« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Meme War We Must Win

if you think Ann Romney and Seamus the Dog aren't important you don't belong in electoral politics

In the past week the presidential campaign has been hit by two events that many have termed silly. First there was the Hilary Rosen comment denigrating Ann Romney’s decision to stay at home and actually raise her children rather than elect to have a stranger do that. Second was the softer Seamus-on-the-roof story rolled out by the Obama campaign yesterday.

Many, especially our own “smart set”, have criticized the attention these events have attracted as somehow taking away from the high minded policy discussion that is supposedly taking place.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Since Mitt Romney has become the presumptive GOP nominee we’ve seen two broad lines of attack opened against him. The first is “Mitt is an out of touch rich guy.” The second is “Mitt is a Mormon and Mormons are very, very strange.”

The closest they have come to making a policy attack on Romney is criticizing him as a conservative. How this is supposed to hurt him is anyone’s guess as the major knock on Romney during the primary was that he wasn’t conservative.

Both the stories on Ann Romney and Seamus the dog are designed to build a meme portraying Romney as a plutocrat, some sort of latter day (nyuk nyuk) J. P. Morgan. For instance, the recent Paul Begala article in The Daily Beast refers to Romney as Thurston Howell III:

And I mean elite. In Mitt Romney the Republicans have the apotheosis of wealth worship. Romney has amassed a fortune so vast he is expanding his $12 million beachfront mansion and installing an elevator … for his cars. For his cars, people. If you’re insanely rich, you might have an elevator in your mansion. But a lift for your Lexus? Keep in mind he’s running for office, for Pete’s sake. What’s he going to do if he wins? Use orphans as human golf tees?

[…] So far Romney has had a case of Marie Antoinette Syndrome. Every time he tries to connect with a middle- class voter he makes the Grey Poupon guy look like Joe Lunchbucket. He brags about his friends who own NASCAR teams and NFL franchises. He casually makes $10,000 bets. He says the $374,000 he made in speaking fees isn’t a lot of money. When a kid gives him an origami duck made out of a $1 bill, all he has in his pocket to replace it are hundreds.

Romney apologists will say I’m taking this out of context. Baloney—or rather, Wagyu filet mignon. The context is that Romney truly is out of touch [my emphasis] , and middle-class voters may conclude that he is not on their side.

To understand why this important one has to take a short side trip through recent presidential campaign and think about some notable moments. What do we remember about Gerald Ford? Sorta slow and sorta clumsy. Did his falling on the steps of Air Force One or hitting a woman spectator with a golf ball really say anything about his presidency? Absolutely not. To say they did not play a measurable role in his loss to Jimmy Carter is nonsense. Of course they did and today Ford is remembered as much for being sorta slow and sorta clumsy as he is for pardoning Richard Nixon.

Fast forward to 1992. Two images stand out from that campaign. George H. W. Bush impatiently looking at his watch during a debate (he wasn’t the only one doing that, trust me) and George H. W. Bush seemingly amazed by a supermarket scanner. Did either of those accurately reflect Bush’s presidency which encompassed a successful end to the Cold War and successful war with Iraq? No. But they buttressed a meme developed by James Carville and Paul Begala as, wait for it, an out of touch rich guy who believed he was owed the presidency as a birthright. In that same campaign, the ridicule of Vice President Dan Quayle became an art form.

In addition to the attacks on Romney’s wealth the left and the media, to the extent they aren’t the same, is gently rolling out the Mormons are strange attack. In this case, from Buzzfeed’s staff “Mormon expert” McKay Coppins an article called “Why Ann Stayed Home” you can see how cleverly the “Mormons are Strange” and the “War on Women” are linked.

Ann Romney was already fully immersed in stay-at-home motherhood — raising five sons, ages six to 16, in her Belmont home — when Mormon prophet Ezra Taft Benson took to a pulpit on February 22, 1987 and delivered a definitive sermon on gender roles in the church titled, “To the Mothers of Zion.”
His message to working moms: “Come home.”

The religious dynamic of the Romneys’ Leave It To Beaver lifestyle has been largely lost on the partisans making hay out of the latest flare-up in the mommy wars, which was sparked by a Democratic strategist charging that Ann “has never actually worked a day in her life.” But while much of the debate has centered on class — with liberals casting full-time motherhood as a luxury for the rich, and conservatives hoping working-class women will identify with her — the fact is that even if Mitt were a middle-class schoolteacher, there’s a good chance Ann still would have foregone a career.

That’s because for many Latter-day Saint women, staying at home to raise children is less a lifestyle choice than religious one — a divinely-appreciated sacrifice that brings with it blessings, empowerment, and spiritual prestige.

Contrary to what a lot of folks on our side are saying these attacks are far more important to defend against than obsessing over Romney’s position on Afghanistan or the capital gains tax because this election is not going to be fought over issues and ideas. Were ideas and issues really important, Obama would be sitting alone in a by-the-hour motel room with a bottle of cheap bourbon and straight razor. He doesn’t have issues and he doesn’t have accomplishments so all that is left to him is to tear down Romney.

If he can convince you that Romney is a cross between Scrooge McDuck and Moe Howard who adheres to a very strange set of religious beliefs then he wins.

In both of these cases above we dodged the bullet. The rather stupid attack on Ann Romney’s decision that raising her kids was important has, in effect, made a mockery of the whole “War on Women” meme the Democrats have spent months developing. The Seamus story was short circuited by an own goal, Obama’s self-reverential memoir brags about him having eaten dog, and by Ann Romney’s candid discussion of the issue.

Had we taken the advice of any number of pundits, by Election Day these incidents would have been as much a part of Romney’s public persona as President Bush and the supermarket scanner.

COMMENTS

  • Bill S

    We have to manage and establish perception of our candidates. That’s what our responses to the Ann Romney “war on women” meme and the “Romney hates doggies” meme are all about. It’s a really simple concept.

  • acat

    Brady could have closed it if Quin hadn’t been able to suppress turnout in the pet-friendly suburbs…

    This election is going to be won in the middle – and voters in the middle are moved by a much more dizzying array of issues and perceptions than most Red State readers. I again cite Beaglescout’s statement… “Voters are impure.”

    Both the Seamus story and the stay-at-home mom story are potentially quite damaging, among the impure voters who will decide the race.

    Mew

    • captkirc

      Because Democrats controlled everything in Illinois, Republican took a beating in redistricting and may lose as many as 4 congressional seats all because of dogs in Illinois.

    • rightlane1111

      I am not meaning to be smart here…but I have really lost sight of what is the middle. It is fiscal Conservatives with a Moderate stance on culture or the other way around? Does it have to do with income? Or…is it as you have implied…the sheeples that follow the leader and vote on knee-jerk impressions based on another’s opinion?

      It seems to be that wherever they stand…the recent rise in inflation, the out of control spending, the arrogance of this administration, the cost at the pump…the very things that people experience and cannot deny exist… will shape this election.

      Oh…the people from PETA might be mad about the dog on top of the car…but it does not affect them. They also might find it “crude” for people to eat dog…but it does not affect them. As far as the working mom issue…I think that backfired on Obama…BIG TIME.

      • acat

        Take a look at your meatspace* circle of friends. Identify all the ones who don’t post on Red State, Hot Air, Daily Kos, etc.

        Now, identify all of that subset who don’t hold ideological viewpoints, who don’t “always vote for the GOP” or “reliably vote for the liberal”, but who still vote.

        They’re called “the middle” because they’re neither part of the 33-ish% who vote for the GOP nor the 33-ish% who vote for the Dems reliably, without fail, regardless of whether the candidate is a complete suckweasel.

        That’s “the middle”, and the purpose of this “meme** war” is to infect as many of ‘the middle’ with anti-{candidate} bias early, preparing the ground for later hit pieces.

        “Oh, I know that I heard something bad about {candidate}, and now I’ve heard something else bad, I won’t vote for {candidate}!”.

        Mew

        * if you prefer, “wetware*** friends”… meaning “offline”, people you’re more likely to talk to in person than on Facebook, people you like but don’t follow on twitter ….

        ** meme – “thought virus”, i.e. a pattern of thinking that is easily transmissible from one person to another.

        *** hardware = chips and wires, software = computer codes and programs, wetware = people bashing keyboards

        • rightlane1111

          Thank you for the new way of looking at this. When people refer to the middle…on the blogs, i.e., Politico, WaPo, Hill…it is so fluid (meaning) and they pronounce themselves as Independents and usually categorize themselves as socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Thank you Kitty…because I am not up on the lingo.

          BTW…Can we call Obama a Meme :-)

          • cbartlett

            works pretty good. It is the uninformed voter – they can be educated and/or smart – but they are UNinformed. Or possibly MISinformed. In my experience, these people do not bother to read, research or talk with others about anything remotely related to politics or government. They simply follow the crowd whichever direction it’s currently headed. They operate soley on headlines in the newspaper (not the actual information in the article) and sound bytes on TV – think 3 minutes of Headline News when they walk through a store or the latest joke by Letterman, Leno and Saturday Night Live. We mostly watch Fox News in the evenings at our house but my husband has strated watching 15 minutes of “Headline News” every morning to “find out what the other half is hearing” . It has been an eye-opening experience to compare the two. I can now see how Obama was elected in the first place. The Dems have been setting up for a class-warfare battle to oppose Romney for 3 years – they’ve just been waiting to make sure he is the nominee to unleash it. We have a huge battle ahead of us to sell this candidate. NObama!

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    We can’t let ourselves get bullied. I’ve seen rugby matches turn on one team getting away with shoving the other guys around in between set pieces and the like. It’s all about imposing will.

    • avgjo

      Instead of being on defense, we should be on offense. It’s good for morale, it starts from a position that precludes bullying and it is effective.

      I’m glad the dog stir-fry story came out. Everytime the left mentions Seamus or car roofs, Mittens should mention Wang the Dog and soy sauce.

      As someone said earlier, it’s encouraging to see strains of fight from the Romney camp. I hope it continues.

      • fightnright

        we seem to be bound by a set of principles including ethics, fairness and even logic that informs our political game theory which eludes Dems – whose will to win way over-rides such inconveniences.

        This dynamic has been affecting us on foreign battlegrounds, where the US adheres to rules of engagement that our paramilitary opponents scoff at (and the imbalance in those ROE seem to expand continuously via the left’s efforts to react to acts of war with a police/law response).

        I wasn’t here this Sunday to comment on Chris Wallace’s interview with Axelrod, but it was a textbook example of how the right fights fair, and the left fights to dominate. Axelrod answered few – or no – questions directly, only fought offensively by spitting out a list of talking points that boosted the Dems and denigrated the Repubs. Mitt’s spokesperson, otoh, spent the vast majority of his time on *defense* – taking on each of Wallace’s queries and trying to rationalize Republicans’ positions and motives as if already judged guilty. I’m hoping that at this early stage of the contest, Wallace’s attacks will at least serve to toughen up Mitt’s campaign strategists as well as the debates did.

        I

        • avgjo

          with whom I would fight a real right by the Queensbury’s rules. And by the way, I don’t even like a number of them. But I know them well enough to know that we could agree to an old-fashioned fair fight. Everyone else, no holds barred.

          I bring this up because I believe the aggressor sets the terms of the engagement. You described the left perfectly.

          we are in a deathgrapple with the left for America’s sake. If we need to poke eyes, bite, kick tender parts of the anatomy, WHATEVER, we should be doing it.
          I imagine most people who would chide me for this last comment would apply exactly that philosophy if they found a dangerous intruder in their house where the wife and kids were asleep, and rightfully so. The left is that intruder. And they will do horrible things to our friends and family if we let them win.

          This nice guy crap has got to stop.

          • fightnright

            …I may print it and keep it on hand to read and re-read during the next 6 months, maybe I’ll have at least one tv left in the house without the screen kicked in

            =)

          • Flagstaff

            need to stop. Let the Democrats PAY to get somebody to say that.

            And as she follows up, he isn’t a nice guy anyway. He’s trying to ruin the lives of millions of people in the US in the name of “equality.” Equally miserable.

          • davesinsanantonio

            be properly managed.
            American voters love winners. But, they also love nice guys. They also love underdogs. And, they truly love positive patriots.

            So, while Mitt needs to maintain his nice guy persona, he must be thoroughly briefed on facts, possible routes of attack by Obummer and his lefty lying friends, and what quick and direct soundbite bits can blow each attack up. Also, he must offer a cheery, positive, but realistic, vision for America. He must be patriotic, moral, free market, and enthusiastic about America and Americans.

            Meanwhile, the PACS and other spokespersons who support Mitt should be on the attack all the time. It is they who have to carry that part of the battle, not Mitt. Because, when the dust settles, we have to have the American people on our side. We won’t if Mitt is seen a just another dirty politician.

          • avgjo

            Next time you have to get in a fight, try fighting by the Queensbury rules while the other guy does what he wants and let me know how it works out for you.

            Obama ran as a known Chicago thug. And he still got elected. The American people sided with him.. Bush played it nice and was thoroughly destroyed by the media. The American people turned on him.

            Maybe what you say would have been true 30 years ago. But we’re not the same people we were. Now, we resemble the denizens of every two-bit country on earth. We respect power, not responsibility and accountability. We no longer, as a people, despise government as a servant. We stand in awe, almost glorifying, its power. That’s why so danged many people in this country look to government to solve their problems.

        • edintexas

          Too often they are totally inept at this role. And then there are those Republicans who prefer to just roll over and cave – while calling the surrender “compromise”.

      • Flagstaff

        At least he wasn’t eaten at the end of the trip.

  • apilee

    What about Moochelle and “The Won” Haven’t they lived high on the hog on the taxpayers dime?

    • streiff

      the fact is that Obama has had a much more pampered life than Romney. At least Romney earned his money. We can’t let these attacks go unanswered because if they do, they become part of the conventional wisdom.

      • elayman

        for months. Ask Rick and Newt whether there has never been a serious question that he will fight and fight back. But if this comes down to the memes of bragging about hosing down a dog you made ill as an example of crisis management or eating dog meat people just aren’ going to vote. I’m not even a dog lover and won’t necessarily give Romney the benefit of the doubt…

        • acat

          On the vegan spectrum, is eating a dog better or worse than eating a pig or a cow?

          Mew

          (note – Hindu, Jainism, Rastafarianism, Hare Krishnas, and Seventh Day Adventists all have a religious-based reason for, generally, lacto-veganism)

        • gekster

          Obama is better than Romney.

          Is that what you ment.

          Let me see here.
          Ate a dog,
          gave a dog a ride.

          Want’s to destroy a country and make it in his own immage,
          want’s to restore a country to it’s former image.

          It is a very hard choice to make.

        • streiff

          1. McCain was great about attacking Republicans. He didn’t attack Obama. That is what we’ere talking about. No one had any doubts that Romney would attack Republicans.

          2. If you really believe the second part you need to find another blog because the next time you say it you’re gone.

      • Finrod

        Romney could point out all the trips that Barack and Michelle have taken on the taxpayer’s dime and say “When myself and my wife go on vacation when I’m in the Oval Office, I will pay for the trip myself”.

        • fishgod3

          The Obamas took Airforce one to new england,Bo was sent with staff on a seperate jet. Muslims and dogs do not travel in the same convaense.

  • septembergurl

    as a nominee — will he fight as hard (and as dirty, if necessary) against Obama as he did against Perry, Gingrich and Santorum? — has been answered quite definitively.

    The answer is yes.
    Perhaps even Hell, yes.

    No issue is too small or stupid or irrelevant for the Democraps to bring up in what will be their increasingly desperate attempt to hold on to the White House. They can’t run on issues, which favor Republicans, and they can’t run on Obama’s record.

    Strikingly, though Romney is not a very good campaigner, he and Obama start out the general campaign effectively tied at 45-45 each. The base of both parties is turning out. The election hangs on the ten per cent who are not yet following closely and will make up their minds on idiotic meaningless non-issues like stay at home mothers and puppy kebabs. Streiff is entirely correct about this.

    The Obama bots are still grappling with the fact that Romney is not going to run a “respectful” (ie losing) McCain type campaign. Romney is going to hit back at everything aimed at him, more or less in the unforgettable style outline by Sean Connery in the Untouchables movie. Bigger, harder, meaner and yes, more stupidly. Flood the zone with dog jokes, puppy recipes, etc. The Obama peeps are so dumb they keep doubling down on this idiocy, the head of Dogs against Romney has issued a statement supporting Obama’s right to eat dogs.

    And much as the unprovoked attack on Ann romney opens up a chance to scrutinize Michelle Obama and revisit the idiotic War on Women meme, the attack on Romney via seamus has boomeranged delightfully and a long season of dog-meal jokes ahead.

    So, don’t misunderestimate the degree to which Romney is prepared to fight these clowns at their very low level. Of course the voters are ill-served by this. But the other side started it.

    Wag the dog.
    As Biden would say: Literally1

    • streiff

      the past week has shown that Romney will fight. If he fights I think he will win this.

    • tngal

      uhh, anyone seen the dogs of war lately?

      (Its only April. Plenty of time to deal with ideology, policy, and performance, while simultaneously poking the other side with a stick. Its like walking and chewing gum at the same time. It can be done. )

      • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

        I think Romney definitely wins the “You can’t put that on top of a car” redneck vote. And I say that with all due respect to rednecks and dogs.

        For non-rednecks, it’s like saying, “You can’t fix that with duct tape.” In the south, there is nothing that can’t be fixed with duct tape.

        And I have to give my husband credit for this one.

        • tngal

          holding it together at a split right now. I’ve taped windows in the house to keep the cold air from blowing in. I’ve done everything with duct tape except serve it with ketchup. I heart duct tape.

          • Raven

            It is not a rare thing to see a small plane land in alaska with duct either holding the landing gear on or the propeller together, or both.

          • Jack_Savage

            There’s a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

        • edintexas

          Loves Duct Tape (Viz. The Red Green Show).

          • gekster

  • asap100

    What people don’t like about Romney is he seems like this ultra rich man that finds enjoyment in firing people. I know the whole I like to fire people thing has been taken out of context so many times, but eh , its out their now .

    Remind me why you’d nominate someone who made Obamacare before Obamacare. Like anyone but Mitt could of talked about how Obamacare isn’t right and won a good number of voters… Oh well .

    • radicalrighty

      but here goes. The Mass healthcare bill was going to pass, with or without Mitt’s signature, and it was a STATE ISSUE, and the people, and the legislature wanted it. If a state wants something, unless it is specifically forbidden by the US Constitution, it can do it. the Mass healthcare became law with 0 opposing votes.

      By the way, Romney has said over and over, and as recently as Tuesday, in a Breitbart interview, he would REPEAL Obamacare his 1st day as President.

      • edintexas

        Yes, Romney has said multiple times during this campaign that he would repeal Obamacare. Of course those of us who understand the workings of this Constitutional Republic also understand that any statements about the President repealing any Federal Statute are (to put it kindly and without foul language) hot air.

        Beyond that, IIRC before this campaign season Romney also went to print with an article on “healthcare” in which he advocated the individual mandate nationally. That has a strong probability of coming back to bite him – and us.

        He’s apparently going to be our nominee, and I’ll vote for him on the November, 2012 ballot.

    • Jack_Savage

      I like it.

      But while you’re thinking about it, maybe you could remind us why we should re-elect your preening, vacationing, golf-playing, gun-running, socialist dog-eating miserable failure.

  • hobarticus

    When you think about past presidential losers, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? There’s George H.W. Bush the tax-raiser, the pedantic Al Gore “inventing the internet”, John Kerry the flip-flopper, and John McCain the… well, Sarah Palin.

    It would be nice if the election could be won or lost on the most important issues, but that would be giving a lot more credit to undecided “middle of the road” voters than they probably deserve. They’ll stick with who hates dogs more, thank you very much.

    • gekster

      She gave his campaign a boost.

      • Viet71

        n/t

        • zachv

          … of the campaign. I think she underestimated how vicious and grueling the campaign would be, and as a consequence didn’t get the preparation in.

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            that was 6 hours of tape edited to 15 minutes to make her look like an idiot. Take any politician in America, and do the same thing, and get a less than desirable result.

            Preparation for the debate was sufficient to destroy a man who had been in the Senate since she was in the second grade.

          • zachv

            But I wasn’t just referring to the one interview. It was those first couple of weeks all together. Sarah just didn’t have the feel yet on how to judge the national public and the national media, and that got her off on a bad step. I mean, I wouldn’t either if I was literally catapulted into the spotlight like she was.

            Obviously she got it down and now she’s a pro, but just those first couple of weeks. :/

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            …but too many people judge her based off one or two interviews. We always hear about her answer to “what do you read,” but nothing about Biden claiming FDR went on television to calm the American people after the stock market crash of 1929. That’s just one example…..

            Enough about that. You get it.

          • davesinsanantonio

            before he selected Palin. And, much of the heat that cooked him came from him!!!

            His refusal to even fight Obummer was all his own doing, and became his undoing. Palin was willing to fight, but McCain’s people reined her in. So, put the blame where it belongs, and stop with the mindless repeating of myths.

      • zachv

        Sarah was an amazing initial announcement boost to the campaign, but she just was not ready or in the mindset to enter national politics as the unknown VP.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          when McCain wasn’t either. Or perhaps he was just too lazy or cowardly to go after Obama and the media. Palin was neither lazy nor cowardly, and I’d take her over McCain any day.

          • powertothepeople

            that Palin went from small town mayor/first term Gov to being thrust into the national spotlight and there has to be a learning curve and we have to allow time for that. My problem with her and with others like her is that it seems by the time they “learn,” they have done a lot of damage to themselves, the party, or both.

            Palin, Bachmann, and others are fresh faces that start a fire in our party and motivate many. But as time goes by and the missteps and the gaffes continue, one must assume either they are not inclined to learning or are not bright enough to either listen to their handlers or hire handlers who can keep them on the right path. Or both.

            2008 was an embarrassment, hope it does not happen again. But until these new guns learn the media is not on their side, will twist what they say, and until they learn to keep quiet until absolutely sure they know the answer, we will continue to have pie in our faces.

            Michelle Bachmann’s straw that broke the camel’s back comment about the woman whose daughter became retarded due to Gardasil is a prime example of not knowing when to stay silent.

          • northeastred

            but I also think we have a responsibility to recognize, long before any straws break any camels’ backs, that we have a dimwit in the making. Palin, Bachmann, and O’Donnell only give fuel to liberals who claim we are not serious nor fit to govern. And it’s not a woman thing with me. These three should never have generated this kind of support from our party. It was obvious they would eventually crash and burn because they lack curiosity and a work ethic–two qualities that should be GOP staples.

          • zachv

            Palin and Bachmann represent the intelligent, hard working and successful women of middle America. Those two at least, represent exactly what we ought to stand for as a party.

            What you’ve confused is their character of being outspoken and opinionated.

          • northeastred

            There are plenty of Republican women role models out there. How so many get hypnotized by these three songbirds is beyond me. I know they’re attractive and flashy, but that’s what gets fish in trouble. We should aspire to be smarter than fish.

          • Flagstaff

            I give Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Christine O’Donnell all kinds of credit for doing what they did.

            To be brief, O’Donnell was sandbagged by her own party after she won the primary against all odds. Whether she would have won with the full support of the party is speculative, but IIRC the party itself put her up for the same office at a previous election, more or less as a sacrificial lamb.

            Bachmann has been a successful Representative and is the chair of the House Tea Party Caucus or some such name. She is probably as close to the “pure” conservative candidate that so many people around here were crying for as anybody was.

            If you want to find out about Palin’s accomplishment’s you’re going to have to do more than watch the Today show. Watch The Undefeated. Consider her record with an open mind. Acknowledge that she didn’t get to be Governor of Alaska by being a “dimwit.” Nor by lacking a “work ethic.”

            The only thing dimwitted here is slamming three accomplished women because they don’t fit our idea of–something. In Palin’s case in particular, you could say she wasn’t “ready,” and whose fault is that? Hers, or the guy who asked her to the Republican Prom too soon? He called on her to save his campaign and she almost did it in spite of him, but because it didn’t happen, you want to call her a “dimwit”? You could also say that most of her troubles since 2008 have resulted from her being called to serve her country and saying “yes.”

            We want somebody young and exciting and vivacious and conservative, then we complain when the “young” part brings “inexperience” along with it. But inexperience didn’t stop BO from being elected; it just stopped him from being a good President.

            They all had problems (as does everyone), but being dimwits wasn’t one of them.

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            NT

          • Stricia

            Palin as his VEEP!

          • gekster

            nttntntnnt

          • davesinsanantonio

            ideology stopped him from being a good president. His inexperience stopped him from destroying America in his first term. We cannot afford to give him a second term, because now he has the experience!!!

          • Flagstaff

            Well done.

          • infiltr8tr

            I agree with pretty much everything you penned here, except the last paragraph. Obama being young was never an issue (Except for those who have the temerity to ask a question like, “What exactly have you done to merit getting this job?”) If the media had properly vetted Obama, not only would he never have been elected – he wouldn’t have won the primary.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            No work ethic? Palin & Bachmann may not be pros at politics, but they’ve certain demonstrated a strong work ethic. Did you get your talking point from Hilary Rosen? The Palin’s have 5 children, including one with Down Syndrome, not to mention being small business owners. The Bachmann’s also have 5 children, provided foster care for 23 teenage girls and are small business owners.

            If it’s not a “woman thing” with you, it must be a conservative thing. Go smear somebody else.

            This comment should be added to your greatest hits listed by Jack Savage here.

          • northeastred

            by a moderator. He may be interested in continuing the dialogue, but he’ll do so by himself. I’m not interested in reading whatever noise he’s adding to the universe.

            But as for you, Ms. Warbington, I’m happy to correct your errors (and your grammar). Palin and Bachmann were indeed pros at politics. They won elections and were paid salaries for their work. One quit her job to cash in on book tours and the reality TV/presidential speculation game. The other seems determined to stake out bizarre positions and ride them as far as she can for celebrity purposes. (Though I do give Bachmann credit for bettering herself as a candidate and familiarizing herself with the issues of the day–something Palin never seemed interested in doing.)

            I never said the Palins were not hard-working parents. I give them all the praise in the world for keeping it real and not raising their children the way the Obamas have–only bringing two children into the world and giving them private school educations and no-doubt constant exposure to leftist elitist agendas, caring more about the world than America, and the way they are ingrained to look down on obesity and teen pregnancy. That’s not the real world. That’s just the east coast elitist mentality.

            I just wish (and I was a Palin fan until I learned more about her) that Sarah Palin would have brought herself up to speed on domestic and international events after the 2008 election and rose to the challenge of running for President, instead of focusing on cashing in. Nothing wrong with cashing in, but she took advantage of the Tea Party by teasing them about her candidacy. She had no interest in governing.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            I would say that McCain was ineffectual as a nominee for President. I do believe a lot of the negativity about Palin from the McCain campaign that has come from Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace is somewhat suspicious in that they are the two main architects of the ineffectual campaign. Where I would disagree is calling McCain a coward, considering where he spent the 5 and half years between 1967 and 1973, I could never go there.

          • gekster

            It was the cowardice in his campaign to go after Obama.
            Military career, honerable to the nth degree.
            Politically, very wanting.

        • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

          Steve Schmidt admits that McCain would have lost by a bigger margin had she not been on the ticket.

      • hobarticus

        She definitely created enthusiasm for the campaign among conservatives that hadn’t been there before.

        What I was referring to was the idea that her relative lack of experience and **perceived** lack of intelligence made some people question her ability to take over in the likely event that the elderly McCain didn’t make it the full 8 years. I don’t agree, but like I said, it’s the memes that stick.

      • northeastred

        and probably helped the Tea Party in 2010, but once the general public realized she was vapid and mostly out for herself, she became a joke, and probably hurt the GOP more than she helped. I think Mitt is closer to John Kerry than Ronald Reagan, but I sure feel better about him running for president than I would if Sarah Palin had hoodwinked Republicans into supporting her for 2012.

        • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

          ….John Kerry to Sarah Palin? My hope is that isn’t what you intended to say, but it she looks like it.

          • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

            Too many typos lately…

          • gekster

            Slow down, read it twice before hitting post.
            (doesn’t always work, I have my share)

          • northeastred

            that Romney is a little too flip-floppy and elitist for my tastes. But Palin, or Bachmann for that matter would have been an embarrassment to the party. And this is coming from a Santorum man.

    • Flagstaff

      Pretending to be two feet tall. Only not as funny.

      • edintexas

        Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.

        • Flagstaff

          All the way to the end.

          • cbartlett

            Laughed til I cried. How I miss that show. True artists – they don’t make ‘em like that anymore. Thanks for posting. :-)

          • Flagstaff

            I always have the same thought when Robert Reich is speaking.

  • johnt

    and sit around with a stupid, empty, forced smirk on your face like Crash McCain did. Axelrod is to genius like a flower pot is to the Botanical Gardens. The media lays out the carpet, he waddles on it.
    Even dumb ass John Podhoretz referred to this clod as “genius”. No, this time around these stumblebums are going to have to work for their points
    So far so good for Romney.

    • johnt

      n/t

  • Viet71

    Camp 1: sincere true believers (e.g., in Newt)

    Camp 2: insincere dkos interlopers who use anti-Romneyism to mask their true purpose — getting Obama re-elected.

    The camps inter-mix, which causes confusion.

    Camp 1 folks need to distance themselves from the camp 2 infiltrators, despite the temptation to align with them because of their professed goals.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      I’ve been a vocal Newt supporter and wrote several diaries to that effect. However, I always made it clear that if Romney wins the nomination, he has my vote even though he was far from my first choice and because he’s not Obama. I’m hoping that Romney gives me better reasons to vote for him between now and November, but in the meantime, I don’t have much use for those who aren’t, at a minimum, willing to commit to vote for him instead of Obama.

      • Viet71

        Difficult for garfieldjl, who is passionate in his support of Newt and his anti-Romneyism.

        garfield gets mixed up with interlopers.

        • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

          Comes with age or maturity, or both, I guess. I can relate to the passion and idealism younger conservatives have, as well as to the frustration of the older crowd. I can forgive the younger ones a little easier because they can learn (hopefully). The older ones should know better.

          As for garfield, several of us tried to warn him (her?) when he first arrived, to no avail it seems. At this point, I’m not sure if he’s sincere (I tend to think yes) or a plant, but I hope it’s the former because we’re going to need his kind of enthusiasm on our side if we can just get him to face reality. That being said, I encourage everyone to vote their conscience in upcoming primaries if their candidate is still on the ballot.

          • gekster

            has already stated that he will not vote for President
            if Romney is the nominee.
            In my books, that’s not conservatism.

          • garfieldjl

            Along with the latest attacks on the Supreme Court.

            I still think Romney is a total slimeball, it’s just rather convincing with Obama’s latest stunts that he’s an even worse slimeball than Romney.

            When Romney starts promising he is a conservative and he’ll do this and that, sorry but I don’t particularly believe a word he’s saying. That’s my problem with Romney. along with the smears, and all the other stuff.

            Another problem I have with Romney is how easy Obama will be able to take him apart. I could probably write a manual for how Gingrich can take completely dismantle Obama. Thing is Romney is weak against Obama, for the same reason Gingrich would be Obama’s worst nightmare.

            People alway yap about Gingrich’s baggage, ever stop and look at Obama’s baggage. Gingrich would be Obama’s worst nightmare, because Obama would keep tripping over his own baggage when attacking Gingrich.

            I’ve been trying to work through a way for Romney to actually beat Obama, the problem I have with it is that I keep tripping over Romney’s baggage, and so do you guys.

            We can’t use Obamacare (no matter how much people argue otherwise Romneycare is the blueprint of Obamacare), Solyndra (unless someone finds information that it was the legislature responsible for the green energy fiascos during Governor Romney’s term) can’t be used, we’re rather limited in going after Obama’s anti-gun platform, it’s as frustrating as all get out.

            Then people here want to go full out and use all this stuff against Obama, and we really can’t because we’re setting ourselves up to cost Romney the general election if he is the nominee, and destroy our credibility to boot.

            Here are the lines of attack that I see open to Romney:
            Fast & Furious — No matter how anti-gun Romney’s past record is, he doesn’t have an equivalent of this scandal.

            How Obama has bowed to Saudis, Japanese Emperor, etc.

            His attempts to sabotage Israel’s ability to defend itself.

            How he has emboldened our enemies.

            Romney might also have an opening on Gasoline prices, but I’m not sure cause I haven’t completely gone through all the environmental garbage Romney did in Massachusetts.

            Obama’s wrecking NASA particularly the Muslim Outreach

            Things Romney can’t attack Obama on (partial list):
            Obamacare — because of Romney’s continued defense of Romneycare, he has a way out which he hasn’t used. As long as Romney defends Romneycare, Obamacare is off the table.

            Economy and Jobs — Romney’s record as Governor gets in the way. If he can convince people that the blame can be shifted to the legislature, then he can use this.

            Solyndra — Again Romney’s own record

            Obama’s record of being anti-gun — Fast & Furious is a good line of attack but that’s as far as we can go due to Romney’s record.

            In short if Romney is the nominee we have to be extremely careful with what we use. That’s why the MSM were being shills for Romney.

            I’m not saying this to discourage people, I’m telling you guys this so you all don’t hand the election to Obama on a silver platter if Romney is the nominee. You have to look extremely carefully at Romney’s record so you don’t end up handing Obama a way to turn tables on Romney’s attacks.

            If Gingrich, Perry, Cain, or Santorum were the nominee, we could have a field day going after all of Obama’s baggage. Gingrich in particular because Obama would have to be careful on his attacks, or he’d hand the election to Gingrich on a silver platter.

          • gekster

            and you still havn’t said you’d vote Romney if he is the nominee.

            You have no faith in the American peoples ability to distingquish between a crap sandwich and some hamburger.

            I know they will take the hamburger.
            They’ve been getting fed the crapsandwich for three and a half years now.
            And they don’t like it.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I doubt there’s anyone at redstate who doesn’t know how much you dislike Governor Romney. Many of us have been there, and we’ve looked at Romney’s record and even made some of the same arguments as you. Nobody here is trying to keep you or anyone else from voting your conscience in the primary. Further, I don’t have a problem with your continued attempts to convince others to vote Not Romney in their primaries except for the fact that most of us here have already moved on (in other words your efforts would be better spent elsewhere, e.g., making phone calls for your candidate or working on the ground in upcoming primary states).

            Regardless, you’d go a long way in establishing some credibility by answering one simple question. If, and only if, Romney is the GOP nominee for POTUS, will you vote for him in November against Obama? Just a simple yes or no answer will suffice. No ifs, ands or buts. If you can’t or won’t answer in the affirmative, then that puts everything else you say in doubt.

          • garfieldjl

            If Romney happens to be the Republican Nominee, he would classify as Republican wouldn’t he…

            Would I be voting for Romney because he is Mitt Romney, nope. I’m just going to check off Republican in the Presidential slot, if Romney’s name happens to be there, it happens to be there.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I had looked back at our previous exchanges and couldn’t find a definitive answer. I just don’t necessarily think your approach is effective for the reasons I gave above, but I’m okay with knowing we’re on the same side.

          • Ender

            that he is constantly regurgitating his attacks on Romney, even here during a discussion of strategy and defeating Obama. What was the point of his ridiculous screed if not to detract.

          • garfieldjl

            Romney attacks Obama on Solyndra.

            Obama throws it right back in Romney’s face about how Romney had Massachusetts support green companies X, Y, and Z, and that they went bankrupt.

            It makes Romney look really bad, really fast.

            That’s what I mean about Romney, it is very hard to come up with things when he is the candidate.

            Now if Obama brings up companies X, Y, and Z first, then we’re in business and can start pounding Obama on Solyndra. If Romney makes the first move in a situation like this though, we’re sunk.

            Problem is I don’t expect Romney to have that kind of patience, given his campaign strategy from the primary.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            of issues with Romney supporters and their ridiculous screeds either.

          • davesinsanantonio

            on jobs and the economy. The line of attack is that the free market works, and Obummer is anti-free market in his actions–the regulations he has pushed, the executive orders he has issued, his proposed legislation, etc. Mitt doesn’t have to have a super record to sell the free market to the voters. And, this year, it will be an easy sell, especially if gas and food prices keep rising.

          • edintexas

            Without even getting into MA issues, the Reagan slogan would work “Are you, and your neighbors, better off now than you were 4 years ago?”

          • davesinsanantonio

            are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago.

          • davesinsanantonio

            nt

          • dad1011

            1. How many pages in Romneycare, and how much Legislative debate?
            2. How many new Gov’t Agencys did it create?
            3. How many waivers had to be given to campain donars?

          • gekster

            One was wanted by by the people and voted for by both parties in the state legislature.

            One is not wanted by the people and voted for by one party in the Congress.

            One is a state issue that was wanted.
            One is a national issue that is not wanted.

            Try a little harder to figure it out.

    • renl57

      Perry comparing Romney to a corporate raider vulture, Gingrich claiming that Romney made money by bankrupting companies and laying off workers, etc. That’s more serious than dog stories.

      Because in a time of high unemployment, voters don’t want to elect Ebenezer Scrooge v2.0.

      Having prominent Republicans to quote from, makes the Dems’ attacks more difficult to deal with.

      And once public statements end up on YouTube videos, you can’t take them back.

      • garfieldjl

        I did some digging a while back, and found that the Dems had already been setting up this attack on Romney all the way back in the Iowa Caucus. Heck I even have a diary entry on this issue a while back.

        Gingrich and Perry were trying to warn us, but like idiots you guys turned on the messengers because they were telling you something you didn’t want to hear.

        Team Obama and the DNC already has people on video talking about how Romney cost them their jobs, courtesy of Bain Capital’s Corporate Raiding. They had that all the way back in the Iowa caucus. BEFORE Gingrich and Perry started hitting Romney over the head on the subject.

        • Flagstaff

          That is, they were not true. We can only hope they run them again, to be shot down as the lying scoundrels they are. They only fooled the maroons who didn’t bother to check the follow-up retorts. Of course, maroons vote, but the Dems can lie about anybody, not just Romney.

          In words of few syllables, garfield, do you think that if we nominated Newt or Rick the Dems would simply throw down their arms and leave the field of battle? (That means quit.) They wouldn’t have slams ready to go against either of them?

          Of course they would. So to worry about that and think it’s unique to Romney is just silly. You’re in good company, though. Mark Levin has been beating the same drum you have, which is a completely unproductive activity.

          • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

            I listen to Mark Levin quite a bit though missed him yesterday. I’ve heard his remarks about Romney but never heard him say that media have more to attack Romney about than others, and/or that such should be considered in our choice of a candidate. I can’t even imagine him using that type of thing as an excuse. The comments I’ve heard from Levin are substantive and verifiable. I agree with you that the media/left will come up with whatever they need to about anyone, the field is level in that regard.

          • Flagstaff

            I only listen if in the car. But I have heard him talk about the shortcomings of Romney many times, followed by complaints that the Dems will be able to cr*p on him because of Romneycare, etc. My objection was he said it as if they wouldn’t do the same to anybody, just with different issues.

            IMO, Mark, Rush, Glenn, and many others have been only lukewarm in their support of Mitt, even after he has effectively wrapped up the nomination, because they’re in love with some ideal conservative candidate who doesn’t exist and who didn’t enter the race. Before the fact, they had verbally supported Rick or Newt or simply (in Rush’s case) implied Romney wasn’t the right guy, but also IMO neither of them were, either, and they weren’t any better overall.

            I’d like a conservative who campaigns like Clinton; orates like Obama; has the technical expertise of Ryan, the management skills of Daniels, the integrity of DeMint; argues like Gingrich; has the determination of Bachmann, the conservatism of Palin, the fire of Santorum, the fan base of Paul, the good looks of Perry, the knowledge of Thomas Sowell, and the charisma of Reagan. That person doesn’t exist, but Romney is the closest of anybody who ran. The next best (I think) is a Senator from Florida who will be about ready in 2016 or 2020. I just hope I can see him when he decides to run.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    …dries out the meat.

    • Flagstaff

      (^:^)

      • avagreen

        (-_-)

        ;)

        • aesthete

          about subjects that don’t pertain to their professions or their hobbies. (Hell, you could say that about the whole human race.) Knowing that politics has a high signal to noise ratio, and that knowing more about national politics doesn’t have much payoff to themselves, they have little patience to educate themselves, and a short attention span for same. Voter education is possible in that environment, but difficult — which is why performance on these (and other) complete non-issues makes or breaks a campaign.

          That said, over-reliance on a given meme, or even on memes in general, isn’t a strategy for success — again, people have a short attention span and little patience, and lose interest after a short while. The groups targeted by these non-issues tend to be small and not particularly motivated — how much $ or support can the politically-inclined dog lovers’ community muster come election time? Moreover, among the flurry of attacks and counter-attacks there are going to be major flops and unforced errors — you can ask Alan “Taliban Dan” Grayson and Newt “Venture Capitalism” Gingrich just how those attacks on their opponents worked out for them. Finally, even the low-information voter will eventually recognize and tire of substance-free campaigning without a punchline; it is this feature, more than any other, which converts activists into apathists over the course of a campaign.

          There needs to be a core to the campaign besides, “Candidate X is a no-good, very bad dude who sucks because of Random Outrages #1-269″ — a campaign’s supporters will most likely not agree with you on all those counts, the less committed are unlikely to want to survive your retelling of the injustices, and as a candidate, you’ll probably end up screwing up in messaging and diluting or outsourcing your brand by trying to employ so many (often contradictory or stupid) strategies or attacks. There has to be a core for supporters to rally around, and for independents to be wooed with, for a candidate to move beyond a failed attack ad (particularly egregious ones). That is not to say that these attacks don’t have a place, but IMO they should neither be considered the bread and butter of campaigning, nor overstated in terms of importance or durability. Certainly, we should not ourselves get roped into the outrage, given that it is almost entirely pablum made for the consumption of the ignorants who comprise our voting public.

          The Obama campaign’s mostly failed attempts to campaign on Outrage of the Week-type stories are the signs of a desperate campaign, not a successful one. I am pleased with the Romney campaign’s ability to trade in these rather mindless exchanges thus far, but it won’t work nearly as well as a strategy without an overarching campaign message and well-grounded positions reflecting the message. Whether he can do this or not remains to be seen.

          • aesthete

            Don’t know how this ended up here, but it was meant as a reply to the OP.

    • Scope

      would do to the meat.

      • gekster

        wouldn’t you get an Airedale?

        • Scope

          I’m sure someone could or would come up with that visual.

          Do you think Obama would declare that meat as MRE’s. After all he has so much respect for our military members.

          • Raven

            “Compressed pork substitute”

        • FlyingTigress

          Snoopy coldn’t be used in a Romney campaign ad..

          Imagine it.

          Sitting astride Air Force One (VC-25), wearing the ‘famous WW1 ace helmet with goggles and scarf’, shaking his fist towards the ground, with the thought bubble “Curse You, Barack ‘The Red’ Obama”

      • fishgod3

        It`s called dog jerkey.To be eaten on golf courses,vacations and fishing trips.

    • FlyingTigress

      …everyone knows that Obama throws his dogs under the bus.

  • Common_Cents

    Gingrich has a good approach to hit policy and get under obamas skin by going somewhat personal.

    Food stamp president vs. paycheck president
    most successful food stamp president
    -they are good economic themes.

    Go after and challenge obama to go off teleprompters. The guy is 5x worse than Bush in gaffes.

    Drill here vs. obama the drill over there president

    2.50 gas, or a simple message and plan to lower gas prices.

    Build in ridicule and laughter at obama at every single turn. this fraud in the white house deserves little or no respect, don’t give it to him personally. If I hear another “high road” McPain campaign I’ll puke and we will lose.

    America is on the line.

    • garfieldjl

      Whether or not Romney will is another question.

    • Common_Cents

      Most voters don’t pay much attention or do much research like RS folks. We need simple clear CONSISTENT messages throughout the campaign.

      I like how gingrich makes the choices very clear and lets people decide.

      “Do you want a foodstamp president or do you want a paycheck president?” Very effective. Like hope and change duped many.

  • garfieldjl

    In Romney’s case, the dog lived, though I’m still disgusted as someone that actually has 2 dogs, whom if we take them someplace, they travel inside the car not on the roof.

    However I get even more disgusted when I think of someone eating what I consider to be a member of the family.

    I think Dog owners may side with Romney due to Obama’s dog eating comments.

  • Locked and Loaded

    I was especially disturbed today to hear speculation about Romney picking Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin for his VP. Now, I think I will be able to live through her being governor of my beloved state; she will certainly do better than Jari Askins would have. But – the mud will really be slinging our way if this pick comes to pass, and I literally pray it does not.

    I also heard mention of Sen. Kelly Ayotte, which doesn’t set a whole lot better with me, but I’ll leave it to others to comment on that possibility.

    Picking a woman may be just fine, unless that is the number one criterion. But is sure ain’t no silver bullet, and passing up experience for gender (again?) would be disastrous.

    • clintonformccain

      I wouldn’t get too worked up over VP gossip at this point. In many cases, it’s just operatives trying to raise the visibility of their clients by “leaking” consideration. In others, Romney’s people might be just throwing an an ego-stroke.

      I don’t think there is any danger of the Gov of Oklahoma or the Senator from New Hampshire getting the VP nod.

    • basokla

      I just don’t see Fallin even coming close to being seriously considered. Just another talking head blowing smoke.

  • Stricia

    I think Palin WAS ready. Granted- she had a couple of missteps, but who doesn’t? I think the McCain team held her back. Just my opinion.

    • zachv

      … is that had Sarah been a Governor of a larger state, I think she’d have been even more ready to face the hostile media, kick arse and take names.

      • fishgod3

        even the state of Isreal is smaller,the only larger state is the state of our ignorance

        • zachv

          You can Google that in 10 seconds.

          • fishgod3

            you don`t count sand in your shoe or ice in your drink,compare,land area is all I meant.

  • Flagstaff

    Had we taken the advice of any number of pundits, by Election Day these incidents would have been as much a part of Romney?s public persona as President Bush and the supermarket scanner.

    Isn’t it common knowledge that Romney is rich, Mormon, and has a sense of humor akin to Ward Cleaver?

    A bit of advice I’d give to Mitt is that he’s too smart to try to make up witty comments on the fly, or repeat ones he’s heard. The ones he makes up will be misunderstood by most people, and he isn’t a good enough performer to get the timing right on the others.

    This all leads us back to the SCUM. If they weren’t biased, Romney could make up his witty remarks with impunity, Mormon motherhood would be reported as normal as Catholic contraception, and folks would be aware that the more rich people we have around, and the richer they are, the better off we all are. But they are, so he’d better watch that wicked, dry sense of humor and keep it to himself.

    • streiff

      because of your long tenure here. Not amusing in the least.

      • Flagstaff

        Should have edited that out myself.

        But your edit is a good illustration of what the SCUM should be doing with similar misleading and irrelevant accusations about Romney.

  • hwgood

    This lie was the meme that has defined Bush’s presidency, and Karl Rove said that not fighting back at it was their worst mistake.
    Allow the left to define our candidate and we have lost the election, even with Bam-Bam’s record to run against.

  • rowdy

    I could care less what is said about him being a conservative, or a mormon. What I am concerned about is his voting record which matches Ovomit’s exactly, and the fact that he was raised as a communist, and that by true constitutional standards is exactly like ovomit, not a natural born citizen and should not have been allowed in the race to begin with.

    • streiff

    • Bill S

      .

  • bobguzzardi

    As Andrew Breitbart pointed out, the culture is extremely powerful and subtle and the memes, the narratives, the disguised appeal to prejudice need to be counteracted. The Left will call us uncivil.

  • mspector

    That even if Mitt had been a middle-class school teacher she would have been a stay-at-home mom? OK. So much for the liberal line that being a stay-at-home home is only a luxury for the rich and privileged. But assuming this allegation is true, it would be bad why, exactly?

    This is going to be a tough campaign, and to use a hockey analogy it is going to be won by swinging elbows in the corners. If Obama has done nothing else in the last three years he has given us a boatload of ammunition (anyone remember Michelle’s $950 tote bag?). We only have to be unafraid to use it.

    • Flagstaff

      Solyndra was originally a great idea gone bad, just business. When that didn’t fly, it was Bush’s fault, because the “original program” started under the Bush Administration.

      Last night, I heard a Democrat flak claim that the “Obama” program was fine, it was just one company that went bad. They’ve gone full circle.

  • beccaleigh

    of a bigger problem that Romney has. He never admits to making mistakes or changing his mind on anything. This issue has been around for years and until he learns to admit that he’s human like the rest of us and has done and said some things that he is not proud of but most importantly, learned his lesson, then he will remain as the “out-of-touch rich guy” to the average voter. People can relate to the guy a lot better if he would stop trying to explain everything away and just own the mistake and remind that nobody’s perfect but at least he doesn’t go around blaming Bush for everything and taking responsibility for nothing, like Obama. That is what could actually make this one go away and paint him as a leader in a time when all Obama can do is point fingers at anyone but him for his failed policies.

    • streiff

      but it doesn’t detract from the point of the story which is that we can’t sit idly by and let these images take hold. Romney, as I think anyone who’s been on RedState since late 2007 knows, is not my top choice. I won’t lie for him but I won’t sit on my hands either.

      • Common_Cents

        yes, ridicule obama, jab back on these stupid faux war comments but then hit him hard on something else to put him on the defensive.

        ?I think we ought to be the serious party and we ought to blow right past that stuff,? Gingrich continued. ?I think in that context, the more serious we are, and the more sincere we are, the better we will do as a party and the better we will do as a country and I believe the American people are hungry for leadership that transcends the normal junk.?

        Counter his faux dogcrap then hit him with this:

        • Flagstaff

          Not low gas prices. But we get both if Newt’s suggestion is followed.

  • ihateliberals

    While you do have to defend occasionally it can’t be your game plan. Ronald Reagan taught the Republicans how to win but they quickly forgot after Bush became President. Reagan was on the offensive from the git-go. he told America how he was going to fix the Carter fiasco. When he was attacked by the left he simply told America how he was going to fix the Carter fiasco. He had a message and stuck to it. By not succumbing to the attacks they soon faded away and became none stories for the Media. Now when a Republican is attacked they leave the core message to try to defend the position being attacked. This is a major distraction and the message gets lost. As the old saying goes “It’s no way to run a railroad”.

    • streiff

      and I’ll leave it at that.

      • ihateliberals

        n/t

    • gwbramhall

      You are right, we cannot let the other side control the debate
      or define us as they wish. I like your line ” fix the Carter fiasco.”
      We only need to change one word and it’s ready to go!

  • http://zillablog.marezilla.com zilla

    The left want to make candidates’ religious backgrounds an issue in the presidential election. I say we let them, Here’s why:

    The last thing a victim of islamic jihad terror usually hears is the screaming of “allahu akbar”, which, when broadcast from loudspeakers, Barack Hussein Obama says is “the prettiest sound in the world”.

    Obama attended Madrassa (islamic indoctrination school) in Indonesia, where he was officially registered as a MUSLIM CITIZEN OF INDONESIA.

    Obama spent 20 years following a “Black Liberation Theology” (a marxist doctrine of black supremacist racism) preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a black supremacist racist leftist, who famously proclaimed “not ‘God bless America’, God D@MN America!” and said after the September 11, 2001 jihad terrorist attacks which killed 3000 innocent Americans, that we deserved it.

    Mitt Romney is Mormon, as are Donny and Marie Osmond and the rest of the Osmond family who for generations represented an ideal wholesome family fun in America.

    The Obama campaign and their leftist media operatives are already trying to tank the Romney campaign by portraying him as “other”, weird and creepy, because he and his family are Mormon.

    The left want to make religious background an issue in the presidential election. I say we let them, but every time they go with the “Mitt’s a weird Mormon” meme, it is imperative that we bring up Obama’s islamic upbringing and embrace of a radical leftist perversion of Christianity.

    Americans need to be asking:

    Would you rather have a President whose most famous coreligionists are a wholesome family of entertainers who delighted people for generations, or one whose most famous coreligionists are best known for killing and cursing Americans?

    Originally posted at a political page that I run at facebook, HERE:
    https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=432753043417070

    • Flagstaff

      it could easily backfire, and we are gaining momentum right now.

      I don’t say play a prevent defense, but our offense shouldn’t let Herman Edwards run for Obama’s winning touchdown because of a preventable fumble.

  • uncmike

    for the Obama handlers to do since there is so much trivia out there. And to the extent we keep wasting excessive amounts of time responding to the story of the day, we can’t focus on the offense as others have said here. Yes, you have to respond, but it has to be done in a measured way so we can get back on offense. Our side needs to generate the story line, not theirs. This administration has one of the worst records of all time. If Seamus the dog and the Ann Romney story are going to be determinative of whether we will turn the country around, we’re in deep yogurt indeed.

    • streiff

      from being able to “get back on offense.”

      • uncmike

        the one who needs to focus 24/7 on pointing out Obama’s dismal record on the economy and everything else he has touched. If you and other pundits prefer to spend the run-up to November on Seamus the dog, that’s fine with me.

        • streiff

          you know that he hasn’t been distracted by either of these incidents. All the scuffle has been handled by surrogates and by Ann Romney. If you’re following his campaign…

  • http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/ Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

    ….to volunteer to help out all those Conservative candidates and write blog posts supporting their POV.

    All of the working moms are “busy” 8+ hours a day and can’t take time out of their schedule to work the phones, stuff envelopes, affix address labels, etc.

    Yeah, that “religion” is a really bad thing for politicians, huh?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I suspect, or perhaps at least surmise there is a battle plan and not simply tactical responses. Mr. Romney’s response seems to at least confirm that suspicion.

    If anything, it is in that prospect (with hopefully some added discipline) which I find hope and ultimately a cause to at least celebrate that in this critical endeavor we have found the right leader who will take us to victory. For I can’t think of a time in which it was needed more.

    So I would remind Mr. Romney of this quote:

    Firm in reliance on his own better convictions, the chief must stand like a rock against which the sea breaks its fury in vain.

    Given that similar attacks, as you observantly noted, will continue to come. Perhaps a wise tactic is to develop a standard retort similar to Reagan’s “there you go again” line.

    Not only is that a good counter-strategy since it exposes the oppositions overall attempt to divert attention from their real weaknesses (or in this case, their failures), but also because it provides ample opportunity to in-turn further attack those weaknesses- in this case by speaking about one’s own ideas for addressing the countries most pressing issues.

    Just a thought…

    • Flagstaff

      “That’s a story they like to talk about, but only because they have to distract people from concentrating on Obama’s failures and the real issues of the campaign.” Then he follows up with talk about the issue that he wants to stress.

      The forum makes a difference about how that goes, but the strategy “focus on Obama’s failures and the issues we face,” and the tactic is “deflect immaterial questions in favor of relevant issues.”

      He does need to eliminate the phrase, “Obama’s a good guy” from his lexicon. He isn’t, and we need to make the Democrats pay to get people to say that.

  • Tbone

    was because he saw Obama closing from behind with a knife and fork.

    • Flagstaff

      about this on the ‘net, but haven’t seen many. That one’s not bad, especially from somebody named “Tbone.”

  • http://www.redstate.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php docfreeman

    What the left is really saying is they are so green with jealous that they must find some way to make Romney and his family feel bad about working hard to get what they have. The left does not want to work for anything they want it give to them even if they must steal it under the guise of everyone should pay their fair share. They have yet to stop and think about their messiah Obama and how he is spending tax payer?s money to use Air Force One for campaign events, vacations for him and his family. They have not stop to think about Obama giving money to his big donars to pay them back by grants to their green companies, most of which have gone bankrupt. It has now been documented that Obama is using your hard-earned tax dollars to line the pockets of his biggest campaign donors. In fact, a staggering 80% of the federal grants and loan guarantees made to green-tech firms by Obama’s DOE since 2009 were made to companies whose chief executive or chief investors were major contributors and big money men to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Even the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has chastised the Obama Administration for the manner in which DOE loans and handouts were granted. According to GAO many of the loans lacked adequate documentation and performance measures. Yet despite all this, Barack Obama wants to double down on the program. In fact, Obama’s Department of Energy has announced its intention to issue even more “green energy” loans. How many major Obama 2012 donors do you think will be on the receiving end of those new loans and grants? At least Romney is using his own money and the tax payers for his run for president not the tax payers. Please vote this November to save our country from the dictatorship that has been put in place these past 39 months. Vote for anyone BUT Obama.

  • gwbramhall

    Yes, I agree we have to fight back on the small issues as
    well as the monumental. There are all types of voters we
    must convince. I spent some time yesterday on the HuffPost
    site on the issue of the dog on the roof. I stayed away from
    “the president eats dogs retort” as that just seems infantile
    and besides that ball was being carried by so many others.
    I just wanted to point out that a true dog lover will see though
    this picture the liberals are trying to paint. Here we have a large
    family in a car and they want to take their beloved pet with
    them on vacation rather than torturing it at the vet’s in a cage
    for two weeks or so. All I got back were comment after comment
    that they should have put the luggage on the roof and the dog
    in the car with them. I assured them that the luggage was no doubt
    on the roof with the dog and they did not take a 12 hour trip without
    stopping and I’m sure the dog was delighted when the trip was over
    (along with the kids) to be able to romp and play with his family. Now
    what we have here is Mitt telling a funny family story on himself that
    just gets bent to hell and is now example #1 on why he should not
    be President. I’m sure glad Obama likes eating dogs or this one
    issue might never go away!

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    From Newt Gingrich.

    Gingrich used the spat as a reason to rally the Republican cause, lamenting, “I have been watching the totally stupid exchanges between Axelrod and the Romney people today over dogs and this and that – it is just utterly stupid,” he said.

    “I think we ought to be the serious party and we ought to blow right past that stuff,” Gingrich continued. “I think in that context, the more serious we are, and the more sincere we are, the better we will do as a party and the better we will do as a country and I believe the American people are hungry for leadership that transcends the normal junk.”

    From CBS: Gingrich: Dog debate “utterly stupid”

    Thank you.

    CW

    • westcoastpatriette

      That is the most cunning skill that Gingrich plies, IMO. He does not allow himself to be defined by the opposition and is always keen on pointing out the ridiculous sideshows that commonly erupt in politics — many times just to divert attention from much more substantive and crucial issues.

      • avagreen

        *nt*

  • cacharlie

    Hits the heart of the Obama sham that he is the shining knight of middleclass America. When he first caught my eye, I was as hopeful as any that he might be a positive shot for Democrats trying to make something more useful of themselves.
    And then he opened his mouth and well . . .
    let’s just say that this middleclass American did not like what he said.

    On the other hand, I feel far more akin to the Romneys ever since it has appeared to me they are shaking off the stigma of GOP “establishment robo campaign.” Of course, maybe that’s because I am now deemed one of the filthy rich since I have an income with nary a tax break.
    This all leaves me more certain than ever that Obama is intentionally biting the hand that feeds his minions entirely on behalf of his war against America.

  • mizzou1776

    The type of candidate who might reverse our doom is an Andrew Jackson: impervious & politically cunning. Romney is neither. It is best that we lose, again, and pray God keeps our Supreme Court (sometime) majority intact till 2016. The money is needed for the Senate & House. The good news is that this presidential regime is exhausted. After Perry went down ours hopes were over. The generational change has been an unmitigated disaster in recent years. We must hope that the boomer generation will experience a late-life conversion to Libertarianism as they watch the goverment destroy America.

    • gekster

    • Ausonius

      Obama barely makes the cut as a Baby Boomer, the generation most coddled and spoiled …until the younger ones today take over! But such gimme gimme gimme attitudes are to be expected from this generation.

      Yes, I am a member of the Boomers, and can tell you as an outsider of sorts that I feared this from the 1980′s onward.

      The self-serving hedonism of Clinton, the arrogant entitledness of MAObama, W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” handouts (i.e. liberalism lite) all go back to a generation being unable to accept the idea of self-sacrifice and basic delayed gratification.

      People have blamed the Dr. Benjamin Spock book from the late 40′s and early ’50′s on “bringing up baby” for the spoliing advice: I think it mainly goes back to the desires from the WW II/Depression generation to spare their children such experiences, which is understandable, but sowed a future whirlwind as a result.

      The worst – or the best – may be yet to come from them: I suspect Mizzou1776 knows of the Generational Theory of History formulated by Strauss and Howe. According to them, the Boomers will not go away for a long time from leadership, and may try to retain power longer than any previous generation. It is possible that they may lead a reversal of the liberalism they have loved for decades in a political apostasy and bring America back from the brink.

      From The Fourth Turning (1997) by William Strauss and Neil Howe:

      ?The next Fourth Turning is due to begin shortly after the new millennium, midway through the Oh-Oh decade. Around the year 2005, a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. Remnants of the old social order will disintegrate. Political and economic trust will implode. Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation and empire. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.?

      It is also possible they will arrogantly, selfishly, blindly lead us into the volcano, claiming that all is well all the way down.

      An excellent website on this:

      http://www.theburningplatform.com/

  • Pingback: Melaine Mcmenamin

  • Pingback: aci Sarault

  • Pingback: Carletta Snaples

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Investment House

  • Pingback: vodka martini

  • Pingback: πακέτα web hosting

  • Pingback: steel strapping

  • Pingback: rubinetteria

  • Pingback: Fun holiday ideas

  • Pingback: wedding planner toscana

  • Pingback: distilling alcohol

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: You Can Check Here

  • Pingback: Browse Around This Website

  • Pingback: web design barrow

  • Pingback: breastactives pills

  • Pingback: desain interior rumah

  • Pingback: online jobs uk

  • Pingback: biaya bangun rumah

  • Pingback: Elicia Isiordia

  • Pingback: Will Bruechert

  • Pingback: Minerva Stagnitto

  • Pingback: Store Fixture Installers

  • Pingback: www.loansandbadcredit.org/

  • Pingback: telephone number search

  • Pingback: Carman Parillo

  • Pingback: aloe vera side effects

  • Pingback: wzór cv

  • Pingback: cv

  • Pingback: Franklyn Solliday

  • Pingback: Frederick Pelletier

  • Pingback: Benita Pinedo

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: Repair and Troubleshoot PLC

  • Pingback: แทงบอล

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: Scooters

  • Pingback: serwis randkowy