Mittmentum: Romney’s book to debut at number one on NYT bestseller list

posted at 8:33 pm on March 10, 2010 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised. Granted, it won’t sell remotely as well as Palin’s book did, but for a guy who sometimes seems lost in the shuffle of outsized conservative personalities, it’s a nice prize.

Romney’s book tour has, so far, attracted pretty large crowds, serving — along with the book sales — to reassure his supporters that, though he may not draw Sarah Palin style hordes, he’s a figure of genuine popular interest. He reportedly attracted more than 1,000 people to a book signing in Naples, Fla. last night.

That’s the good news for Romney fans. The bad news is that Mitt 2.0 is starting to sound like Mitt 1.0 again, which is also surprising since he appeared to have learned his lesson lately by not flip-flopping on RomneyCare in interviews. Click the image below to watch the clip from this morning’s Imus of Mitt claiming he’s never really called himself pro-choice. Hmmmm:

There are lots of examples of Romney calling himself either “pro-choice” or “effectively pro-choice,” but the simplest example came from his exchange with Sen. Sam Brownback at the 2007 GOP Iowa straw poll debate.

ROMNEY: Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. I changed my position. And I get tired of people that are holier-than-thou because they’ve been pro-life longer than I have…

Romney’s problem has never really been that he changed his mind. It has been the fact that he can’t resist insulting people’s intelligence about his past record when discussing his current position.

I honestly think the perception of opportunism is a bigger liability to him than RomneyCare, which will, one way or another, be off most people’s radar screens come late 2011. And the worst part is that his record on this subject is so well known to conservatives that there’s no point in being weaselly anymore; just own up to your prior record, say you’ve changed your mind, and let it lie. Fudging the facts only gives people an excuse to make it an issue again.

I’ve always liked him personally, but between stuff like this and “true conservatives” hammering him for endorsing McCain, I get the feeling that he’s being set up as the Charlie Crist of the Republican presidential primary. Although if that leads him to accuse Huckabee of waxing his back, it’ll all be worth it.

pc


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You come across as stupid – even if your heart is in the right place.

Basilsbest on March 10, 2010 at 11:56 PM

You want stupid?

Romney has 5 children. You can’t get much more pro life than that.

So by that logic Obama (2 children) is pro-life, yes?

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Mitt’s PAC purchased 10,000 copies to be given out at an event in UT. All participants will receive a signed book.
Hey, whatever it takes to get that #1 rating, even if its only one week.

Me, I’m buying Karl Rove’s new book.

lonestar1 on March 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM

As a Life long pro lifer I can assure you that Pro Choice is not Pro Abortion.

You come across as stupid – even if your heart is in the right place.

Basilsbest on March 10, 2010 at 11:56 PM

I would never haul off and call you stupid for you incoherent views, but it’s tempting!
Pro-choice is pro-abortion.
There’s no way that any abortion isn’t the murder of a baby, regardless of the presence of “choice” or the reason.
“Pro-choice” condones infanticide if your reason is good enough???
How does that work?

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:04 AM

I’m not seeing the “gotcha!” here. He said the same thing to Imus that he said to Brownback in 2007 – that he never really called himself “pro-choice”. How is one statement different from the other? If there are other examples of him actually calling himself “Pro-choice” during the campaign(s) then let the Weekly Standard writer cite them.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2010 at 12:04 AM

Jenfidel

How would you describe someone who would never have an abortion; finds the practice of abortion repulsive; is against state funding for abortion; believes women who have abortions and the doctor’s who perform them should not be charged with a crime.

Is this person Pro Life, Pro Choice or Pro Abortion.

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Allahpundit uses Romney’s good news as an attack piece. Why dont you try explaining both sides of an argument when you attack a Republican.

PrezHussein on March 11, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Buy Danish, read the discussion of Mitt’s flip-flopping oni abortion and other issues here:
Managing Expectations: Review of Mormon in the White House

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:10 AM

H

ow would you describe someone who would never have an abortion; finds the practice of abortion repulsive; is against state funding for abortion; believes women who have abortions and the doctor’s who perform them should not be charged with a crime.

Is this person Pro Life, Pro Choice or Pro Abortion.

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:06 AM

Sounds like they’re basically pro-Life.
But the person you’re describing isn’t Mitt or at least it hasn’t been his position all the time.
He’s not solidly pro-Life and there’s no way you can spin that.

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Hey Allah,

If that means Romney will accuse Huckabee of waxing his back like Crist is accusing Rubio, AND, that Rubio beats him unmercifully in the primary like Huckabee will do to Romney, I totally agree.

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:18 AM

You want stupid?
Romney has 5 children. You can’t get much more pro life than that.
So by that logic Obama (2 children) is pro-life, yes?
sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 12:00 AM

Your judgment as to what’s stupid is wanting. You are 150% wrong. How many couples have 5 children? That’s an obvious commitment to life. Pro lifers have that 3rd, 4th, and 5th child. The others stop at one or two. But you’re apparently too stupid to understand that. You have to have it explained to you.

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Allah,

I wouldn’t be surprised or put it past Romney to buy lots and lots of his own books so he can be on NYT bestseller list….he tries to buy everything else…Presidency anyone!

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:19 AM

Your judgment as to what’s stupid is wanting. You are 150% wrong. How many couples have 5 children? That’s an obvious commitment to life. Pro lifers have that 3rd, 4th, and 5th child. The others stop at one or two. But you’re apparently too stupid to understand that. You have to have it explained to you.

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:18 AM

Again, I would admonish you not to call others “stupid” when your own intellectual capabilities are clearly not all one could hope for in a commenter.

The fact that Mitt has 5 children has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether he’s pro-Life or not: it means that in terms of his own family, he’s pro-life.
(This is in keeping with Mormon doctrine, I believe, that church members have as many progeny as possible to become “latter day saints.”)

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Did any of you wonder how we got so many commenters against Sarah Palin and FOR Romney? Just maybe he has paid people to come over to Hot Air and turn this site against Palin and pro-Romney!!! People wake up to how the rich get their way……money, money, money!

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:28 AM

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:12 AM

A lot of people describe themselves as Pro Choice because they:

believe women who have abortions and the doctor’s who perform them should not be charged with a crime.

You’ve proved my point that these terms are uncertain.
Have you ascertained what Romney meant when he described himself as Pro Choice? Are you sure he didn’t just believe that:

women who have abortions and the doctor’s who perform them should not be charged with a crime.

Shouldn’t you know more about his thinking on this emotional subject before you condemn him?

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM

Isn’t it funny that Mitt has to change from 1.0 to 2.0? Why can’t he just be himself? If he can’t be himself, then we should look for people who can be themselves (authentic) like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. Those two candidates are a lot like each other…why would anyone even consider Romney, Mr. Plastic…phony?

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:33 AM

We can all agree, Basilsbest, that Mitt Romney is smart and that means he surely knows the definition of pro-choice. He is the person who used that term.

Even Ted Kennedy told Romney that he didn’t have any principles when Romney ran against Kennedy for the MA senate seat A LONG TIME AGO. Even way back then, Romney was known for changing his principles to meet the election he was campaigning for. Do we want this person who nobody knows how he REALLY feels as our Republican nominee?

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Palin considered aborting her Trisomy G child. “No one would ever know,” she told herself. She had to have her own conversion to be pro-life.

PrezHussein on March 10, 2010 at 11:50 PM

Wow, what an evil loser you are.

You KNOW that quote is taken WAY out of context you vile maggot.

gary4205 on March 11, 2010 at 12:37 AM

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:10 AM

I read it. It’s a link to the writer’s own article, which is an opinion piece. There is nothing to add there except what he says happened with Massachusetts Citizens for Life, but even there he provides no specifics about what positions he changed. He says:

The group endorsed Romney in 1994, citing his support for parental-notification laws and opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions and a federal statute codifying Roe v. Wade. He later reversed or modified most of these positions.

Can we have specifics please? Didn’t he always say that he believed Roe v. Wade should be decided by the States? He took a hands-off position to existing Massachusetts law, but that doesn’t mean he changed his view on Roe v. Wade being bad law. (I don’t know what he could have done to change the law in any case, except tighten up restrictions for late term abortions which theoretically are not covered by Roe v. Wade, but those laws never see the light of day because exceptions are always claimed for the “health of the mother”).

He was not for taxpayer funded abortions, but Massachusetts law required them as part of “RomneyCare”. Does that qualify as “modifying” his position? I think not.

I don’t know what Mitt’s position was on parental notification, but I’d certainly be surprised to learn that he thought children should be able to have secret abortions.

Ultimately, I think Mitt is far more comfortable being “pro-life” than “taking pro-choice positions”. This is a guy who doesn’t even drink coffee. It’s hard to see someone with that conservative a private life embracing a pro-choice viewpoint.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2010 at 12:47 AM

Have you ascertained what Romney meant when he described himself as Pro Choice?

It means what it always means when any politicians say it:
Abortions are OK to them.

Are you sure he didn’t just believe that:

women who have abortions and the doctor’s who perform them should not be charged with a crime.

No pro-Life person would say this unless they’re merely acknowledging the law as it stands.

Shouldn’t you know more about his thinking on this emotional subject before you condemn him?

Basilsbest on March 11, 2010 at 12:30 AM

He’s flip-flopped and waffled on other significant issues to make his varied views on abortion just one more reason not to vote for him.

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:10 AM

VFT on March 11, 2010 at 12:36 AM

Agreed.
Not only that, but we don’t want a guy who suddenly decides he’s for or against abortion because of a personal experience, no matter how tragic.
You either acknowledge that abortion is murder or you don’t.
End of story.

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:15 AM

Look, Romney is like mccain…he doesn’t get people excited!
We need someone to believe in for 2012…someone that we KNOW will do his or her best to live by conservative values and ideals.
Sorry, Romney just doesn’t get my nips hard.

HornetSting on March 10, 2010 at 10:53 PM

Exactly. Minus the nips comment, that is. I mean, he doesn’t get my nips hard either but youknow what I mean HS. How are you btw?

Re Mitt: I feel like we’re all starving and scraping around the bottom of the trash can looking for a juicy morsel but all we’re finding is yesterday’s scraps. Isn’t there anything better? Seriously? Someone commented that Michele Malkin would be better and I’m not saying her in particular, but hell yes, someone with that type of smarts is what we need. Mitt Romney?! Good Lord!

fullogas on March 11, 2010 at 1:33 AM

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

you’re wrong about the mormon thing…we are actually called latter day saints(mormon is in fact just a nickname)you “become” a latter day saint as soon as you’re baptized

dirksilver on March 11, 2010 at 1:34 AM

Just found out Romney’s PAC purchased at least 10,000 for 1 fundraiser. Who knows how many other copies Romney may have bought. He certainly has the cash to do so. What suspicious is that his book is not in the top 10 of Amazon or Barnes & Noble which are good indicators of actual purchases by customers not the author.

Unfortunately for Romney, Karl Rove’s book is already #1 on Amazon and getting a lot of buzz. Rove will be #1 on NY Times soon.

sarahpalinfan99 on March 11, 2010 at 1:35 AM

Meant to say at least 10,000 copies of Romney’s book were purchased by him for donors. Read this at Freepers and C4P.

sarahpalinfan99 on March 11, 2010 at 1:37 AM

sarahpalinfan99 on March 11, 2010 at 1:37 AM

Everything about this guy just screams fake. I liked him better than John mcCain in 2008, but then I liked Jack The Ripper better than John McCain.

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 1:40 AM

For Buy Danish, Basils and anyone else who doesn’t believe Romney was pro-choice:
Romney attended Fundraiser for Planned Parenthood

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:52 AM

This is getting more stale than week old bread.

There are things I can like about Romney. Is he my number one pick? No.
There are things I like and love about Sarah Palin, is she my number one pick no.

But I am growing tired of the constant love-hate fest between Romney / Palin / Huck
as well as the constant love-hate fest between Beck and Levin followers.

The Presidential Primaries haven’t even started. Palin hasn’t even said she will run. Romney obviously will run.
Until then, can we focus people? Because the fact is, our goal should be principles and values, then Congress then the President. Fact is, if Congress is in place, it doesn’t matter who the President is.

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 1:56 AM

Until then, can we focus people? Because the fact is, our goal should be principles and values, then Congress then the President. Fact is, if Congress is in place, it doesn’t matter who the President is.

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 1:56 AM

our goal should be principles and values

That is the point of contention. What does Romney believe?

Conservatives have gone down this path with the GOP far too many times not to know where it leads.

Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, and John McCain.

They all have some things in common and Milquetoast candidates losing elections is one of them.

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 2:10 AM

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 2:10 AM

Who cares? You are stuck in old thinking that Presidential elections is the end game. Its not. Until we get a strong and unifying platform and the gonads to stick to it, it doesn’t matter…
Why did we end up with Dole, McCain? Because we were all about winning, not about principles.
First define what it is we want to fight for, then we can find the person who represents that, who will fight for that, and not compromise on core principles and values. If we keep looking for personalities to solve it for us, we have lost.

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 2:30 AM

The New York Times.

What a great “endorsement” for Romney.

Allahpundit must be gettin’ that ol’ Tingle….

Lockstein13 on March 11, 2010 at 2:42 AM

First define what it is we want to fight for, then we can find the person who represents that, who will fight for that, and not compromise on core principles and values. If we keep looking for personalities to solve it for us, we have lost.

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 2:30 AM

I agree fully with that! The problem always comes when we have to actually vote for those who are most often career politicians. Compromise is the word of the day in DC.

As to altering the GOP platform, or forming another party if that proves impossible, that should be a priority.

What those values should be is problematic in an increasingly fragmented society.

That is one reason that valueless candidates seem so appealing. They upset the fewest special interests. Obama is an example of someone using this tactic. He chose to be all things to all men as a path to power.

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 2:43 AM

I don’t really care whether Romney is pro-choice or not. What troubles me about it is that he can’t seem to state his position on the matter without carefully weighing first who his audience is. Same goes for a number of issues. Of course I don’t want a rigid ideologue like Obama in office, even if that person is from “our side,” but it would be nice to know what a candidate’s personal convictions are before I pull the lever for him/her. If they can’t be trusted to tell you the truth about that much, then I’m not sure what you can trust them with.

NoLeftTurn on March 11, 2010 at 4:27 AM

Romney is ok, but why all the attention?

There are two governors who nobody can call opportunist. They governed as conservatives in states which went for Obama. They held the line on fiscal policy, against hard opposition, didn´t budge and got re-elected. Their names are Mitch Daniels and Tim Pawlenty. I think their record is more impressive than Romney´s. Hope they run in 2012.

Of course, they will get attacked as Rinos for actually governing. That is, for getting done in the real world what the right prefers to only talk about.

el gordo on March 11, 2010 at 5:05 AM

I wonder how a candidate would fare if they clearly stated they wanted abortion made completely illegal, and Doctors performing them would face the death penalty. The women who had the procedure performed would also be subject to the death penalty. Pro-Life people claim it’s murder, so it should be retro active. Put to death any woman who ever had an abortion. Really. I wonder how far that candidate would go. I’d say that’s a really anti-RINO position. Any thoughts?????

adamsmith on March 11, 2010 at 8:16 AM

This is getting more stale than week old bread.

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 1:56 AM

Tell me about it. We’re screwed come ’12 if conservatives continue to splinter into vindictive, self-righteous groups that would rather sit home and pout than vote for a candidate that does not match their exacting, personal standards.

Romney’s not perfect. No one is. But I would have picked him any day over the clown we have now and I am convinced that we’d be better off if he had been elected.

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Romney supporters have been fighting Obamacare from day 1 because we saw how Mitt reformed healthcare in Massachusetts and how drastically different it has been in Washington.

I’m starting to get very sick of “conservatives” making up stories like this supposed flip-flop when Mitt is simply arguing semantics. He never did call himself pro-choice. He admitted we was “effectively pro-choice” on multiple occations, but anyone who doesn’t know everything there is to know on this issue has no business giving their opinion on Mitt Romney.

dnlchisholm on March 11, 2010 at 8:38 AM

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:52 AM

I know all about that Jenfidel. The question is whether he “called himself” pro-choice. Some people wear being “pro-choice” as a badge of honor. It has to do with how ardently “pro-choice” he was – it’s a matter of degrees. He didn’t go around pushing Emily’s List’s agenda, but he agreed not to make attempts to overturn existing law.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Nicely stated!

Those who vow to stay at home on election day if the candidate of their choice doesn’t get nominated in the primaries elevate their personal sentiments ahead of the vital and shared interest we should all have in keeping this country strong, and in bestowing to our children a nation in which they can live free of government tyranny.

Just look at how much damage Obozo has done just halfway into his term. I do not buy into the philosophy that electing a loser like Obozo was actually good for the country long-term because that clown energized the conservative base. While the base certainly has been energized, I’d much rather have had a world in which our allies like Israel, Poland, and the Czech Republic know that our government has their back, instead of stabbing it, and in which the world gets the message that America is not to be messed with.

Who knows how much more damage this horrendous Administration will inflict upon us and our allies in another 2-year span. For the good of our nation and all our allies, ALL conservatives of every stripe need to get out there and vote, no matter what, to unite behind the most prominent candidate, however imperfect he/she may be, who will emerge to vindicate a strong America and not apologize for it.

OneVision on March 11, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Tell me about it. We’re screwed come ‘12 if conservatives continue to splinter into vindictive, self-righteous groups that would rather sit home and pout than vote for a candidate that does not match their exacting, personal standards.

Romney’s not perfect. No one is. But I would have picked him any day over the clown we have now and I am convinced that we’d be better off if he had been elected.

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

And after electing him … what happens next?

The problem with conservatives like you is your being too short-sighted.

Look what happened electing unprincipled Republicans like Romney!

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLICAN BRAND.

TheAlamos on March 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

adamsmith on March 11, 2010 at 8:16 AM

I’d like Jenfidel to answer that question.

Buy Danish on March 11, 2010 at 10:27 AM

IMO Romney wants to be POTUS too badly. Seems like he will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to appeal to whichever audience he’s facing.

He would be a fine number cruncher, technical grunt in someone else’s administration.

katiejane on March 11, 2010 at 11:45 AM

The problem with conservatives like you is your being too short-sighted.

TheAlamos on March 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM

You missed the point, which I’m sure is my fault.

When it comes to making hard choices among imperfect candidates, there is nothing short-sighted about picking the lesser of two evils.

It is much easier to work with and sway an elected candidate more closely aligned to your own views than it is one who is diametrically opposed to your core beliefs.

Choosing neither due to self-righteous and often misguided indignation usually results in the worst outcome.

If you think not – if you think it’s better to let the worst take reign in “hopes” it leads to the “best” sometime in the uncertain future – then consider Carter.

His failed presidency ushered in the Reagan era. But he’s also responsible for the mess we’re today with Iran. Are we better off or worse off for electing him?

Taking this into account, what’s “short-sighted”? Doing nothing in “hopes” that things will get better after the storm you helped initiate wrecks havoc? Or doing everything you possibly can right now to wring the best possible outcome from imperfect choices – choices that have never been nor will ever be perfect or easy?

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 11:50 AM

ted c on March 10, 2010 at 9:23 PM

AW1 Tim on March 10, 2010 at 9:32 PM

ted c says that he’ll vote for Romney because Mormons are trustworthy people and AW1 Tim says Mormons are untrustworthy people.

The truth is that there are wonderful people in every religion and there really crappy people in every religion.

As a Mormon myself, I’m asking people not to vote for a person because of their religion, regardless of what their faith is, and how people in that religion are.

Just vote for the candidate based on their positions, record, and character. Don’t vote for someone merely because they are Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, Catholic, Evangelical, Hindu, etc….

This is true whether you’re voting in 2010 for a Congressional candidate or a Presidential candidate in 2012.

The Founding Fathers would be absolutely be outraged that people are voting for someone based on religion.

(This is in keeping with Mormon doctrine, I believe, that church members have as many progeny as possible to become “latter day saints.”)

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 12:24 AM

Other Mormons have spoken up and have said this is not true. And they’re correct. As a Mormon myself, you become LDS when you get baptized.

Conservative Samizdat on March 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Meh. NY Times list to pump Romney? The real list is Amazon, which tracks actual individual purchases. Romney has yet to crack the top 20 on that list in the past week.

Romney spent over a $1MM per delegate he won in 2008, I wouldn’t be surprised if spents a huge sum on bulk buying his own books. The book event in Utah proves it.

Norwegian on March 11, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Romney is a progressive Republican.

END OF STORY.

PappyD61 on March 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM

I don’t care if he’s a Satanist, if he’s a PROGRESSIVE he should be nowhere near the levers of Power.

And Mittens is just a Northeastern Progressive Republican that would drive the U.S.A. over the cliff at 50 mph instead of Obama driving it over at 100 mph.

PappyD61 on March 11, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Not only that, but we don’t want a guy who suddenly decides he’s for or against abortion because of a personal experience, no matter how tragic.
You either acknowledge that abortion is murder or you don’t.
End of story.

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:15 AM

My my Jen, you must have led a very easy life to talk like that. I have had to face a number of life changing experiences that have forced me to examine my beliefs and how I look at others. If you cannot do that then you either lack the ability to examine your own faults or the compassion to see the pain in others. It is part of being a complete human.

Is war murder? Is it necessary sometimes? Is abortion acceptable to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape? Such questions are not always so simple to answer? If abortion is always murder why should we excuse it under any circumstances?

This is exactly what disgusts me about the “true conservatives” and also what scares the hell out of the general public. The doctrines that “true conservatives” hold dear are so unassailable that is an obsession past reason. Never give on anything and never accept anything.

BTW, let’s not mind the fact that if you put two “true conservatives” in the same room they will quickly find they disagree on something as well. It is nearly impossible to find two people that think exactly the same about everything. Yet we insist on some magical sense of purity that simply does not exist.

Maybe you feel that we only need to agree on the important things. OK, let’s see if we can even come to agreement about what the important things actually are.

What all of the purists out there cannot seem to get into their heads is that if you insist on such purity you end up in a party of one. That will give you exactly as much political leverage as you deserve. Our country is built on CONSENSUS not forcing people to our view. If you cannot win the debate with words and convince Americans you are right, then you have no right to press it with laws. But I suppose we are doomed to just repeat the Obamacare debacle since we are so damned intent on pressing our agenda into the face of people just as Obama has.

As long as people are thinking like this conservatism is doomed.

Hawthorne on March 11, 2010 at 2:29 PM

Please, not Romney in 2012! Romney would be the typical Republican loser candidate; next guy in line, career politician, looks presidential, good hair. Ugh!

More viable candidates:

Mitch Daniels
Thaddeus McCotter
Allen West

modifiedcontent on March 11, 2010 at 3:11 PM

PPP came out with a state primary poll in Florida today that showed Romney would win 52% to 18% over Palin, but what is striking is that 51% of conservatives would vote for Mitt while only 18% of conservatives would vote for Sarah.

I guess for Florida conservatives Romneycare and Mitt’s flip-flop on abortion, his embrace of TARP I, and Mitt embracing man-made climate change according to what he wrote in his book don’t matter.

Could anyone in Florida enlighten me why Mitt is so popular with conservatives in the Sunshine state?

technopeasant on March 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM

PPP came out with a state primary poll in Florida today that showed Romney would win 52% to 18% over Palin, but what is striking is that 51% of conservatives would vote for Mitt while only 18% of conservatives would vote for Sarah.

I guess for Florida conservatives Romneycare and Mitt’s flip-flop on abortion, his embrace of TARP I, and Mitt embracing man-made climate change according to what he wrote in his book don’t matter.

Could anyone in Florida enlighten me why Mitt is so popular with conservatives in the Sunshine state?

technopeasant on March 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM

They do not sound that reliable!

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is an American, Democratic Party-affiliated polling firm based in Raleigh, North Carolina.[1][2][3] PPP was founded in 2001 by businessman and Democratic pollster Dean Debnam, the firm’s current president and chief executive officer.[1][4] The company’s surveys use Interactive Voice Response (IVR), an automated questionnaire used by other polling firms such as SurveyUSA and Rasmussen Reports.[5] Following the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an analysis by The Wall Street Journal showed PPP’s swing-state polling was the second most accurate projection.[5]

The neutrality of PPP’s surveys has been questioned since the firm’s clients are exclusively Democratic-affiliated organizations, and because surveys on health care reform have included polarizing questions such as if respondents think President Barack Obama is the “Antichrist”.

sharrukin on March 11, 2010 at 3:42 PM

How can you not be #1 on anyone’s bestseller list and be #1?

Ben “BS” Smith of Politico, claiming “No Apology” by Mitt Romney is going to be #1 on the NY Times Best Seller list.

As of this morning Karl Rove’s new book is #1 of Amazon.com. Patriots’s History is #15, Andrew Napolitano is #25 and Mitt is #26.

Mitt is #4 at Borders (which is Michigan-based) and #215 at Barnes & Noble. The only thing that could be driving Mitt is huge bulk purchases by the Mormon Church or Mitt himself. At $10 each via a mass purchase, Mitt could buy 40,000 for $400k. What did he spend in 2008 – $40mm.

Ever notice how Allah always posts trash on Sarah Palin and only positive threads on his heartthrob – “Mr. FlipFlop”?

bw222 on March 11, 2010 at 5:52 PM

The LDS church doesn’t have to buy the book. Mitt’s PAC if bulk buying them.

Why didn’t Sarah Palin have a positive thread when her book debuted at #1 and stayed there for weeks?
Tell us again, how many people camped for Mitt’s book tour? Oh, yeah, his tour was on television shows only. He learned how many people he could draw during his listening tour.

lonestar1 on March 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

We’re screwed come ‘12 if conservatives continue to splinter into vindictive, self-righteous groups that would rather sit home and pout than vote for a candidate that does not match their exacting, personal standards.

Romney’s not perfect. No one is. But I would have picked him any day over the clown we have now and I am convinced that we’d be better off if he had been elected.

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

So you’ll be supporting whoever wins the nomination, even if its not Romney, right? Great, lets have some primaries and see who wins.

Nobody owes Romney a vote in the primaries, just b/c he would have been better than Maobama–because all GOP contenders can make that claim.

james23 on March 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

I am a big fan of the LDS church, but it saddens me to see that so many members would support a phony like Romney. This support-by-affiliation mentality is damaging their religion in my opinion. Would any LDS member in full honesty have support Romney if he had happened to be baptist, all else being equal? I think not.

Norwegian on March 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Mitts book # 1?……RINOTASTIC!!!!

OMG…OMG…OMG

GOP must, must, must nominate another RINO Progressive as it’s nominee I mean look at the success of President Dole, President McCain and that great Conservative legend Bush 41 that beat that Arkansas Hillybilly back in ’92!!!!

GO RINO…..GO RINO….GO RINO….Gggggggoooooo Mitt!!!

PappyD61 on March 11, 2010 at 9:17 PM

No one who ran in 2008 should run again ever!

Crux Australis on March 11, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Mitt’s a shoe-in as long as women are no longer able to vote in 2012. He creeps women out with his wooden manner, his RINO politics and his John Edwards hair. Don’t even get me started on the Colorado City and Yearning for Zion incest factories that play into the Mitt dynamic. I guess he appeals to men for some strange reason, but that’s not going to win a national election.

rootabaga on March 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM

Mitt’s a shoe-in as long as women are no longer able to vote in 2012. He creeps women out with his wooden manner, his RINO politics and his John Edwards hair. Don’t even get me started on the Colorado City and Yearning for Zion incest factories that play into the Mitt dynamic. I guess he appeals to men for some strange reason, but that’s not going to win a national election.

rootabaga on March 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM

***
Romney DOES NOT ‘creep women’ out…I think he’s nice looking. He’s refined looking and CONSERVATIVE looking and acting in his manner and speech – WHAT is wrong with THAT? There was an article written where even Joy B. (whatever her name is from “The View” thinks Romney is a ‘hunk’ – a LIBERAL female thinks that)!

brendy on March 11, 2010 at 10:50 PM

AP is obsessed with bad talking Mitt.

Try reading both his and Palin’s books, my friend. The difference is quite clear. Palin’s book reads like a tabloid compared to Romney’s intelligent piece.

Dr B on March 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM

Would any LDS member in full honesty have support Romney if he had happened to be baptist, all else being equal? I think not.

Norwegian on March 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Yes, I am LDS and Romney would have my support even if he was Baptist.

Heck, people have been supporting political candidates who were not of their faith since the founding of this country.

I’ve been consistently saying on Hot Air that people shouldn’t be voting for a candidate based on religious affiliation.

Mitt’s PAC if bulk buying them.

lonestar1 on March 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Didn’t Palin buy her own books in bulk!?

If Palin can do it, then there’s no controversy if Mitt does it too.

Conservative Samizdat on March 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM

We’re screwed come ‘12 if conservatives continue to splinter into vindictive, self-righteous groups that would rather sit home and pout than vote for a candidate that does not match their exacting, personal standards.

Rod on March 11, 2010 at 8:21 AM

Yeah, like all those Romney fans who just jumped to Palin’s defense while she was being slimed in the media. Seems to me most of them joined in the sliming.

ddrintn on March 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM

Norwegian on March 11, 2010 at 7:22 PM

Man I hate broad brush strokes. Are there people who vote based on personalities…yes. But I would say that most do not vote base on the person’s religion. I am LDS, and I have voted for all things being equal candidates who weren’t LDS.

Is Romney my first choice? No. Because to me he isn’t a conservative. He doesn’t strike me as someone who is particularly dishonest…but he doesn’t strike me as someone who is particularly honest either. But if it was between him or Obama, its an easy choice. Meanwhile in the primaries, I will wait to see who is running.

Conservative Voice on March 12, 2010 at 1:15 AM

rootabaga on March 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM

That’s even lamer than Norwegian’s implied assertion that Mormons are hypnotized by Romney because he’s LDS.

Can we wait until the primaries before we get into primary trash talking, I mean come on.

Conservative Voice on March 12, 2010 at 1:18 AM

Hm… Battlefield Earth was bought up in droves for the first weeks, then fell very flat..

Similarities??

V-rod on March 12, 2010 at 4:05 AM

Voodo math. Mitt’s book is #27 on Amazon.com this morning. It’s never been #1. In fact, it’s never been in ther top 10. Romney is behind Rove, Schweikart and even Jesse Ventura, who is nuttier than a loon.

Last time the media and RINOs like Allahpundit stuck us with McCain. Don’t let them force Romney on us in 2012.

bw222 on March 12, 2010 at 8:32 AM

Please, God. Not Romney. Haven’t republicans had enough of nominating losers or people who simply can’t win? Remember, this is the guy who couldn’t buy a primary victory anywhere but Michigan. There’s a guy named Mitch out in Indiana who is starting to sound like presidential material.

kens on March 12, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Dr B on March 11, 2010 at 11:36 PM

You obviously have not read it.

Why are you here on Hotair? This is supposed to be a conservative site.

Get lost!

Sapwolf on March 12, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Conservative Voice on March 11, 2010 at 1:56 AM

Yes it does, but I agree it is too early and the focus should be on conservatives in GOP primaries and then beat the Dems senseless in the general for 2010.

Sapwolf on March 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Actually, there were a number of posts here as her book sold millions. A few were generally positive, several had snark. In fairness, it was on the site.

But yeah, I’m curious how Mitt’s book (currently #30 on Amazon.com) gets the #1 NYT spot. May be accurate, I don’t know the details of the ratings, but it does appear… curious.

cs89 on March 12, 2010 at 11:06 AM

To clarify, my 11:06 comment was a response to

lonestar1 on March 11, 2010 at 6:34 PM

cs89 on March 12, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Conservative Samizdat on March 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM

Sorry, but I call BS on that statement. If Romney had been a Southern Baptist, I highly doubt you would’ve voted for him.

Hypotetical question; if Romney runs in 2012, do you think he would win the Utah Primary even if far more conservative candidates ran? I would like to believe no, but I am sadly expecting that he would actually win, primarily because of his religion.

This goes both ways, I am equally disgusted by the fact that Huckabee would probably carry some primarily Southern Baptist states. Neither man is conservative by any sense of the word.

Sorry, my LDS friends, but Romney is no Ezra Taft Benson.

Norwegian on March 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Allahpundit rarely fails to link to Frum, in the headlines. Gee, I wonder why he skipped this one?
Romneycare sure looks like Obamacare

james23 on March 12, 2010 at 12:36 PM

Sorry, my LDS friends, but Romney is no Ezra Taft Benson.

Norwegian on March 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Very true, and wish it he was…as Benson understood the evil of communism and socialism.

Conservative Voice on March 12, 2010 at 1:27 PM

NY Times reports bulk purchases of Romney’s book. They’ve put an asterisk next to it. This shoots down any legitimate claim to number one. Bookstores reported no bulk buys for Palin’s book.

rrpjr on March 12, 2010 at 9:19 PM

Sorry, but I call BS on that statement. If Romney had been a Southern Baptist, I highly doubt you would’ve voted for him.
Norwegian on March 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

I don’t understand your point. I’ve been supporting Presidential candidates that are NOT of my faith for a long time now.

In fact, a lot of people support Presidential candidates that are not of their faith since this country began!!! Religious minorities in both parties have no choice but to support someone who is not of their faith all the time.

Again, what is your point here?

Hypotetical question; if Romney runs in 2012, do you think he would win the Utah Primary even if far more conservative candidates ran? I would like to believe no, but I am sadly expecting that he would actually win, primarily because of his religion.

This goes both ways, I am equally disgusted by the fact that Huckabee would probably carry some primarily Southern Baptist states. Neither man is conservative by any sense of the word.

I agree with you that its its problematic when not only individuals, but states, vote for a Presidential candidate merely because of their religious affiliation.

I wish and hope that will change in the future.

Sorry, my LDS friends, but Romney is no Ezra Taft Benson.

Norwegian on March 12, 2010 at 11:18 AM

Romney isn’t trying to be an Ezra Taft Benson or a Reagan or anyone else. Romney is being himself.

Conservative Samizdat on March 12, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Hmmm.

NY Times: Bookstores Reported Receiving Bulk Orders for Mitt Romney’s New Book (Update: Political Wire Also Reports This Story)

http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/03/ny-times-bookstores-reported-receiving.html


Bulk orders boosted Romney’s book a top the NYT bestseller list… Palin’s received no such boost…
http://pwire.at/97Ul0K

gary4205 on March 12, 2010 at 9:49 PM

For Buy Danish, Basils and anyone else who doesn’t believe Romney was pro-choice:
Romney attended Fundraiser for Planned Parenthood

Jenfidel on March 11, 2010 at 1:52 AM

What more do you people at HA want to prove Mitt is toast?

Planned Parenthood,
Romneycare,
Big government MA?

This girlfriend is NOT coming back to you morons.

Sapwolf on March 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3