trick enough Americans into blaming the rich rather than blaming Obama for the mess that exists in Washington.

        • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

          The rigid extremism of the editors of Red State is really beginning to depress me as their unmitigated blind rage against Romney – whom I find as unacceptable for all the usual reasons – pits pragmatic patriots who wish to save the Republic against four more years of radical Leftist mischief, even if it means voting for a transparently phony candidate, against those whose bushido code requires defeat before ideological dishonor, believing it’s better to lose with a “true conservative” (which by the extreme views of the editors applies to NONE of these losers) than someone like Romney. Pitiful. It’s as if Daily Kos has hacked into the Red State site to post the most rancid stereotypical version of conservatism in order to discredit the movement.

          What RichmondG30 touched upon cannot be minimized: Obama is poisoning the very permanent infrastructure of the government with Alinskyite disciples who are protected by civil service rules and thus will be able to impose liberal tenets from their unimpeachable sinecures until they cease breathing. No one votes for the regulators, so they’re actually more powerful than the transitory elected representatives of our government. Presidents come and go; Congressmen come and go; the bureaucracy endures eternal.

          But who cares about the inconvenient truths when there is an extreme ideological agenda to be adhered to, win or lose, especially lose since martyrdom is the highest honor for the radical conservative. (In the form of losing on one’s principles.) When I saw streiff howling that any candidate who doesn’t believe in forcing women to serve as incubators against their will is pro-abortion, the alarms went off. Seeing Neil Stevens constant rage against Sprint and Erick’s endless anti-Romneyism has only confirmed my observations that someone needs to check the furnace at Red State and open a window.

          NONE of the candidates running this year are acceptable to sane conservatives. I feel sorry for those who are barking for Perry (knows little; debates poorly) or Cain (knows nothing and doesn’t seem to care). Things are so dire that a Draft Pawlenty movement seems like a good idea. That the Stupid Party has for two consecutive cycles managed to put up a rogues gallery of twerps and twits which have no hope of overcoming the combined power of a billion dollars of smear ads and a coordinated JournoList media cabal makes me sad enough without coming here to see the belligerent purists eviscerating the one candidate who may be adequate enough to do the job.

          Again, I’m no fan of Romney and agree with 99.44% of the knocks against him. However, I’m someone who is hard pressed to find another country to flee to if the public chooses to commit national suicide by voting for the proven failure of Obama over some truly unelectable, but ideologically pure (according to Red State ideologues) candidate.

          I’m gonna go shopping now. May as well upholster my bunker with stuff.

          • jaykali

            And I can’t blame them for wanting to get the most conservative candidate but they’ll be there. Bc a purist believes in the constitution and the right to vote, so in the end they’ll vote for the Republican. Whereas maybe a leftist purist would go throw rocks at policemen or smoke some Marijuana.

          • theredrider

            I was so against McCain in 2008, that I probably told a lot of people that I’d never vote for the guy.

            Guess what? I ended up voting for him anyway. I don’t mind people saying, “I’m for _______ and this is why”. What I don’t like is the Romney-bashing.

            It is not as productive as explaining who the best candidate is.

          • acat

            Just… try to use facts this time.

            Mew

          • jaykali

            If perry could campaign like Romney we’d have a nominee right now. His conservative credentials are shaky for sure. I personally don’t care much for any of the candidates therefore I want the one who is the most electable and right now thats Mitt. I suppose that can change but I don’t really believe anyone else can beat Obama at the moment.

          • acat

            Perry won election after election after election in Texas.

            Mitt didn’t run for re-election, and lost to John McCain in 2008.

            Please tell me again how great a campaigner Mitt is.

            Mew

          • heraklios

            He’s a walking disaster as a campaigner

          • jaykali

            Perry can’t get out of his own way. Running a Texas campaign and a national campaign are two different things. I was so excited ab perry when he debuted but he is a punch line right now. I am not sure he has enough time to recover. Right now Mitt is the most consistent debater / campaigner in the mix. Newt is on the rise although he started off really rough when he criticized Paul Ryan’s budget for no apparent reason. Anyways you can’t deny that for all his faults Romney is running a pretty solid campaign. And the fact that the other candidates can’t or won’t attack him n low hanging fruit should give you pause if you want to pick them to be your guy to knock out Obama.

          • acat

            It’s ironic that you want to get into a {urinating contest} over this….

            Mew

          • sunshinek67

            forgot his own name at CNN, or maybe it was failed attempt at humor, either way it was a bomb. He is mired in the polls @25%. Flip flops his positions within the timeframe of a one hour debate, as witnessed in the last debate on foreign policy. Actually he debates himself it seems more often than not. His arrogance is becoming a sideshow for some, “Let’s face it, I am the only one who can beat Obama”. I, for one, am not going to vote for this guy if he gets the GOP nomination. He is a very strange weak candidate to face Barack Obama.

          • jaykali

            I dont see any SNL sketches humiliating Mitt Romney. I hate to be the one defending Mitt Romney but I think he is a lot more believable as a candidate than anyone else. I am just more pragmatic bc this field is a weak field so in a weak field I’d personally rather have the most electable guy out there.

            I would leave the door open for Gingrich to have a late surge here but he has baggage and many a flip-flop too so he’s not perfect and he doesn’t have money. If it’s not Mitt then who is it? I just don’t know.

            That being I’m not sure it’s Mitt just bc he can’t seem to break 25%. It is very possible that you have a couple non-Mitts drop out after Iowa and then you’ll see support rally around 1-2 non-Mitts and a little bit on Ron Paul who is going to stick around and prob steal 5-10% of non-Mitts. Depending on how quickly the field thins out you might have a Gingrich candidacy really make a run at this thing. I mean Huckabee would have really made things interesting if he could have just won South Carolina in 08.

            I think we figure that the race will be decided early but I could see it dragging out. I hope we can have a candidate surge to the top bc of their strengths, not just have a last man standing type election like we did in 08. I just want somebody, anybody who can beat Obama. That’s it.

          • daveinthed

            I couldn’t agree with you more. The “extremists” on the right are threatening to destroy our party and reelect B.O.

            They are LYING now, saying that “Romney is unelectable” or as “RINO”.

            Meanwhile, NONE of them…any of these so-called conservative “bloggers” or any of the radio blowhards who put Romney down on a daily basis, have EVER run a thing, let alone a multi-national corporation, organization or a state as Romney has.

          • theredrider

            Coincidentally, Carter believed that Reagan was “unelectable” in 1979. Carter was proven wrong.

            Many Democrats laughed and laughed at George W. Bush until the day when Al Gore (finally) conceded the election to him.

            Romney is not a RINO. He has put his entire career on the line because of his conservative values. He has paid a price for it in that the far right and the far left now both hate him.

            If he is to win, it will not be because the OWS crowd thinks that he has their interests at heart. Romney will get no support from gay activists or feminists who put personal liberty ahead of human life. If Romney is to win, it will be because conservatives here and elsewhere realize that 4 more years of Obama is unacceptable and Romney is the candidate who is most likely to ensure that the U.S. does not have to endure this fate.

          • gekster

            When Romney ran for the Senate, he ran as a left of center independent.
            When he ran for Governor, he ran as a left of center Republican,
            and as he runs for President, he now runs as a right of center Republican.
            So tell me where did he put his conservative credentials on the line.
            When in his political history did he ever have conservative credentials.
            Where has he not adopted a position that he thought he neede to get elected.
            And as much of a left leaning Republican McCain was, just why did he lose to McCain.

            Like I said, Hello Kitty is calling you.

          • avagreen

            I feel sorry for those who are barking for Perry (knows little; debates poorly)……. Things are so dire that a Draft Pawlenty movement seems like a good idea.

            Same thing you are doing quite handily.

            BTW, I haven’t seen any editor (perhaps I’m wrong) suggest to sit out the election and NOT vote for any candidate if chosen. In fact, I’ve seen folks threatened for suggesting the opposite.

          • avagreen

            **

        • jaykali

          I dont care who the nominee is, the court has been split for a while now but it’s likely to get tipped the next cycle so do we want liberal decisions or don’t we?

          • theredrider

            The Supreme Court will decide whether states like California can ban gay marriage if they choose to. It will decide whether states like Mississippi can ban abortion. It will decide whether states like Michigan can discriminate against white women who would like to get admitted to one of the public universities there. It will decide whether the First Amendment’s Right to Free Speech includes the right to put an ad out on TV that says, “Obama is a crook and a liar”.

            Right now, the court is almost evenly split. The guy who wins next year will probably appoint the tie-breaking justice.

        • donald_24

          Rubio is pro amnesty.

        • capeconservative

          regardless of who holds the top spot!

          We showed we COULD effect change at the local levels all across the country in 10 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!!!

        • samfox

          R ‘party’ crash & burn if they keep giving us status quo establishment candidates like Bush I & II, McLame, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Huntsman, & though not as bad as these, Santorum & Bachmann who are not true conservative Constitutionalists.

          You seem to forget history. When was the last time a RNC candidate who got elected POTUS actually followed the Constitution?

          If we can’t get a true Constitutional conservative in the WH & back him or her up with with a Constitution minded Congress, we might as well keep 0. The only diff any of those I listed would make is that they may slow down the speed at which the USA is being decimated by the ‘progressive’ agenda. But like the Bushes & other R POTUSes they would still keep the US headed into the economic toilet.

          What I am trying to say is that if all we do is switch the party the ‘progressive’ candidate comes out of, which wold be the case for the a fore mentioned, all we will have done is exercise in the gym of futility & self deception. But not much would change. Bush II is the poster boy for that.

          If you actually believe what the candidates say at the ‘debates’ & don’t know how far from their actual records they are or what there actual records ARE,…well, that’s not good.

          Remember, Bush II ran on a lot of Ron Paul positions, but GWB did not live up to his word, which has become all to common because people take to much at face value & don’t do deeper research.

          http://tinyurl.com/6ofxyzg

          http://tinyurl.com/6vjdo9a

          SamFox

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        There are 16 states without a Senate election in 2012. Some of these also don’t have other statewide races (e.g. Governor). Many of these will be important swing states. If Republicans aren’t motivated by the Presidential candidate and there’s no Senate or other statewide races, that leaves the U.S. House and other regional or local races as the only ones to show up for. I can see a significant number of voters deciding it’s just not worth it to show up at all.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          Forgot the closing tag again.

          • acat

            for reiterating this!

            Look, there are more Dems in the senate up for re-election in “purple” States in 2012. We can flip the Senate – the question is how solid a majority we’ll get.

            If we can take enough seats, the Maine Twins and Scott Brown voting with the Dems part of the time won’t *matter*.

            We can only get there, though, if we have someone exciting at the top of the ticket.

            Romney is about as exciting as an investment prospectus.

            Mew

          • theredrider

            Newt and/or Perry doesn’t bring a single state with him that Romney doesn’t bring.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            ..nt..

      • jaykali

        Romney is going to run as a Democrat? Is Obama going to run as a Socialist? You can dislike his positions but you should argue against those specifically not some stupid idea that he’s going to run as a Democrat. So in that scenario who is going to vote for him exactly?

        • streiff

          it would save you from self-beclowning.

        • theredrider

          being “tongue-in-cheek” when he said that Romney will run as a democrat.

          But it is this type of invective that is laser-focused on Romney here. Making the same comment about Perry or Gingrich would put you in hot water here.

          Romney’s acts as an elected official have been no worse than Rick Perry’s or Newt Gingrich’s. Who knows what Herman Cain will do as president? I don’t think even Herman Cain knows.

          • jaykali

            Well I read all the time that Romney is Obama lite so forgive me for jumping to conclusions

      • theredrider

        You say that Mitt will run as a Democrat? Bet on it.

        How bout this, “Perry is so liberal I bet he used to be a democrat.”

        Oh wait. He WAS democrat! Flip-flop!

        You’re making less sense every day. I think that your inability to derail the Romney campaign so far has frustrated you to the point where you just rant and rave. Try derailing the Gingrich campaign for a change. It should be much easier thanks to Freddie Mac, Newt’s mouth, and Newt’s string of flip-flops on marriage and religion.

        • avagreen

          …….old story. Don’t you read? Or, just choose to ignore something called….the “truth”?

          If you’re a betting man……..you’d lose. For the love of your family and finances, pls don’t try it. :/

          Just sayin’.

      • theredrider

        Not only that, independent voters voted against the GOP nominee.

        I saw very little “stop McCain” blogging here in 2008. McCain hurt the party far more than Romney would have. Romney would have picked a running-mate that energized the base and got independents to join in. This would have kept Obama from getting 60 seats in the Senate and may have even kept Obama out of the White House.

        We saw a lot of “stop Romney” action here in 2007 and 2008 and we’re seeing a lot more of it this year.

        It didn’t help conservatives in 2008 and it isn’t helping conservatives this year.

        • acat

          The media has been spreading that meme as far as they can.

          If you look at county-level maps, i.e. which counties did Bush 2.0 win in 2000 and 2004 that McCain lost, you’ll see that McCain lost the moderates, not the conservatives.

          Mew

          • theredrider

            to verify your unverifiable claims. Why don’t you track down the map and post the link?

            McCain did worse in 2008 than any Republican since Goldwater. You can’t just blame that on moderate Republicans. BTW, McCain WAS a moderate Republican. Why would moderates stay home rather than elect one of their own?

            That just doesn’t hold water.

            McCain alienated the base when he formed the Gang of 14 and stopped Bush from putting conservatives on the Court. McCain tried to fix this by picking Palin as his running-mate. But Palin got unfairly vetted by the far left with slander and name-calling. I’ve never seen anything like that hatchet-job in my life.

            Post your link. Then we’ll talk.

          • nathanalbright

            Here is the election map, including county-by-county, scaled for “purple” areas, and even including cartograms to take population into consideration, for the 2008 election:

            http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

            And for the 2004 election:

            http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2004/

            Compare at your leisure. It took only a few seconds for me to find these on google. You should try it sometime.

          • nathanalbright

            And here’s a “purple” 2000 election county-by-county map:

            http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2000/

            The general gist is that a lot of counties appear to be closely balanced in most years and can go one way or the other based on how enthusiasm for one party or another changes. You can take whatever meaning from that you wish.

          • samfox

            a bill to give the Prez UN-Constitutional arrest & detain powers & the potential to turn the military into police, I find it hard to see how McLame is any where near moderate. McCain is another Republican ‘progressive’. He illustrates how the progs have infiltrated the R ‘party’.

            McCain would overturn Posse Comitatus.

            http://tinyurl.com/88brp4t

            http://www.dojgov.net/posse_comitatus_act.htm

            What should be glaringly obvious, that the ‘progressives’ are established deep into the R ‘party’, is further illustrated by the fact that many so called ‘conservative’ R’s support this dictator making provision that McCain & Carl Levin slipped into the military appropriations legislation.

            When Ron Paul votes against this bill he will be called all sorts of names & accused of not supporting the military. They won’t tell you why he voted against the bill because it contains this draconian piece of legislation, they will just go on another accusation & name calling tour.

            Not attacking, just trying to clarify. Thanks.

            SamFox

      • John6078

        Why do RS even allow you to write on this blog. It’s all hate and doesn’t even contain a bit of rationality. You should present inteligent thought that is well reasoned that can promote a rational discourse.

        • acat

          Heh.

          Mew

  • uncmike

    I also agree with the substance of your post about Romney’s problems in a general election. I see that VDH over at NRO has a piece today about Romney going down with the GOP like castor oil, although it’s clear VDH is behind Mitts.

    • theredrider

      Oh wait. I think I know. Victor Davis Hanson, right?

      I’ve always liked him. I own one of his books.

      • nathanalbright

        …but that’s not very hard to manage. As a graduate student I had to read his overhyped piece of garbage about the Western Way of War.

        • jakeofalltrades

          nothing more, really.

  • Tbone

    of trying to murder the Republican Party. I a hoping that at least 15% of Romney’s 25% wake up and realize the guy is a complete fraud, easily as fraudulent as Obama but far more dangerous to conservatives.

    • acat

      I think that 15% of Romney’s support think “they’ve picked a winner”.

      Mew

      • cheetah2

        then we all must make sure he is the winner in the general election.

        Until then, those of us who disagree with them have got to fight them for all we are worth.

        • acat

          but I’m hoping it won’t come to that.

          Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            you’re going to have to write that diary to educate the rest of us on those “Romney’s great!” lines.

            i can’t think of any.

          • acat

            Necessity, however, does not yet compel.

            Mew

          • cheetah2

            We must beat Obama.

            If Romney gets the nomination, I will need every kind of help possible to whip up my enthusiastic support for him.

            In the general election, Romney will need more than just ABO type support.

            For my part, I intend to believe in him if I have to vote for him. If he betrays my trust, then so be it.

          • acat

            If you happen to live in a State where either the Senator or Governor (or both?) is up for re-election, it might be easier to get excited (or get others excited) about that race, with a trickle-up effect helping Mitt.

            That’s really the only way I can see him winning with anything resembling a mandate.

            Mew

          • cheetah2

            If we have to vote for Romney, a more conservative Congress to go with him would be the best case scenario to hope for.

            I can definitely whip up some enthusiasm for fighting to defeat Senator Maria Cantwell in my home state in 2012!

          • theredrider

            McCain before I had anything good to say about the guy.

            Eventually, I found that McCain and I had a little bit in common, philosophically.

            But I refused to send money to McCain or to campaign for him the way I campaigned for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

            Don’t forget to read up on all the good things that Romney has done when you’re doing your oppo research. Lol.

    • bs61

      I care about America – neither party does!

    • theredrider

      The guy’s name is Newt Gingrich. He’s about as honest as Bill Clinton. Unlike Clinton, he switched from mainstream Christianity to Catholicism in 2005, probably just to please his new wife.

      Newt is also the recipient of over $1.6 million from Freddie Mac. Was Freddie Mac just being generous? Far from it. There was a quid pro quo there.

      If you think that Romney is more “dangerous to conservatives” than Obama then you are either foolish or disingenuous. Obama has proven that he will not put conservatives or moderates on the High Court. Only Sotomayor liberals.

      Romney would not put a Sotomayor or a Kagan on the high court. That should be a concern to you because the winner of next year’s election will probably pick at least one Supreme Court nominee.

      • center77

        are both complete frauds. I used to watch Fox until I figured out the game they were playing; they want to build up a few people to split the conservative vote past the first few states. When Cain first started to show signs that he was going to start crashing, Fox instantly started plugging Newt, they knew Cain may end up crashing, and they could not afford to allow Perry to gain steam again because he is the only one who could really take Romney on, the money, the record, the conservative plan. Fox has played us all, Newt is not the answer he is the disease. Washington is full of power brokers like him, and somehow Fox has managed to help Newt gain steam. I really once thought my fellow conservative was different, but this primary season has shown me that there is something wrong with the people I felt had shared my views on the work. I can tell you this without any shame, i will not lower my principles to beat Obama, and it is starting to seem to me that we will have to start by purging the Republican establishment out of the party, This is no time to settle, let the Democrats get blamed for the big government stuff, we need not settle.

  • gator_hoo

    Despite the fact that most conservatives know not to trust the media implicitly, they still buy into the media’s election narratives. Romney= most electable, Perry= Bush 3, Gingrinch= rock ribbed conservative

  • pdawk

    When did it become an albatross on this site to run a highly successful business? So Bain went in and bought companies on the brink of failure, tried to strip waste, turn them around and make a profit. Sometimes Bain even laid workers off and stipped their beneifts because their sector was killing the bottom line. Oh the humanity!!!

    Oh, wait, I know….it was pure evil for them to lay off workers in failing divisions of companies, or to refocus business practices in areas that were more efficient and more profitable. You mean he did for bloated, overextended businesses, what we are talking about doing with the federal government?

    You can rip Romney for plenty of things, but to trash him for running a very profitable, successful business enterprise is just down right progressive.

    • throwback59

      Obama and his failed presidency, not his opponet.”A.B.O” Anyone But Obama will be the mind-set, not the Republicans’ short-comings.

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

        the midst of Great Depression II.

        • westcoastpatriette

          A squish like Romney so demoralizes their base that the worst of opponents can beat them. That is what I think will happen if Mitt wins the nomination.

          • Thomas_Alan

            If California were the only state voting. That state never misses an opportunity to shoot itself in the foot.

          • westcoastpatriette

            What it boils down to is politicians who behave like chamelions–aka Romney–are just as disgusting as the most rabid lib to most conservatives.

            Matters not what state you’re in. People are people and we have seen this play out time and time again. Weak moderate Republicans lose. As will Romney.

          • Thomas_Alan

            I know you want him to be (for some reason), but he’s not running as a moderate. He’s run as conservative a campaign as anyone in the field.

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

            is good that Romney has moved to the right on many issues, because the Bush41 lesson teaches that Republicans will exact punishment for broken promises and I would rather have a Mitt in office that had made conservative pledges than one who hadn’t.

            But I favor Perry, Bachmann before Mitt or Newt. I do favor Mitt over Newt for several reasons. more later

          • westcoastpatriette

            Please. Why would I “want” Romney to be a weak moderate? He is what his record shows that he is–not what he is trying to pretend he has now become.

            In other words, people see through the current facade and look at the whole picture. To not do so makes us gullible bimbos ready to believe any lie in the face of contradicting evidence.

            Do you sincerely believe Romney is now a true-blue conservative? If so, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • theredrider

            You’ll find a lot of stuff that you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney

          • aesthete

            “He’s run as conservative a campaign as anyone in the field.”

            Of all of the plans for government reform, Romney’s is the one that cuts the least from government. Romney has run essentially as a candidate of the status quo when it comes to entitlements. He is not interested in eliminating any cabinet-level executive departments when he becomes President. He is interested in a “repeal and replace” model for ObamaCare, and will not repudiate RomneyCare: surely, a harbinger for extensive government involvement in, rather than liberalization of, the health markets. On fiscal issue, he’s certainly running a less conservative campaign than his opponents.

            Moreover, most conservatives, I would wager, would rather measure up Romney’s words against his actions than accept them as gospel truth: on this front, Romney fares even worse (particularly on life issues, but generally on most political issues).

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

            of words. But seriously, why settle for Mitt? But I do think Mitt would be less bad than Newt…more to come (think The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson)

          • Tbone

            How did that work out?

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

            John McCain and I’ll defend Romney on that to the end!

          • redmymind

            I remember KFI AM 640 talk-show hosts, John and Ken, referring to Whitman as basically “Arnold in a dress”.

          • westcoastpatriette

            ,

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

            so much more, that its not even close. I think conservatives understand that removing Obama would in and of itself cause sideline money to be spent on investment and jobs and actually do dislike libDem depressions and empty wallets more than they dislike the latest GOP squish.

        • streiff

          1. A sitting president is damned difficult to beat. To accomplish that you need a perfect storm of economic difficulties and a complete tone deafness to the mood of the country. I don’t think Obama is the latter.

          2. If economic difficulties are sufficient to defeat Obama, then the GOP nominee will win regardless of who we put up. In that case, there is no reason to nominate Romney.

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

            I see Newt as the closest to Mitt in terms uf unrealiability as a conservative and so I want either Perry or Bachmann to make comebacks and get the nomination. I suspect that Mitt or Newt will have to make a big mistake of have a scandal for that to happen, but…

            Obama resembles Presidents that lost re-election like Carter and Bush 41. The polls certainly look bad for an incumbent and anecdotally, I find very few Dems will defend Obama when I very outspokenly criticize him in various pubs!

            This economy is simply a killer and people have turned off to Obama, imho and that idies would like Romney on a lot of levels. The main level: He didn’t serve over a Great Depression for the last 4 years and not cure it.

            I really think even a yellow dog could beat Obama!

            But I want a tea partier, not Mitt to do the beating.

          • streiff

            we’re going to have a lot of trouble beating Obama unless the economy gets a lot worse. I don’t think he has the lack of connection with the people who elected him that either Carter or Bush41 had. Our best chance would have been something like the near coronation Bush43 had in 2000.

            Be that as it may, if you are right about the economy there is no reason at all to consider voting for Romney.

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

            a Perry or Bachmann (or Paul Ryan!) so that we never find which one of is right re an Obama v Mitt contest.

            If Obama beats anyone, I suspect the reason would be that America has reached the tipping point between those fearfully dependent on the welfare/crony capitalism/government as main employer state and the America of the Founding.

            What about Newt v Mitt? Isn’t the post-1996 Newt the closest thing to a Romney only without message discipline?

          • streiff

            I’ve had the privilege of spending some time with Newt in a fairly cozy setting (no it wasn’t a cancer ward). He’s very very smart but I don’t see him running the country.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …even if the economy stays front and center. People still need a reason to change product and think that the competition makes a better product. So far we’re doing what we can to undermine that.

            Then, if foreign affairs takes a greater role – well frankly we’re dead in the water. Having failed to articulate a foreign policy alternative for the past three years, we will have no credibility to challenge Obama’s “leadership” in that arena.

            And for that matter, we could well lose the House and not flip the Senate if someone like Romney suppresses conservative turnout down-ticket. And that would kill conservatism for another generation, which in the current environment could mean an irretrievable loss.

            That’s my take if we don’t correct course.

        • concrusade

          Angle had the Tea Party and “conservatives” behind her, right?

          • gekster

            Voting macines selecting Reid

            headline:
            Nevada voting machines automatically checking Harry Reid’s name; voting machine technicians are SEIU members.

            excerpt:
            Voter Joyce Ferrara said when they went to vote for Republican Sharron Angle, her Democratic opponent, Sen. Harry Reid’s name was already checked.
            Ferrara said she wasn’t alone in her voting experience. She said her husband and several others voting at the same time all had the same thing happen.
            “Something’s not right,” Ferrara said. “One person that’s a fluke. Two, that’s strange. But several within a five minute period of time — that’s wrong.”
            _____________________________________________________________
            How many voters didn’t catch that thier vote was stolen.
            I don’t think the Tea Party rigged the machines.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          …he is almost reached the point of being unbeatable against anyone in the current Republican field.

          We already know how Obama is going to run his campaign, and we’re following their campaign script to a “T”. And we seem determined to stick to script.

          Our position is rapidly becoming untenable, as we keep surrendering strategic outposts. But perhaps I need to try to write a post to elaborate.

      • wacowboy

        and look at what happened.

        a ham sandwich should have been able to beat Bush in 04. turns out John Kerry was more squishy than a ham sandwich

      • acat

        Seriously, throwback .. we need more than just “Look, my opponent is a failure!” .. especially since the Dems could still force Obama off the ballot.

        A weak GOP squish atop the GOP ticket makes this more likely because they know they can more easily advance their agenda through the Congress.

        Mew

    • changeforrickperry

      Streiff never condemned Willard for his association with Bain. But the OWS crowd and any other idiots who see it as a liability WILL condemn him for it. That was the point.

    • joayn

      et al who will use the Bain chop-shop strategy against Romney.

    • Hooah_Mac

      The thoughtful diary doesn’t pass judgement on Romney’s actions with Bain capital, but rightly notes that it is fodder for the left in very negative climate for businesses, especially the type of business Bain capital represents. Romney supporters want to claim he is the most electable because he isn’t too much of a conservative(whatever that means), while claiming he is a conservative on some things(which like above is precisely the wrong line in the sand to draw for conservative principles).

      Romeny suffer the same drawback as McCain and other “moderate” GOP failures – “me too, but not as much” is always a failing platform. You can convince people to follow you if you have reasons and principles for your beliefs – but if you have no discernible principles, it is easy for others to use this stuff against you.

    • streiff

      I won’t be running the ads against him..

      On the merits, there is no doubt that what Bain did made a lot of money for its investors and did so legally.

      On the merits, there is no doubt that Bain gutted a lot of businesses to make that money and those people who weren’t considered profitable and their friends and relatives will be voting in 2012.

      As a point of information, I can trash Romney for whatever reason I wish. What I am “trashing” him for in this story is spreading the contemptible lie that he is the most electable candidate when he is, in fact, the least electable.

      • sethellis

        In the general election I believe that Romney’s history with Bain Capital pales in comparison to Newt Gingrich’s history as a politician for hire.

        People understand that sometimes it is best for a company to be downsized. I believe they can look past that and see that in the end Bain was a successful business that created more jobs than it destroyed.

        Newt on the other hand doesn’t have the same out. Voters hate lobbyists period.

        • streiff

          but it is mitigated by the fact that GOP voters already know that and are still heading in his direction. I don’t know how he’d do in a national election. My gut, from having met the guy, is that he’s not very likable and he makes Bill Clinton look like a model of self discipline.

          His virtue is that the base would turn out in droves to support him and though he might lose, we’d do well on down ballot offices.

          • sethellis

            I’m not saying this a reason for someone to support one candidate over the other. I’m looking at this more from the perspective of how do we consolidate base support if Romney does win.

            So my contention is this. Romney might not have the support of the base right now, but that doesn’t mean he can’t get people excited if he wins. Romney has a strong organization. We’ll get to see just how strong it really is now that he’s playing to win in Iowa. He’s also been high effective with his conservative support of candidates since 2008. I think by virtue of this Romney will likely have one of the best ground games of any Republican ever.

            I do not believe that it’s his ability to bring out the base is at issue here.

          • streiff

            If people aren’t excited about Romney now, just like they weren’t excited about him in 2008, they aren’t going to be.

            Who,exactly, do you think is going to be part of his “ground game”? Mormon missionaries (NTTAWWT)? The people who won 2010 loathe Romney.

            We’ll see if his organization actually translates into votes. I’m betting he gets blown out in IA and SC.

          • Tbone

            can kiss my butt if they call.

        • Common_Cents

          Why?

          Are the Dems and lame stream media going to treat ANY Republican candidate w/ respect? They savagely took down McCain who took the high road. They’ll go dirty and go dirty often with any candidate. If they can’t find enough stuff, they’ll make stuff up, and exaggerate any rumor. Notice the bar gets lowered for “journalist” standards when it comes to reporting on Republicans? The media will report any rumor from “anonymous” sources about R’s but if you had a muslim terrorist committing a crime on video, the media will fall all over themselves saying “ALLEGED”, cannot report on it until we get confirmed sources, etc….

          So it matters less about baggage. What really matters?

          Is how capable our candidate can respond, refute, take the media head on with respect to the smears.

          Critical.

          Look at McCain taking the high road last election. GW taking the high road. That turned my stomach and did tremendous damage . We need a bulldog hard nosed fighter to take it to obama and call the media out every single time.

      • redmymind

        To de-couple the term “Romney” from the term “electable” in the minds of folks who have been conditioned to link the two in this forced word-association game set up by the media?

        • streiff

          Romney is no more “electable” than John McCain or Bob Dole.

          • acat

            The question is whether Conservatives will stack behind a candidate who can tear away the cloak or not.

            “I can’t have illegals working here, I’m running for office!” …

            Mew

    • sunshinek67

      **** :(

    • Scope

      and were able to comprehend what you read, and took off your Romney rose colored glasses, you would understand that the diarist is only supplying a fact of what the progressives will attack him on the most. It is really quite funny that you come to his defense and actually restate some defensive positions such as lay-offs and refocusing business plans and etc. which is not stated anywhere in the diary.

      It is very clear that there has been a major battle between those that defend Wall St, and those that claim to defend Main st. The progressives love to point the finger at the Republicans, and call them crony capitalists, favoring big business at the expense of those hurting terribly on Main St. (OWS?) Sure the progressives have their GE’s and other big businesses, and big banks they favor, but when have the progressives ever been honest about anything. Bain Capital was/is Wall St. What have the progressives been promoting in this country since Obama was elected? Class warfare between the haves and the havenots. Even though they pick business winners and losers, there constant push for equality for everyone, redistribution of wealth mantra has been paramount. Romney will be portrayed by the progressives as one of those 1%er’s who never had a hard day in his life. They will show him to be one that was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, never had to worry about paying the mortgage payment or put food on the table to feed his family. His charmed life will be on display everyday. He will be seen to the progressives as greedy and part of the major problems that are destroying this country.

      That will all be before, or along with his lack of ability to fight Obamacare, his own advisers have said that they consulted with Obama to write Obamacare. What is the number one issue voters have on their mind after jobs, Obamacare. How will he fight Obama’s push for Cap and Trade and green everything, when he has been in agreement, and as late as this year said that he does believe that Global Warming is at least partially man made. How will he argue against Obama with the now hot button issue of illegal immigration, when there are actual quotes by him supporting a pathway to legalization for those illegals already here. The first ad by the progressives will be him saying in the debate- “I said, I can’t have illegals doing my landscaping, I’m running for office for goodness sake.”

      Yes you are correct, there is a whole lot to knock Romney for. streiff never knocked his time at Bain Capital except to point out that that will be a major criticism of him by the liberals. And he is correct.

      • porkandcheese

        The Tea Party and OWS have one thing in common; they are motivated by their opposition to the bailouts. OWS is Democrats trying to deflect from Obama’s continued support of the bailouts. Tea Partiers never bought into hopey change.

    • romeg

      I don’t recall seeing criticism of Romney for running Bain in a manner and for the purpose intended. I did see the part where he would be the target of the ire of the self-proclaimed ’99%’ crowd for making those companies taken over by Bain by closing money-losing divisions and firing unproductive or redundant employees. Those are two different things.

      IOW, Romney’s presumed appeal to non-conservatives is that he would attract support from non-Republicans because of his ‘centrist’ appeal. David Brooks and Peggy Noonan appear to believe that to be the case. But even that isn’t going to fly when those voters find themselves in the voting booth, assuming they even bother to vote in the first place.

      Brooks and Noonan disagree with Limbaugh’s Law “Conservatism works every time it is tried” and cling to the silly notion that Republicans need to become more like Democrats in order to broaden their (OUR) appeal. This is nonsense. America and Americans crave principled, conservative leadership. Romney, thus far, hasn’t produced any evidence that he is equipped to provide such leadership.

    • center77

      Successful, but that does not make it ok. I am not saying that Bain is the same thing as that, but we have to understand that what Romney did is not the same as just developing a product and selling it. This country has seen so many jobs either get axed or sent overseas, while a few men make millions those people had to find another job. None of this is illegal, but the point is when we are running against the idea the rich is the problem, it would not be in our best interest to run a guy who took pictures with money while firing the employee who really did all the work building the company?s product. It?s all about the optics.

      • romeg

        Madoff into the discussion if your intent was not to make some sort of analogy between Madoff and Bain/Romney.

        Companies survive and thrive because they are more efficient than their competitors. If the work you do doesn’t add more value to the enterprise and its output than it costs to employ you or if you are far less productive than your fellow employees then you are too expensive to keep on the payroll. You have two options: find another line of work that will maximize your potential or find a way to increase your productivity and add more value to your output.

        Romney’s job was to make the entities under his control more valuable by making them more efficient. As Don Vito Corleone might say “It’s not personal. It’s business.”. Steve Jobs, for all his personal foibles and failures, was a master at this.

        As for jobs being sent overseas, the reason that happens is because America and many Americans have priced themselves out of the market for their services. The reasons are varied and complex but due, in no small part to decisions by politicians to buy the votes of favored constituencies through legislation designed to benefit those favored constituencies at the expense of others. But they always ignore that other law: The Law of Unintended Consequences.

        It is as certain, although not as predictable, as Newton’s laws of motion and gravity. When Congress and state legislatures stop monkeying around with the markets and limit their activities to their constitutionally mandated limited roles, this ‘problem’ will become less of one.

  • changeforrickperry

    why the actual voting results may indeed blow the All-Powerful All-Knowing Polls out of the water. Romney will go the way of Rudy Giuliani.

  • gawken

    Sorry, but I just can see all thsi talk about Mitt’s “inevitability” as the nominee.

    1. He’ll finish 4 or 5th, in Iowa. Yes, he’s pretty much ignored the state until just recently.
    2. In NH, where he is all but a “favorite son”, he won’t win a majority. He’ll get a plurality, but I suspect it will be BELOW 40%. And remmebr, NH, isn’t really representative of the GOP base..
    3. South Carolina..maybe, maybe, a third place finish.

    Nope..he’s done…

  • clintonformccain

    Is an orchestrated effort to position Obama for a run against Wall Street (aka Mitt Romney) in 2102.

    From a resume standpoint, Rick Perry is the Republican’s strongest canddiate. Successful governor, job growth, anti-elist, Washington outsider. The Dems would attack him has a dumb racist hick with a funny accent.

    Gingrich would be a disaster. Approval of Congress is 9% and the Dems would simply make the former Speaker of the House of Representatives the embodiment of that Congress, complete with cashing in as a high paid lobbyist. Plus, quite honestly, the Repubicans need new faces, not the same old white guys that have been around for decades.

    • streiff

      #OWS is setting the stage to campaign against Romney hence the administration’s active and tacit support.

    • texabama

      I agree with this and am continually amazed that more of the “facts” aren’t out there. I was reading some export information just the other day (sorry I don’t remember where) and it showed that Texas had more than 16% of all the US exports. That was more than any other state, including California. And this uptick in exports has been in the last ten years…in other words since Rick Perry has been governor. One state having almost 1/6 of the nation’s exports. That’s just one of the many accomplishments he could be touting.

  • honorable

    In Friday’s Wall Street Journal Micheal Medved has an Oped with the above Title and in which he makes the case that it is a myth that Romney is not electable. He goes on to analyse the 2008 election results for McCain. I would recommend all RS readers and bloggers to read and respond to the article.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204224604577030482569015376.html?KEYWORDS=Michael+Medved

  • sunshinek67

    that of CZAR. Have a nice day~

  • Thomas_Alan

    Dem strategists are saying bad things about one of our candidates. Jon Stewart making fun of Republicans. Occupy Wall Street won’t like him. No!!!! We must find a candidate where such a thing would never happen. We’ll certainly lose otherwise.

    This is proof?

    Romney’s a good guy. What’s more, he’s pretty much the exact kind of president we need right now. Someone who will lock himself in the oval office and get to work actually fixing the country’s problems and stop the constant stream of “change” elections that has left the political process broken.

    As for his conservative bonefides He’s running an almost checkbox conservative campaign even if he’s being called a moderate. Y’know, that’s not a bad thing. Most candidates have to pivot to the middle for the general election. Romney’s the only candidate who can stay out on the right.

    In the current climate all it will take for Romney to defeat Obama is to convince the mainstream of the country that he’d be a capable president. That would send Obama’s approval ratings into the low 30s. It’s something Romney can do easily because he clears the presidential bar without difficulty.

    Oh, and to answer your last question. No Newt can’t win the general election. And I’m convinced Rick Perry isn’t a real person, but a Sorkin fantasy of a Republican come to life by a fairy. I’ve looked at the electoral map a thousand times, and even giving Perry the benefit of the doubt in every possible state and assuming he runs a perfect campaign, his ceiling of electoral votes is in the 280s. It’s more likely he loses as badly as McCain.

    • nathanalbright

      …most Republicans, myself included, just can’t trust him at all. There are a variety of reasons for this. Some of them are connected to his behavior to animals and his seeming judgments of everything (including illegal immigrant subcontractors) through the lens of how it affects his presidential campaign. Some of it involves his drastic and difficult to believe pivot from a moderate Republican in a deeply Blue state to an ersatz Conservative. Part of it springs from his artificiality in his approach. In short, without that trust, everyone’s deepest worries about “Trojan Horse” Republicans takes full flight.

      • clintonformccain

        I can throw them.

        Let’s be honest here. I can’t stand Mitt Romney, but is he really any more or less “trustworthy” than any other poitical hack?

        • center77

          I cannot think of anything in Perry’s record that makes me not trust that he will try to do everyting he says he will, and this doe not even start to explain what makes Perry a much better candidate to face Obama come 2012. I sometimes think the establishment wants to lose, maybe its because they want jed bush to be president come 2016.

    • streiff

      The idea that because nearly all conservatives agree with Eugene Robinson and Jon Stewart, that Romney is a man without any set of values, doesn’t make the critique invalid. It merely shows that there are issues upon with everyone can agree.

      Romney is mired at 25%, or 20% after last week. Each time an actual conservative has been hurt in this election cycle their support has gone to another actual conservative. All that we can be certain of is that 75-80% of GOP primary voters don’t like Mitt Romney. This doesn’t mean we won’t have to settle for him, but it does mean he will not get a lot of grassroots support.

      I don’t know how Romney will be able to convince the country that he’s a capable president when his own party doesn’t believe it.

      I don’t know what your gualifications are to “look at the electoral map a thousand times” but any map that shows Romney winning will also show Perry and Gingrich winning.

      • Thomas_Alan

        Here’s the best case scenario map for Perry

        http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=dKe

        It gets him to 286. This is just states that I think he has a chance to win. Not states that I think he will. For example, New Mexico seems pretty unlikely to me, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

        Now let’s look at the best case scenario map for Romney

        http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=dKf

        I’d put the electoral votes from states Romney can realistically win at 352. Once again, I don’t believe that Romney will win all these states if nominate. But these are the states that would be in play at the beginning of the cycle.

        If you disagree with me, make a case for how Perry can win states outside of the map I’ve provided.

        • streiff

          getting 400 if you want. It doesn’t mean it won’t cause people to lose bladder control laughing. That’s the same reaction your website caused with me.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Tell me why you think my analysis is wrong. I’ll freely admit that it’s unlikely that Romney will win PA, MN, NM, and a few others. But he CAN realistically win there. Polls have shown Romney close or ahead in states like Michigan, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania while none of the other candidates are competitive.

            I didn’t just pull these states out of nothing.

            Make a case that Perry can possibly win more than a bare majority of electoral votes.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Thomas_Alan

            That clip of Romney was clearly taken out of context and anyone using it is engaged in the same kind of hackery as Shultz.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Apparently reading the entire transcript was too difficult for you so you just decided to insult me instead.

            In my view, your credibility is the one that is destroyed.

          • Bill S

            .

          • Thomas_Alan

            Romney didn’t support amnesty in that interview. He very clearly took the OPPOSING viewpoint. Thanks for posting the transcript, but your charge was the opposite of what was IN that transcript.

            You owe Romney an apology for that.

          • Aaron Gardner

            nt

          • Thomas_Alan

            But I don’t expect it to be coming. Consider what that means for your own credibility.

          • Bill S

            No one cares what MittBots like you think. Your words ara as hollow as your man-god’s. You might as well run along and get your jollies somewhere else.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You can attempt to parse his words all you want but his support of the McCain immigration reform is support for some form of amnesty just as I said.

            The fact is, Romney now takes a hardline stance on this purely for political gain, not because of any principled objection.

            I am sorry you feel the need to lie for your candidate and defame those who see through his veneer.

          • Thomas_Alan

            He said that doesn’t mean a special path in THE NEXT SENTENCE. You’d have to parse (or in this case edit) to say that he was in favor of such a thing. Outside of Tancredo he was the most consistently anti-illegal immigration candidate running last time around. He was hammering McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee on it all throughout 2007.

            No one who looks at the unedited statement can walk away thinking that Romney was in favor of amnesty.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Specifically the part that includes his own words from the Boston Globe interview:

            GOV. ROMNEY: I think an amnesty program is what, which is all the illegal immigrants who are here are now citizens,

            Unidentified Man: Mm-hmm.

            GOV. ROMNEY: …and a walk up and get your citizenship. What the president has proposed,

            Man: Mm-hmm.

            GOV. ROMNEY: …and, and what Senator McCain and Cornyn have proposed, are, are quite different than that.

            Man: Mm-hmm.

            GOV. ROMNEY: They require people signing up for a, a, well, registering and receiving, if you will, a number, a registration number, then working here for six years and paying taxes…

            Man: Mm-hmm.

            GOV. ROMNEY: …not taking benefits–health, Medicaid, food stamps, and so forth–not taking benefits, and then at the end of that period, registering to become a citizen or applying to become a citizen and paying a fee. And, and those are things that are being, being considered, and I, I think that that’s–that those are reasonable proposals.

            I am not talking about 2007 and 2008, I am talking about his views before he decided to run for President. You are parsing words just as Romney did once he was running to become the GOP nominee.

            If you were honest you would admit that his position has changed. If you weren’t a fluffer for Willard you would admit that he is doing this for political gain rather than any principled objection.

            Unfortunately, you are a dishonest Willard fluffer.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Romney described a stronger immigration proposal and also calls that reasonable.

            Romney actually didn’t even HAVE an immigration policy position back when that interview happened (at least not in terms of the federal level). He basically went through both points of view and called them both reasonable and did not take a position.

            That example of hackery is not directly on you, it’s on Tim Russert.

          • Aaron Gardner

            The point is, Mitt supported some form of amnesty, just as I said he did.

            That is a fact. Facts are stubborn things. I never made a false accusation, I never misinterpreted Willard’s words, I never acted like Ed Shultz.

            If you were honest you would just admit this. But you aren’t.

          • Thomas_Alan

            As I said, Romney didn’t endorse either position in the interview you cited. He just called them both reasonable. That’s the fact. Not only is it a fact, Romney himself pointed it out in the transcript you posted.

            In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support–and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail.

            Also, you purposely posted the clip that had a totally different context if it had been played for another few seconds. Do you deny that edit was designed to manipulate the viewer into thinking Romney held the opposite position than he expressed with full context?

          • Aaron Gardner

            That’s the problem with him. He will say that some form of amnesty is reasonable, but then say he doesn’t support what he himself calls reasonable.

            He will say that there should be no special path, while also saying illegals “should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship” which is in itself a special path.

            He will say that illegals should have to go home and then say “my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here”.

            He will say so much from so many opposing sides that his answer becomes incomprehensible leaving the voter to read whatever he wants into or, or whatever he can parse from it.

            This is the problem with Mitt, he lacks a principled core from which to make policy.

            Again, you would admit this if you were honest.

          • Thomas_Alan

            We’ve just torpedoed your entire argument. Romney never supported what you say he supported. You have no evidence that he did except two interviews where the most important part is clipped out (and no, applying for residency isn’t a special process, you can do that almost anywhere in the world).

            Once Romney had a position on immigration, it stayed there. If you want evidence that Romney’s been against illegal immigration, I can go out and link to a transcript of every single debate from the ’07-’08 season.

            I’m not the one refusing to be honest here.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I have quoted where he has taken positions that are considered some form of amnesty. I have quoted where he then takes the opposite position in the same interview. I have quoted him saying illegals should be able to stay, I have quoting him saying illegals shouldn’t be able to stay.

            Think whatever you want, and call me dishonest all you want, anyone with the reading comprehension of a third grader can see that you are the one being dishonest.

            Your holier than though self righteousness, and ability to lie for your candidate and to yourself is absolutely shameful. And it reflects on your candidate.

            I am done engaging with you since you can’t manage to acknowledge facts.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Quoting someone out of context doesn’t count. You’ve quoted, and I’ve shown definitively that those quotes, put in context, are either neutral on amnesty or outright opposed to the idea. You can keep saying that the quotes mean what they don’t, but that just means that you’re being less and less honest.

            I’m not lying for my candidate. I don’t have to engage in any tricks or manipulations. I don’t have to stop the tape or the transcript at a key point. That’s what you’re doing. Romney was never in favor of amnesty.

            It goes back full circle to my original question in the other post. How does quoting someone out of context make you any better then Shultz? Afterall, just like you console yourself that Romney always flips because that’s what your echo chamber tells you, Shultz can sleep well at night because he knows in his heart that all Republicans are racist.

            Me, I’m happy to have the facts on my side and a good man who will make a great conservative president.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You have quoted Romney out of context as well. I provided a link to the full context. You never did that.

            You are a lying hack.

          • Thomas_Alan

            What did I quote that was out of context? I’ve only quoted Romney once, and that was in the same interview you provided a transcript for. If you like, here’s the link again:

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/ns/meet_the_press/t/meet-press-transcript-dec/#.Ts_VsVbqd8G

          • Aaron Gardner

            Lying hack.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Once Romney proves himself as president, just remember this conversation.

          • acat

            you do the same.

            It’s not your fault Romney is a lousy candidate. It is your fault that you won’t see it.

            Mew

          • gekster

            It’s childish to put your hands over your ears and saying la-la-la I can’t hear you.
            Real grown up right there.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I can’t make you acknowledge facts, but I don’t have to act like being willfully ignorant is a positive either.

          • Thomas_Alan

            The idea that I’ve just covered my ears is obviously false. You had two pieces of evidence, and in both their cases pertinent facts were left out which completely changed the context.

            It’s you that is refusing to acknowledge facts. You have not put forward why my rebuttal was wrong even though I’ve attacked your charge with evidence.

            We both know, at the very least, you were aware that the edited clip was manipulative. You say that you were more concerned with Romney from 2005 than 2007 now, but you led with that clip.

            Tell me how showing a clip that was edited to manipulate the viewer into believing the speaker said something exactly the opposite of what a full context quote would give you is any different from what Shultz did.

            This is your chance. Tell me how it’s any different without calling me a hack, insulting my intelligence, or just being indignant about the comparison.

          • gekster

            Outside of Tancredo he was the most consistently anti-illegal immigration candidate running last time around. He was hammering McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee on it all throughout 2007.

            Are you talking about this Mitt.

            That’s a big hammer, isn’t it.

          • Thomas_Alan

            The one who in the next sentence said no special path and whose immigration policy has not changed.

          • gekster

            The 2007 pro amnesty, which he picked to pander for votes, or the 2011 position which is anti amnesty, which he took to pander for votes.
            Does Mitt have ‘any’ position he has held solid over the years.
            ‘Any’ political position he is solid on.

          • Thomas_Alan

            And he’s pretty solid on most issues despite attempts to twist his stances otherwise.

          • westcoastpatriette

            How is that a conservative position? And don’t say it was out of his control because the state is so blue. Romney defends state socialism till this day.

          • Thomas_Alan

            He did go along with it. And, I don’t have too much of a problem with an individual state mandating insurance if they have to provide medical care to those without it.

          • acat

            I fail to see that as a strong endorsement….

            Mew

          • Thomas_Alan

            He just didn’t see it as a deal breaker.

          • acat

            - the dog on top of the car
            - the individual mandate
            - the pander (both ways) on illegals
            - the pander (both ways) on abortion.
            - being part of the 1%.

            There’s a whole deal breakers out there… and each one reduces the number of voters who will support him.

            Regarding the mandate – why did the U.S. government bother to sell war bonds during WWII, when they could just mandate that every man and woman must buy some?

            Regarding the mandate – Romney can make the case that it was intended to be Massachusetts-specific all he likes, but that runs into two problems – first, most voters’ understanding of the separation of State and Federal is from a civics class at least a decade earlier .. – second, Hillarycare proves the issue had been raised within a decade so ought to have been taken into account.

            I want someone who will fight for conservative values. Romney seems to put them on and take them off like a second skin, they never seem to soak in.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            no text… but plenty of subtext.

          • gekster

            That’s the question I asked, that you havn’t answered.

            And no he hasn’t always been against amnesty, as the video I posted has shown.
            Are you just that willfully blind.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Well, immigration is obviously one since we’re talking about it. Gay marriage, cap and trade, free trade, health care, etc.

          • gekster

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

            ?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.

            cap and trade.
            from:
            http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200910070008

            2005: Romney Endorsed Cap-And-Trade, Saying "We Can Effectively Create Incentives To Help Stimulate A Sector Of The Economy And At The Same Time Not Kill Jobs. ... I'm Convinced It Is Good Business." According to the Boston Globe:

            Governor Mitt Romney signaled his support yesterday for a regional agreement among Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite opposition from power companies and other business interests that have been lobbying the administration against the plan.

            free trade.
            from:
            http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2011/0906/Romney-s-plan-to-tame-the-Chinese-trade-dragon

            "[In a speech today, Mitt Romney took an unusual step for a GOP leader. He suggested the United States restrict trade with China]”

            healthcare.
            Romneycare.

          • streiff

            create at diary and do so. Don’t clutter up this particular thread trying to get me to argue your analysis because your analysis doesn’t mean anything to anyone other than presumably you and some of your friends and family.

            The insult here is you trying to threadjack my post. Stop it.

          • Thomas_Alan

            You wondered if Perry was electable and I gave you a reason why he was not. You asked about my analysis and I provided it.

            If you didn’t want to hear about it, you shouldn’t have asked. And if you didn’t want to talk about it after I provided the analysis, you could have simply not replied.

            Instead you decided to insult my intelligence. While I have merely asked you to back up your condescension with something other than insults.

            I don’t think I’m in the wrong here.

          • streiff

            if I say it is threadjacking.

            Nothing you have posted pertains to the story. That is textbook.

            Refusing to play along with a silly game you’ve set up is hardly insulting to your intelligence. Rather it is my intelligence that was insulted by trying to rope me into such a useless exercise.

            I don’t care if you think you’re not wrong, what you’re missing is that I don’t care what you think and what, if anything, you think on that subject isn’t relevant to this story.

          • Thomas_Alan

            No…you don’t get to decide what threadjacking is. I made a comment on part of your story. That’s it.

            If you don’t want to deal with that comment, don’t answer it. And don’t insult it just because you can’t answer it or can’t control your need to respond. It’s not that hard.

            Jeez.

          • Bill S

            Take a lok at the color of his user name. It means that he’s a moderator and does, in fact, decide that.

            Deal with that.

          • Thomas_Alan

            But it won’t be for threadjacking even if he says that’s why. I’ve done nothing more than disagreed with him and asked him to back up his insults.

            Most places, it’d be his behavior on this thread that would put his head on the chopping block.

          • streiff

            this ain’t “most places.”

            And the only disagreement we have is over you trying to inject some bogus model of electoral votes into a column that has nothing to do with your opinion of what electoral outcomes will look like in 2012.

            Continue to screw with me at your peril. Ask some of the Mitt fellatistos at “whyromney.com” how well that worked out for them.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Now threatening to abuse your power. Look, you can ban me if you want, obviously I rarely come around here. But let’s not pretend it’s anything other than keeping the echo chamber pure.

            Like I said, all you ever had to do to stop the discussion was not talk about it. When you asked about it, I provided it. You have yourself to blame for it.

            I’m not “screwing with you”. Never have been. I’m quite confident behavior around here has been exemplary given your behavior.

          • Bill S

            Liberals like Romney are not welcome. Nor are his groupies.

          • daveinthed

            Good God, and here I always thought the LIBs were the Hitleresque “purists”. It’s getting kind of scary when so-called “conservatives” on our side bash our own while calling for “Party Purity”. Yikes!

            Unfortunately, it is these zealots who give conservatism a bad name and assure that the Dems will not be relegated to the permanent minority status that they so richly deserve.

          • Bill S

            Your response will determine your membership status here.

          • Tbone

            However, having reviewed your ability to reason, it is obvious that you either are employed by Romney or have suffered a significant head injury. It is hard to tell without your posting a picture of an intact skull should you still have one.

          • Thomas_Alan

            nt

          • Tbone

            you wouldn’t be supporting Romney.

            Sorry Sparky, I ain’t a miracle worker. BTW, as you know, if Romney loses Iowa, the only honorable thing for you to do is commit suicide. (It’s a cult thing, I guess)

      • Thomas_Alan

        Sorry, I’m not smoking anything. But when you’re aligned with Eugene Robinson, Jon Stewart, and unnamed Democrat attack dogs in creating a meme, maybe you should take a quick step back and reevaluate yourself. You definitely shouldn’t be using it as proof.

        Romney isn’t mired anywhere. In a large field he’s been consistently at or near the top. Are there “anybody but Mitt” folks out there? Yeah, but oddly enough they don’t seem to be any bigger a part of the party than the Romney supporters. Only Perry’s ever gotten way out in front of Romney, and that was in the brief moment where he took the primary by storm and started a bandwagon effect.

        The rank and file will be fine with Romney in the end. He’s done nothing to attack them like McCain did, so there are no bridges burnt. Romney will still be out there articulating conservative principles as the campaign starts towards the Fall. That along with the desire to remove Obama will be plenty to keep Romney at 90+% amongst Republican voters.

        • streiff

          In fact, they show a GOP electorate looking for anyone but Romney. As Bachmann,Perry, and Cain have faltered Romney has not only not gained strength, but last week he seemed to lose 2-3 points in most polls.

          Gingrich has now run up an over 10 point lead in most polls.

          We may end up with Romney as our nominee but he’s not electable because in the final analysis people have to vote for him.

          • Thomas_Alan

            The biggest lead Gingrich has in any of the polls added in the Real Clear Politics average is 4 points. The average lead is only 2.2 points.

          • streiff

            http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

            28-18 is greater than 4.

            Screwing with me is not a great evolutionary strategy. The next move is yours but I’ve banned much more interesting Rombots than you.

          • concrusade

            Thomas’ points have seemed pretty fair. Why would we suppress a voice of reason who supports a different candidate?

          • streiff

            for threadjacking, for asshattery, for having red hair, for whatever. We really like to ban Rombots. There is a special little squeal that happens on all the Romney websites when one of them gets banned here. Sounds like rabbits mating.

          • Right_Again

            to front pagers now.

          • acat

            take it to the contacts page.

            Mew

          • Right_Again

            when the proof is right here?

            Does the posting rule to be respectful mean anything or does it not?

            Does the rule against vulgarity mean anything or does it not?

            Ruff

          • acat

            Mew

          • Right_Again

            One thing that interested me in this site originally and which keeps me coming back was the posting rules. It is nice not to have to deal with DailyKos-type filth and immaturity. I appreciate that most people on this site are able to post without resorting to vulgarity and tantrums so common to most political sites.

            I find it a shame when front page posters don’t follow their own rules, thereby weakening the rules for all.

            I’ve been participating on the site long enough to know that I have no power to influence any of the moderators to get a front pager to tone it down. I’m hoping others agree with me and will try for a more mature dialogue.

            Woof

          • Bill S

            If you have issues with moderation, take it to the Contact link. Cease the complaining here.

          • Right_Again

            I’ll cease to muddy this blog with complaints about profanity and being disrespectful.

          • Tbone

            unwashed stupidity.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Didn’t notice one poll where Cain was in 2nd.

            I think my point still stands. Gingrich is only ahead of Romney by a few points in most polls. Saying that he was ahead by double digits in most polls was a big exaggeration on your part.

          • acat

            Take 75% of support for all candidates other than Mitt.

            Compare that to support for Mitt.

            Tell me how he’s going to win.

            Mew

          • Common_Cents

            I’m confused when I’m seeing the “anyone but Mitt %”. Why doesn’t that apply to all candidates?

            If you apply the 75% anyone but Mitt to the other candidates:

            IE Cain at 14, anyone but Cain 86
            Perry at 9, anyone but Perry, 91.
            etc…..

            The low leader % by any candidate makes sense right now w/ so many still in the field spreading out support As we consolidate leading up to and right after IA, there will also be consolidation and higher % support for the race leader.

          • acat

            Thomas_Alan’s assumption was that Romney is peoples’ #2 choice.

            If that were the case, Romney would have moved up a notch every time a not-Romney stepped on his or her tongue.

            That has not happened.

            The reason I don’t think it applies to others is those who have stepped on their tongues – Bachmann and Cain specifically – have no effective way to recover. IMO, they should have followed Pawlenty off the stage. Not sure Perry can be put in the same category as his faults thus far haven’t been something that can be used against him in the general election.

            Mew

          • Thomas_Alan

            I didn’t say anything about Romney being everyone’s 2nd choice candidate.

          • streiff

            because we’ve seen support go from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich. What we haven’t seen is an increase in Romney’s numbers. The implication of this is pretty clear, Romney has about 25% of the vote, Ron Paul has about 10% and those numbers are not going to change. The other 65% is looking for a home.

          • satchman3

            Polls listed at rcp indicate Romney is the strongest GOP candidate against Obama.

            The fact that 75%-80% prefer have a first choice other than Romney isn’t damning – in the 8+-person race we have now it’s good enough for at least #2.

          • izoneguy

            Trust me – Rick Perry would be a stronger candidate against Obama than Mittens. Don’t trust the lame stream media or the polls. Obama can get his pals to say anything he needs to get out, even though it is all lies.

          • acat

            Further, the 75% jumping from one “anyone other than Romney” to another does not indicate that he is their #2 choice. It indicates he’s their #4 or lower.

            Think about it.

            Mew

        • aesthete

          We shouldn’t be running around saying that it’s green instead. In this instance, both those folks that you mentioned, and many Republicans, share a belief in Mitt Romney’s inauthenticity. While I think that Romney would probably win in 2012, I also don’t think that he would be spectacular for the down-ticket races, and that he would be a terrible President, besides. My opinion is shared by many conservatives. In many respects, once Romney is on the ballot conservatism has already lost — for it forces us to vote for a candidate who differs from Obama only by degree of severity, without a Congress to check these abuses. It also virtually guarantees a return of Democrats to power in the future, as a demoralized base, no natural constituency, and a lack of results in a Romney presidency will leave him without support.

    • sethellis

      I totally agree with you on the point that Romney is running a textbook conservative campaign. If you look at many of the issues of contention Romney is running to the right of everyone. Look at issues like China or immigration. Obviously the disagreement is whether or not we can trust him.

      This is up to the individual voter. Personally I think this idea that Romney will throw conservatives to the curb as soon as he gets the nomination is complete hogwash. Romney has consistently supported conservative candidates since the last election. I think Romney desperately wants conservatives to accept him. If he gets the nomination I think he’ll make a strong push to get the rest of the conservative base on the train.

      If Romney wins the nomination I think eventually people will come back down to earth from their hyperbole. My only hope is that it happens quickly before any real damage is done to the ticket.

      • acat

        The one who is “personally opposed to abortion but…” or the one who is “anti-abortion all the way”?

        The one who is “in favor of government and business working together” or the one who “wants to shrink government” ?

        That Romney has supported conservative candidates – since conservatives rejected him in 2008 – is not a ringing endorsement. It’s actually kinda pathetic.

        Mew

        • Thomas_Alan

          Whether to trust Romney or not on abortion comes down to what kind of judges he’ll nominate. I’ve heard Romney talk about judges and he gets and expresses the conservative view on judges as well as anyone.

          • acat

            In Massachusetts, when he had the job of nominating them?

            Because I am.

            And now you are too. This is not the track record of someone who actually did what you hope he’ll do.

            Mew

          • acat

            so one can assume any Dems are hardcore left, any unenrolled are leans-left, and there’s a strong nanny-state bent to the GOPers.

            Mew

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

            He appointed California Dems, when in California the pivot between the parties is much further left than it is nationwide.

          • Thomas_Alan

            Doesn’t have free reign to choose judges and has to select from a list provided to him.

            So his track record there is not indicative of anything other than the committee sucks.

          • acat

            That’s .. really not a viable strategery.

            Mew

          • acat

            The one who talks a good, conservative game?
            The one who is a wall street insider?
            The one whose record sucks?

            That’s the problem a lot of Conservatives have, y’see.

            Either his record counts – as you asserted above – or it doesn’t – as you *also* asserted above. Romney cannot have this both ways.

            Mew

          • Thomas_Alan

            Romney was never on Wall Street.

          • acat

            You really think #OWS is going to stop and look at where this pic was taken?

            Leaving Romney’s entire political career aside, given the mood of the country, this picture is devastating.

            Mew

          • Thomas_Alan

            It’s just the reality of the laws in the state he was governor.

            No need to give him a pass.

          • retire05

            to nominate judges. Then perhaps you can educate all us rubes in fly-over country as to how judges are nominated in Taxachusetts? Who creates the list? Who has final authority to place judges on the bench? Quote the Taxachusetts law that defines how judges are place.

            And maybe you would also like to discuss how Romney increased the debt by almost $4 billion? Or how he actually did nominate for the judgeships two gay lawyers that he knew would be supportative of same-sex marriage?

            When it comes to conservatism, Romney is a poseur. Someone who sticks his finger in the wind to decide which side of an issue he will be on today, depending how how it plays to a crowd.

            There is not a dime’s worth of difference between Liberal, and Liberal Lite and Romney has proven that he governs as Liberal Lite. Why do you think he is running on his business acumen and not his term as governor? Because is voters really examined how he governed, he would be luck to pull 10%. As it is, he garners less than 25% of the voter support.

          • acat

            There will be no picking-and-choosing when we get to the general, so my opinion is it should all be laid out now.

            And based on that record, I won’t vote for Romney (in the primary)

            Mew

      • streiff

        where we’d disagree is here.

        I think if Romney is elected his immediate focus will be on winning in 2016 and to do that he’ll look for ways to distance himself from conservatives. He doesn’t like conservatives, he isn’t a conservative, and there is no evidence he understands conservatism. He’ll do to us what Clinton did to liberals. Toss us under the bus.

        • Thomas_Alan

          Romney’s not a regular politician in that way. His goal will not immediately be on winning in 2016. The man, if nothing else, has a compulsive need to get under the hood and fix things.

          You’re worried about how he’s going to position himself for public adulation. I don’t think he’ll even lift his head up from the problems of government until at least the midterm.

          • acat

            it’s huge, overweight, lacks many features we take for granted in the private sector, and is hard to find parts for.

            I want a President who will trade it in on a 2009 Camry.

            Mitt wants to get it running smoothly.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            ,,,

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

            I can’t see him taking an ax to the tax code and spending like I think a Perry, Cain or Bachmann would do.

          • streiff

            he lost for MA senate, he declined to run for reelection because his polls were in the crapper, he lost to John Freakin McCain in 2008.

            I don’t see anything in his past that makes me think him focusing on the “problems of government” is a good thing. I’m more concerned about the way he drove the Massachusetts GOP into the dirt before bailing out as governor.

    • joayn

      If anything, your disappointment and frustration should be directed to the Outsider/Successful Businessman/Governor Romney.

      Don’t blame conservatives for not gravitating to a candidate who bases their positions consistently on what’s politically expedient, past and present. He chose/chooses to do that.

      Conservatives did not force Romney to run as a businessman/outsider (his claim), which laughably requires that we ignore our knowledge of him as governor and his record. He chose to do that.

      Conservatives did not force Romney to change his positions on abortion, gay marriage, gay rights, gun control, climate change, cap and trade, illegal immigration/amnesty, and Romneycare. He chose to do that.

      Wouldn’t you agree that it’s highly unrealistic and unreasonable that you, as a Romeny supporter, expect conservatives and others to suspend reality in judging him on HIS decisions and HIS record in a presidential primary?

      So if you’ve got a beef, take it to Mr. Outsider/Successful Businessman/Governor Romney, not us.

      • Thomas_Alan

        Romney didn’t change his positions on most of those things.

        Abortion he did.

        Gay marriage. No change (when asked in ’94 and ’02 he was opposed).

        Gay rights he’s actually been one of the most consistent politicians in America. It’s just that the entire country has shifted leftward as gay acceptance has increased dramatically in the last 20 years so that he was leftist in ’94, but firmly in the mainstream today. Though he did change on two subjects, he’s dropped his support of a workplace bill and to a lesser extent Don’t ask, Don’t tell (which he says he changed because of wartime, which presumably means he would be fine with eliminating it during peace).

        Gun control, little change (mostly tonal)

        Climate change, cap and trade. No change.

        Immigration. No change.

        Romneycare. No change.

  • daveinthed

    Sorry, this column is a piece of junk. It makes no sense at all and is based in one’s delusions, not unlike how the left, to a man, operates.

    Pull yourself out of your stupor, man. Like LIBs do, you are living a lie…a fantasy… to think that Mitt Romney is “unelectable”. That has no basis in fact whatsoever and is just a hack (yes we have our own) spewing his opinion as “fact”.

    Take Romney to task, sure. Say that you favor someone else. No problem. But to trash him as “unelectable” is PURE drivel and shows how our side can be blinded by ignorance also.

    • streiff

      and “I am the 80%”*

      The percentage of anti-Romney voters in GOP primary polls.

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

        anti- vote! smile

        But yes, after 6 years of campaigning Mitt seems to have a ceiling in primaries.

        I do hope we can somehow play down a NH win as irrelevant given his proximity to the state and that state’s unorthodox primary electorate.

  • daveinthed

    Sorry, this column is junk. It makes no sense at all and is based in one’s delusions, not unlike how the left, to a man, operates.

    Pull yourself out of your stupor, man. Like LIBs do, you are living a lie…a fantasy… to think and write that Mitt Romney is “unelectable”. That has no basis in fact whatsoever and is just a hack (yes we have our own) spewing his opinion as “fact”.

    Take Romney to task, sure. Say that you favor someone else. No problem. But to trash him as “unelectable” is PURE drivel and shows how our side can be blinded by ignorance also.

    • nathanalbright

      You have spammed this comment three times. Perhaps you ought to be more concerned about your own drivel than what others say. You seem to have taken this column a bit too personally.

      • streiff

        Romney supporters come in two basic flavors. You have the Establishment types and squishes who like his bio and his hair. David Frum, Jenn Rubin, etc., fit here. It’s like he’s the Tony Manero of Establishment Republicans, where the tag line for the movie was “every man wants to be like him, every woman wants to be with him.”

        The other part of the equation seem to be primarily Mormons who see Romney as their JFK. He’s the guy who will do for Mormonism what JFK did for Roman Catholics in American politics.

        Neither group are particular susceptible to reason and both get very angry.

        • nathanalbright

          ….but I have friends who are “blue” or “purple” state Republicans who like Romney because of that Tony Manero quality. I can see that. I don’t know enough Mormons to have seen the JFK side of Romney’s support base, but I agree that neither group would find anti-Romney posts very interesting. Every time I hear of Romney being a decent person I think of that poor dog on the roof on a cross-country trip. No decent person would treat a beloved pet that way.

          • streiff

            than he treated Massachusetts taxpayers?

          • nathanalbright

            …rather than merely mastery of robotic talking points absent the fruits of repentance.

          • texabama

            I have to admit that this is one of the things that totally creeps me out about Romney. I can’t fathom anyone doing that.

    • texabama

      I would look at the facts. After a supposedly successful governorship he was not considered electable. He was also not considered electable as a senator. Now he has a failed presidential primary behind him and is trying again with between 20-25% support. Is he electable?

      • streiff

        a local politico described a particular City Council member as: “If you don’t know Harold, you like him, if you know Harold, you don’t like him, if you really know Harold you hate him.”

        I suspect this rule applies to Romney.

  • oneconservative

    According to the author, Romney cannot beat obama. Neither can Newt or Perry.

    OK….. Is the author saying we should all just say “forget it” and suffer for 4 more years of obama?

    PS. I would hate to see what obama would be like with 4 more years of Ruling Over the People knowing he did not have to face the voters again.

    • streiff

      but if you’d read it rather than just commenting you’d know.

  • izoneguy
    • courdeleon02

      Romney created far more jobs while at Bain than were eliminated. the most famous were Sports Authority and Staples. Jobs that were eliminated were redundant postions and jobs that were associated with failing operations and or consolidations. Thats what consultants do. His long term effect was that of a net job creator rather than an eliminator. I am getting sick and tired of the Mitt bashing that comes from a fringe element that takes the attitude of, agree with us 100% of the time or I will not support you. It seems the Democrats are more united than we are. TThis is whatt will cause us to loss this election. Its time to unite against Obama. This nation is at risk as never before.

      • nathanalbright

        ….as the governor of Massachusetts he had the 47th best job creation record among governors. As a consultant he specialized in getting rid of “redundant jobs” full of people who are willing and able to make plenty of anti-Romney advertisements (hint: no one likes being called redundant or the excuses that their companies were failing in the Great Recession). Only chop shop consultants call human beings redundant. I agree that we need to unite against Obama, but that won’t be until we go through some primaries. I’m not willing to unite behind Romney at this point, and I’m certainly not going to give him any active support whatsoever, regardless. We can do a lot better than Willard.

        • courdeleon02

          Saying that Mitt was 47th in job creation while Governor of MA is misleading. MA was a state that was in economic decline with the loss manufacturing jobs to China. Its regulations and hostile business climate was not the fault of Romney but a heavely controlled Democrat legislature and years of Democrat rule. It was Romney who actually made some job progress, balanced the budget and restored fiscal sanity to the State. Calling him Willard is disrespectful and is typical of those who emphasis his first name in order to make him look like a Rat.That is an unprofessional comment and is narrow minded.

          • gekster

            Do you actually know what you posted.
            You put Mittens right up there with Barack Hussien Obama.
            You can’t say his full name because it is an insult?

            And you are the first one I have seen to ascociate his name with a rat.
            I guess that is going to stick now.
            Willard the rat.
            Hey, it kinda fits, doesn’t it.

          • westcoastpatriette

            ….

          • gekster

            //nt…nt//

          • Bill S

            If I were t rewrite your comment and replace Romney with Obama, it would be a perfect Obama apologist piece, complete with the “Bush’s fault!” and “Don’t say Hussein!” story lines.

          • changeforrickperry

            for the relapsed of this campaign. It IS his first name (see his Wiki) and for him to lie about it on national television is ten times worse than Perry’s “oops” because it was an outright LIE. If he hadn’t LIED about it I wouldn’t have bothered. But obviously he’s the one who is ashamed of his name and is not above lying about it.

            Fellow RedStaters, y’all call me to account if I call him “Mitt.” It’s about time we called him out for his flip-flopping.

          • changeforrickperry

            “Remainder.” I’m on my iPod and it changes words when I’m typing fast ;)

          • Tbone

            the flipflopping rat. Don’t you squishes EVER get tired of apologizing for his lying butt?

          • westcoastpatriette

            .,.

          • Tbone

            Willard The Rat Romney has a ring to it.

          • changeforrickperry

            So stay tuned ;)

  • lcnsac

    Perry hasn’t got a prayer. His positions are great but he cannot sell them, and he’s been unable to sell himself. Newt is possible, but Romney is the one who has engaged the independents. Romney is the best chance we have for now, and beating Obama IS the priority.

  • goformitt

    Any one read about the emergence of “a middle way” in the NY Times? Have to wonder what effect this will have on the election.

    It seems to have the potential to throw a huge wrench into the works!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/moderate-americans-elect-group-hoping-to-add-third-candidate-to-2012-election-ballot/2011/11/21/gIQAtPpMtN_story.html

    (BTW, my support for Romney has waned. Even tried to change my handle, but said I don’t have access. I’m not sure if he is the most electable. I do think he is inherently a middle of the road kinda guy. We are caught – just as the libs are – in a party divide with the loudest being the most extreme. I think extremism tends to breed extremism – witness the OWS crowd. I’m not sure that is a good thing. And I suspect the extremism on both sides may eventually be undercut by this new middle way)

    • nathanalbright

      It does underscore that your previous support of Mittens suggested your desire for a moderate “third way” socialist lite.

      Have fun.

  • goformitt

    Essentially the same thing anyway :-)

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Surely the world will end shortly after that occurs.

    Can you think of any trio that better covers ground already tread, which we don’t want to cover again?

    After four years of the resulting feckless, “moderate-meandering”, let’s all get along, I would rather have some deal than no deal, it was my alter ego- not me, that was then- this is now, we have very few choices, we must get something done- anything, it was the best deal we could get platitudes the modern Republican Party would be done and exiled to the desert for 40 years. I would also stab my eardrums out with a hot poker.

    • ATGinCT

      of the conservative apocalypse from that cringe inducing statement.

      Be that as it may though, I will vote for Romney if he’s the nominee as will pretty much everyone here.

      When it came down to it, last go round, here, we all pretty much preferred Romney over McCain by a fair percentage if memory serves. (I never did understand the level of support Huckabee garnered but I can chalk that up to one of those mysteries of the universe.)

      A huge difference will be the support given to our nominee by the base, for the first time in my career as a direct mail professional I did not mail a single piece in support of our presidential nominee where normally that number would be in the millions.

      Nearly all my work went to local candidates who suffered from a top of the ticket candidate that not only failed to inspire but was generally loathed by much of the base prior to his becoming the nominee and then, IMO, endured as the person chosen as the one who received the anti Obama vote.

      I didn’t exactly sit out the Dole or elder Bush elections but then neither did I offer my full support, from a business standpoint I did it for the money, just as when I do work for the democrat money machine. Yes, I confess to have made many tens of thousands of dollars working against my ideological interests to feed and house my wife and five children.

      You gotta believe before you become willing to risk your business, your health and family life during political season to help elect certain candidates. I’m especially proud of the work done to elect GWB in particular, not only because of the issues faced during his tenure but due to the margins of victory. In his case I know my contribution helped change the course of world history.

      It was early in my career but I even did direct mail for the Reagan campaigns, if as only a grunt worker but hey every bit helps!

      This cycle I would give my all to a Perry presidency, if not him? I’ll vote against Obama. For me, I believe “one man” can make a difference and if there are a few hundred “one man” believers in my business working toward the same goal, just like with Bush (the GWB variety that is), America can be saved.(Direct mail really works when it comes to political campaigns, just ask Karl Rove, that plus the amount of it in your mailbox come election time is evidence of where the money men spend their cash, lol)

      For a Romney, McConnell, Boehner trifecta? Probably not so much…

  • Wild_Bill

    My God what a bunch of whining crybabies. You all want to go sit in the corner and pout. Nobody is pure enough. Gee….wonder why Rush this in 2008: ?I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that?s Romney,? So, now who’s flip-flopping?

    • streiff

      that’s pretty self evident. Romney wasn’t even conservative when compared with John McCain.

      No one is arguing for “purity”, least of all me who is the biggest (or second biggest) squish among the front pagers. My point is that Romney is not electable because he has no conservative support and his non-conservative support will be easily stripped away by Obama. If I were arguing from the POV of ideological purity I’d make the argument on those grounds because there is enough material there to work with.

  • basalt_conservative

    Good post, Streiff, but I have to disagree with one point you made. You said, “Obama can?t attack Romney as a flip-flopper because many of the flips and flops Romney has held dear at one time or another are actually Obama?s own positions. ”

    The Dems have no honor, no sense of reason, no conscience, no mercy. O would absolutely blast Mitt for all the flip-flopping he’s done. Meanwhile, Obama could completely rely the Lame Stream Media to cover his back in spite of his own many examples of hypocrisy.

    • streiff

      is just a head fake.

      If the Dems are shameless in their attacks, Romney is shameless in his flip flops. I have no doubt they will continue to stir the pot with his position changes the main attack is going to be one Romney as a 1%-er.

    • cheetah2

      http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/10/whichmitt-com-dnc-launches-website-to-mock-romney-policy-switches/

      http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=whichmitt.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

      I have a sister who is a staunch Obama supporter. She has her marching orders and is already at it too on Facebook.
      .

  • monty2

    because we don’t do that here on redstate, there is a distinct possibility that Romney’s supporters wouldn’t be able to hold their noses and vote for any of those frontrunners at the moment. And because of the all pervading stench, therein lies the reason why Romney is still one of the frontrunners. Say it ain’t so.

    • streiff

      would support anyone except Mitt. The Establishment types won’t vote for a conservative and the remainder will be claim Romney didn’t win because of anti-Mormon bias and go home to sulk.

      • turkeyotooley

        I really think Establishment Repubs prefer Obama to reformers like Perry or Paul.

        It’s easy for me to see a guy like Rove working behind the scenes to thwart Perry’s candidacy even after he gets the nomination. The Establishment Repubs are statists. The lobbyists, professional politicians, tax attorneys, and others who are heavily invested in the crumbling system will fight tooth and nail to remove men like Perry from contention.

  • jaykali

    He fares much better in the general. I do not except any argument that conservatives aren’t going to vote for the Republican nominee bc of x/y/z. To say the hard core base will not be motivated is just plain crazy. This is not 2008. It’s already clear that no one in this field is going to get thrills up anyone’s leg like Rubio or Paul Ryan would. That ship sailed a long time ago. Now it’s become very apparent that Romney’s 25% is looking a lot more like a ceiling than a floor.

    It still remains to be seen who is going to win. But let’s be realistic, no matter how squishy he is what are conservatives going to do? Vote for Obama in protest? Vote for Nader? Vote for a Ron Paul 3rd party candidacy (some will if that happens but I don’t think Ron Paul would do that – see 1992). Stay home? So the Tea Party conservative that despises Obama, loves constitutional democracy, is going to forgo his cherished American right to sit at home and grumble ab having a squishy conservative and just set a timer for 2016? Who thinks that is going to happen? Nobody. I will be there bright and early ready to cast my vote for whoever the nominee is and against Obama. And so will the entire base. It’s Obama’s base that is going to be more likely to be demoralized bc hopenchange wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. Particularly the young ppl, alot of them are going to stay home this time around.

    We all acknowledge that swing voters decide elections and as of 2010 the pendulum swung WAY in favor of Republicans. What remains to be see is a) who the Republicans will nominate and b) how they fair in a general election campaign. I have real concerns ab the non-Romney’s ability to look viable even if they are more conservative. The one thing Romney has going for him is that he looks and acts and debates like a believable presidential nominee. And yes, his more moderate views are going to serve him well in this kind of election if he makes it out of the primaries. I just have no idea if he will or not.

    You might think he’s this year’s McCain bc he’s a moderate but they are really different. McCain was the national defense war hero, likeable guy and was well-spoken. Romney is the business guy who isn’t super likeable but is also well spoken. But a pro-business conservative might be just what the electorate is asking for who knows. I really have my doubts ab the field as it is. I really only see 4 choices:
    1. Romney
    2. Gingrich
    3. Perry
    4. Cain

    Cain is hanging on by a thread. Same could be said for Perry but I do not count him out bc of the weaknesses of the other candidates. Romney is Romney, the guy no one wants. Gingrich is just great in debates but man I feel tense ab him in a general. I don’t know if he is believable, will have enough money, can defend his long list of positions over a long period of time, and so on. I feel like Gingrich is going to look alot like Bob Dole, the party elder who we like doggonit but isn’t electable.

    So I’ve been quitely half-rooting for Romney to somehow pull it together just bc he’s a good campaigner and a believable presidential candidate. I have had to overlook his past positions bc I think at the end of the day he will still operate towards a conservative agenda 80-90% of the time. So that’s where I’m at.

    • tomatin

      The guy is the most unauthentic candidate I have ever seen.

      Just because he “acts” like a candidate you would see in a stupid TV show does not mean he’s a good candidate.

      You are really snowed if you think he will be a conservative in office without any history of him being a conservative in office.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …i read-through everything already-said.

    this time, gotta run-off to see a patient, so will assume the typical dynamic has been manifest all-day [Perry vs. Mitt, electability vs. true-blue, etc.].

    I want to insert a comment/observation…and will check-back tonight if anyone has a thought.

    Was there not a “secret meeting” in Iowa of social-conservatives? Is it not possible they will unify behind Rick [perry]? Could that not start an avalanche?

    • cheetah2

      I thought that in the Thanksgiving forum, Perry was the most successful in presenting himself as a passionate born again Christian, a staunch family man, and a proven champion of socially conservative ideals.

      As such he ought to be their choice. Who knows what other factors will affect their decision, if they do endorse anyone at all.

      I suspect that many are withholding their endorsement from Perry because they ultimately want to back someone they know is a winner.

      It makes me sad because if they would endorse him they could help him BECOME a winner. Isn’t that what endorsements really ought to be for?

      • heraklios

        .

  • septembergurl

    against Romney that would be exactly as Streiff describes — an anti-Wall Street campaign that allows Obama to run as a populist. It’s not that they want Romney or don’t want Romney as the Republican, they simply believe he will be and are acting accordingly.

    To me, Romney is a weak compromise candidate who is getting weaker. His base of support (such as it is) is not expanding over the past months of exposure. In the most recent head-to-head rasmussen poll, Romney gets 38 to Obama’s 44. that’s the same number by which Gingrich trails Obama – 6.

    If the nominee is not Romney, then the Obama strategy changes. It’s been obvious for some time that Obama will run on his foreign policy-national security record. He cannot run on his failed domestic policies. And if he’s running against anybody but Huntsman (and possibly Gingrich) then it will be I killed Bin Laden 24/7.

    It’s remarkable that without a coherent national security policy articulated and carried out, (eg the Bush Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, etc) Obama has had great tactical successes executing the Bush policies he inherited (after running against them, of course). Partly this is the maturing of these policies and their acceptance and more expertise that comes over time. Partly it is that the media and the so-called “Anti-war movement” will not attack a Democrap as they would have attacked McCain for doing the same thing. Partly it is luck.

    But, the fact is that Obama has carried out the Bush Doctrine while rhetorically acting as the peace candidat he ran as. For example, in Libya he could have used the Bush argument that it was too angerous to allow Qaddafi to remain in power, as in Iraq, instead of using R2p (responsibility to protect, NATO, etc) as Obama did. The result is the same, however.

    Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, invaded several countries who have not attacked us, expanded the Predator drone and SF assassination programs, yet Republicans are running against him as if he’s Carter or McGovern.

    • monty2

      the inevitable choice and therefore are preparing themselves for the battle. Maybe Romney is their worst fear? Maybe they would much rather prefer Rick Perry because they suspect that he would let the little ricky out to play. And then if he did, I can just imagine the fun Obama and the demos would have with him on a stage where the moderators aren’t giving little Ricky a break by not putting the difficult questions to him.

      But hey, that’s just me and my thoughts. Even though it’s me showing my frustration finally at all the Romney bashing that’s going on as if it’s quite acceptable here. Maybe a little turnabout will bring folks back to their senses and help everyone to stay away from the bashing and talk about the merits of their choice as a good alternative? Maybe? Or maybe not?

      And now shall we continue to let the destructive comments about Romney flow?

      • heraklios

        because millions of conservatives absolutely WILL NOT vote for Romney in the General Election, even against Barry O. So when all of the post mortems express shock at how Romney can lose by 10 points, people on RedState shouldn’t be surprised at all. Because I’m telling you now it’s going to happen if he’s the nominee

        • tomatin

          Romney has been running for president for SIX years. That’s why he polls better than other candidates NOW.

          Like you said Romney will lose because on the biggest conservative issue Obamacare, he’s an utter fraud.

          Conservatives already know this and all the so called independents that say they will vote for Romney now will not vote for a complete fraud either.

          Another prediction is it will be the lowest turnout in over 30 years with Romney as a candidate.

      • tomatin

        I don’t care what the Dumbocrats want. I don’t want a RINO as president like I don’t want Obama as president.

        On the one issue I care about most Romneycare = Obamacare.

        It’s the biggest deficit busting, job killing, and freedom killing thing that has happened in this country since Reagan.

        I’m suppose to look past that just to put someone who calls himself a Republican in office.

        Romney did not even say he would repeal Obamacare. He said he would give states waivers. Oh great even if my state of GA dumps Obamacare my taxes can pay for someone in NY to get free health care.

        That’s not a choice.

        • tomatin

          are suppose to make me and other conservatives vote for Romney.

          He’s not Obama (well on the biggest issue Romneycare he is Obama)
          Independents like him best (only because he’s got name recognition)
          He’ll be conservative most of the time (when he was governor he was liberal most of the time)
          He’s a good campaigner (he’s a completely plastic candidate with no authenticity)
          He’s got the most money (his first commercial against Obama was a major fail)
          He debates well (He has not won one debate he just hasn’t lost one either)
          Americans hate Obama (Romney can’t break 25% in his own party while Dems love Obama even though they shouldn’t)
          He’s good in business (except he only bankrupted pofitable companies)
          Reps will have to vote for Romney he’s the only choice (no many Republicans will stay at home)
          Dems “fear” Romney most (well so does his base because even if elected he will destroy conservatism)
          He polls best against Obama (He’s been running for SIX years)

          Like another poster said don’t blame conservatives if Romney loses. We told you what would happen.

  • carolynr

    Monty….while I happen to agree with you concerning how the MSM will spin a Perry/Obama debate…remember one thing…when you take away his teleprompter…we have a lot of uh’s and statements like 57 states…mispronunciatons of corpsmen. Perry’s strong point is his policies and he should stay laser focused on them when debating anyone and compare their policy to his and how it will affect the people…the latter part being the “close”.

    It comes down to this…Do you want an articulate liar…because that is what Romney is….either that or he has a dual personality…both of which are unacceptable.

  • bobguzzardi

    How many mansions does Mitt Romney have?

    Did he or his pals benefit from bailouts?

  • giatny

    I think the author underestimates the hate Obama
    vote. Romney is the only one of the Repubs who
    appeals to Independents. The others are laughing
    stocks.

    • gekster

      What makes you say this.
      What is your reasoning.

      • tomatin

        The Romneybots are underestimating hatred for Obama if they think we can’t run a true conservative and beat him..

    • tomatin

      This is the lame argument I hear over and over.

      Remember how everyone hated Clinton and we picked Dole to satisfy independents.

      The biggest issue with conservatives is ending Obamacare and Romney has no credibility.

      The Democrat party in 2004 could have had a chance to beat Bush because the war was getting unpopular. But they were so stupid to pick a candidate that actually voted for the war killing the one issue that got them going.

      The same will happen in 2012 with Romney the flipper. Not only most conservatives but most independents hate Obamacare but since Romney invented Obamacare with Romneycare and flipped on every issue he will be seen as weak.

  • sunshinek67

    :)

    • sunshinek67

      :(

      • nathanalbright

        I’ve read a fair amount about President Buchanan, and he was pretty terrible (I wish my home state had a better president).

        • wacowboy

          Buchanan, who’s run for president a few times (88 and 92, maybe 96).

          • wacowboy

            all three of them won more Union Leader endorsements than they did elections for POTUS

          • sunshinek67

            ima girl ;)

          • wacowboy

            sorry about that. Thanks for the tip :)

          • nathanalbright

            …for Perot’s party.

    • changeforrickperry

      Whatever it is, it must not be too significant, judging from your other comment :D

      • avagreen

        nt

        • Scope

          in NH?

          • Scope

            Hereis a link to a story on the endorsement. That has to big a big slap in the face to Romney who has been counting on starting his momentum thing in NH.

            In 08, I believe NH went for McCain, and Ron Paul came in second or third. I don’t put much stock in NH, they seem to love them some squishes there.

          • wacowboy

            it is the union leader in Manchester NH

            link coming soon

          • wacowboy

            “We don’t have to agree with them on every issue,” the newspaper wrote in an editorial that ran across the width of the front page. “We would rather back someone with whom we may sometimes disagree than one who tells us what he thinks we want to hear.”

            http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-11-27/gingrich-union-leader-endorse/51419244/1

            think they were talking about a certain unelectable candidate?

          • avagreen

            http://www.unionleader.com/article/20111120/NEWS0605/711209963/0/ul.sf-menu

            Gingrich: A tale long told is wrong
            (plus other stories favorable to Newt)

          • avagreen

            no wonder the wait was so long. ;)

      • sunshinek67

        in NH this week. Gingrich’s amnesty comments don’t seem to be affecting him at this juncture, attracting large crowds over the holiday at two events in FL, perhaps not enough time has lapsed. NH would have been nice media for Perry, but they don’t always pick winners. Perry’s endorsement is getting the msm in a snit this morning tho’ lol.

        I think my faces in earlier thread should be transposed, on the road traveling. I’m trying to keep up with Twitter, Perry sure has alot of supporters there.

        • Scope

          I would tell him not to waste any money in NH. He should concentrate on Iowa, and then move on to SC.

          The Arpaio endorsement for Perry is very significant as so many are trying to accuse him of being weak on immigration issues. Anyone who knows Arpaio knows that he is America’s toughest sheriff when it comes to the illegals. Of course the MSM would be having fits over the endorsement, Arpaio is the evil nasty devil to them, who treats the illegals like dogs, or so they say.

          I’ve just heard that the Union Leader has only picked the GOP candidate twice.

          • wacowboy

            Think Perry should focus on South Carolina and Florida. Win there and he can get some good momentum.

            Iowa is a crap shoot. Don’t think Perry will win too many primaries in New England States. Seems that the intellectual elite there don’t care much for Southerners. Actually, I’ve wondered if the whole “too stupid” meme on Perry is slang for “too Southern”

          • changeforrickperry

            I’m sorry, but that just sounds liberal. I could be wrong, but I reckon Perry would much rather have the good Sherrif’s endorsement. After all, you shall know them by who endorses them!

          • sunshinek67

            encouraging~

          • Scope

            in 08, and that was there second correct choice, unfortunately. The big deal from the UL was asked today if he would have supported Gingrich a few months ago when he was down and out. His comment was that they picked McCain in 08, and that worked out very well for them. They dang well know that Gingrich is as moderate as McCain was, and they are hoping that their endorsement insures another moderate for the GOP nom. The sentiment in the country is very different than it was in 08, but they didn’t get that memo.

          • sunshinek67

            You are exactly right. Let Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman hash it out in the NE. Perry can fix that once he gets the nominee. I wish he would do more in FL. That state gets a lot of media attention. SC is imperative to drive the southern theme.

            I think the AZ sheriff endorsement is a riot! Love it~

    • Common_Cents

      And he knows what to do with it.

      I said on the 25th that Gingrich would probably get the UL endorsement.

      I guess people were talking about Newts great debates, intellect, confidence over Thanksgiving, and not his old baggage.

      • Scope

        Drew Cline was just interviewed on CNN. The host asked him why they chose Gingrich, and Drew said that they looked closely at all of the candidates, and they endorsed Gingrich because he knows how things work in Washington, and would know how to get things done. Yup, he sure does know how to get things done in DC like going over to the other side and compromising with the Democrats. Part of the reason for his failure as Speaker, and the near Republican mutiny at the end of his role as Speaker was because of his compromising with the Democrats.

        The host also asked who else they considered, and who would have been their second choice- Rick Perry. Romney was barely even considered.

        • izoneguy

          Telling them that Newt’s “inside knowledge of DC” is a bug not a feature….

          • Xasteius

            no text

          • sunshinek67

            **

        • wacowboy

          that Perry would have been a 2nd choice. Especially from a New England Publication.

          Maybe he’s not as out of it as some would have us believe.

          • izoneguy

            We all know better….
            The left is throwing anything on the wall to see what will stick.
            They want to change the weak minds.
            The left will be in full panic mode once the elections gain a head of steam
            with Perry in the lead.

          • changeforrickperry

            Everyone needs a good reminder: “Don’t be hasty, Master Meriadoc!” We are getting hints here and there that things aren’t as they seem!

          • Common_Cents

            IA will be very telling this time around. It’ll either confirm Perry’s ground game fueled rebound or it won’t.

            We’ve all seen the ups and downs of the anyone but Mitt candidate. It now looks like Gingrich will be there to stay for quite some time to battle Romney. Watch for bigger attacks by Romney campaign on Gingrich.

            The Dec 10 debate should be real good. Gingrich will reduce Romney to a crying baby. Romney cannot handle face to face confrontation. He is very weak in that area but it hasn’t happened much, YET.

            Gingrich could shatter the whole Romney paradigm in the next couple debates if they tangle.

          • Scope

            and doesn’t take well to attacks by anyone. There was an article a few days ago which showed the looks on Gingrich’s face when he was challenged by others in the debate. It was pointed out that he looks at his opponents with contempt, and as just so dumb while he is the real professor in the room. That’s a big part of Gingrich’s problem, he thinks he is so much smarter than anyone else. I forget who wrote an article which quoted a Republican Senator or Rep. that said Gingrich is the man of 1,000 ideas, and has the attention span of a one year old. That has been said of Gingrich for a long time. He is not disciplined, which ultimately is what caused him to resign as Speaker back in 98.

            Remember when Romney brought up that Gingrich was for the individual mandate? All Gingrich could do was say that yes he did. If he is hit with facts that he can’t dispute, by anyone in the debates, he will be left stuttering and angry. I suspect the attack dog Bachmann will be going after Gingrich in the next debate. If he attacks her, or goes after her, he will be considered a bully of women. That’s in part what happened to Pawlenty in one of the first debates.

  • spainishirish

    But if there is any empircal proof that greasy, slimy, flipflopping politicans don’t fare well in the United States, I missed it.