Romney: Let’s face it, I’m probably the only guy with a chance to beat Obama

posted at 8:45 pm on November 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

He’s now making this argument openly at high-profile campaign events, which is probably the best sign yet that Gingrich has him rattled.

But why shouldn’t he make it? When push comes to shove, it’s overwhelmingly the best reason to nominate him.

Romney usually leaves it to his campaign aides and surrogates to make the electability argument, but on Wednesday he made his case in his most direct way yet. Romney, who is nothing if not a lover of data, cited recent public polls to press his case.

“The only Republican who is currently showing a tie or occasionally a victory relative to the president is me,” Romney said during a town hall-style conference call with a few thousand Iowa Republicans on Wednesday.

“I’ve been able to attract a larger degree of support from independent voters than have my other Republican colleagues,” Romney said, adding: “This may sound a little overconfident, but I honestly believe I’m the only guy on the stage who has a real good chance of defeating President Obama.”

He’s probably right. According to PPP’s new poll of Pennsylvania, he’s dead even with Obama there at 45/45 while Gingrich trails 49/43 — and that’s before months and months of Newt’s dirty laundry being re-aired in the general. (Perry trails Obama 51/38 thanks to a favorable rating of, no joke, 17/66. For comparison purposes, Palin’s most recent numbers in Pennsylvania were 36/57.) Riddle me this, though: If, hypothetically, we were forced to choose between two centrists on pure electability grounds, why should we prefer Romney to Huntsman? Yeah, I know, Huntsman worked for Obama, but (a) he was working for the country at large, (b) there seems to be no major conservative objections to the China policy he carried out, and (c) his bipartisan record and foreign-policy credentials are two of the things that make him potentially appealing to independents. Besides, as one Twitter buddy put it, Huntsman may have worked for O but Romney actually gave him his ideas on health care. Beyond that, Huntsman’s shown more flair on the issues than Romney has, having endorsed Paul Ryan’s budget, rolled out his own widely praised economic plan, and just today unveiled a financial-reform program targeting big banks that would (hopefully) ensure we’ll never again have to bail anyone out. (Follow the link for a thumbs up from James Pethokoukis.) And he’s knowledgeable enough and sufficiently polished as a speaker that we wouldn’t have to worry about Cain-ish meltdowns or Perry-esque brain locks during the general election campaign. When Nate Silver cooked up an electability model based on the various candidates’ credentials, he gave Huntsman a 55 percent chance of beating Obama even in a scenario where the economy’s growing by four percent. Romney rated just 40 percent.

So I repeat, why Romney instead of Huntsman? Is it simply that he’s a better fundraiser? Or is it a style thing? Romney’s pandering at least shows he’s eager to please; Huntsman, by contrast, seems to ooze smarm, not only disagreeing with the base on hot-button cultural issues but patting himself on the back for it. (His buddy John Weaver hasn’t helped either.) His love affair with the media has been poisonous too: Being the left’s favorite Republican is enough to render him suspicious, but reveling in it with gauzy Vogue features is insane to the point of being politically suicidal. Either he’s one of the worst retail politicians of the age or he’s run one of the worst campaigns by an otherwise amply qualified candidate in recent history, because on the merits I think he’s probably preferable to our frontrunner and yet he’s been polling an asterisk for months. According to Gallup’s latest test of positive intensity yesterday, he’s the only candidate in the field with a negative score. With a record like his, you almost have to try in order to achieve that. And yet, even the stylistic explanation seems wanting here. Does anyone seriously believe Romney feels differently about grassroots conservatives than Huntsman does? If you’re going to elect a guy who doesn’t think much of you in the name of beating Obama and enacting a conservative agenda, why one instead of the other?

Ah well, it is what it is. We’re down to Newt or Mitt, I guess. The latest polls: According to ARG, Gingrich leads Romney 32/15 in Iowa among likely voters. Meanwhile, per WMUR, Romney leads Gingrich 42/15 in New Hampshire. One of those numbers affects the other, though, since Iowa will generate a huge bounce for whoever wins. Exit quotation: “Newt Gingrich will win the Iowa caucuses.”

Update: A commenter catches me in a mistake on the ARG poll. Newt leads 32/15 among Republicans who say they’ll definitely vote; among those who say they’ll probably vote, Romney leads 32/12. (Newt leads overall, 27/20.) Fully 74 percent of those who are likely to vote are in the “definitely” camp, so that bodes well for Gingrich or whoever emerges to be the Not Romney by the time January 3rd arrives. Sorry for the error.

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

Again…Show me in Romney’s record here what is liberal, all of you who CLAIM to know so much about Romney!

Romney’s record:
Cut taxes in MA – Check

Closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did – Check

Voted pro-life bills as GOV – Check

Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA – Check
See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”

Against illegal immigration – Check

Signed bill against Illegal Immigration Recv tuition breaks – Check

Build the complete fence along the border – Check

For Defense of Marriage Act – Check

For Cut, Cap, and Balance – Check

Pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open – Check

Drilling in ANWR – Check

Investing in new technologies for oil – Check

Develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal – Check

Conservative Reagan could vote for Romney…Reagan: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

Many of you need to check Reagan’s Governing and POTUS record to Romney’s!

You all spout off and have nothing to back it up with while he was in office he Governed with as a conservative. Did you know that Reagan vetoed his Tip O’Neill Congress 78 times in 8 years.
Romney vetoed his Massachusetts legislature over 800 times in 4 years. Virtually all were overridden–including the entirety of his 8 “Romneycare” vetoes because he governed as a Conservative!

g2825m on November 25, 2011 at 8:00 AM

When was the last ‘electable’ establishment Republican elected as President?

Bush(43) wasn’t the ‘electable’ one in 2000, John McCain was.

Reagan, although having great popular support amongst conservatives and coming within 14-15 votes at the Convention in ’76 wasn’t the ‘electable’ Repbulican, George HW Bush was.

This digs us back to… Nixon. Richard M. Nixon after spending the early part of the ’60s in the political wilderness after his loss in ’60 was the ‘electable’ candidate by the Republicans who actually was elected.

If you want to win as a Republican Presidential candidate then you don’t want to be seen as ‘electable’ until after the first few primaries and do want to be seen as generally upsetting the preferential apple-cart of the establishment (Reagan, Bush(43)).

Unless you happen to be running when a sitting President resigns and the Democrats are in a mad scramble to try and get anyone at the top of their ticket… or they have a guy who acts like Carter at the top of the ticket.

So the D’s have at least a Carter-level figure. Generally good for R’s.

The R establishment is pushing ‘electability’ but don’t have a Nixon-level figure (Ex-VP under a popular President) to show as a ‘continuity’ figure.

If you’re Romeny you gotta be loving the first part of the D’s having a Carter.

But now you have to ask: with the track record of ‘electability’ and what it actually takes to cash in on that, and that those upsetting the applecart tend to get approval in the general, do you really want to be seen as ‘electable’ going into the Primaries?

Because if someone comes along to upset the applecart, get any approval in a couple of the first Primaries… they get a decent track record to win thereafter. This is very, very bad if you are Romney unless you expect Obama to resign between now and 03 JAN 2012. If that happens you can play the ‘soothing continuity’ card with a vengeance.

Why Romney wanted the mantle of ‘electable’ is beyond me. A shoestring campaign in the primaries that would only be done by donations and not go into debt, and not put any personal money into, plus being Mr. Scrappy would have served him well. Laying back and playing prevent-defense is a loser not just in football but in life. You don’t sit on a lead. You blow it wide open and get rid of the competition if you really do think you are that good.

I’d lay odds on Obama not making it to the end of the year and withdrawing at around 2-5% Seeing on how the D party elite are seeing him as a boat anchor right now… that has actually moved up from my mid-summer estimation of 1-2% chance, but probably won’t go up unless something major happens in the next couple of weeks.

Romney is in a bind. If he gets scrappy NOW he is admitting there is a problem with the ‘electable’ shield because the time for that was back a couple of months ago. Romney cannot claim the ‘Underdog’ card or the ‘Scrappy’ card after playing the ‘Electable’ card for so long (and damn a card game of Republican Primary Insanity would be a great one to have around!). Playing that card continually enhances ‘Underdog’ and ‘Scrappy’ and ‘Outsider’ cards… a pair of ‘Electables’ doesn’t beat a any three of ‘Underdog’/’Scrappy’/’Outsider’/’Applecart Upsetter’ of which you may hold one type of differing values in two quantities, but must have at least two of the others out of your five cards. Anyone can get the ‘Economics’ card or the ‘Law and Order’ card, with some ‘Pro Life’ and ‘Gun Rights’ cards thrown in, but those only help the ‘Base’ card when combined with the major cards necessary to win. The ‘Foreign Policy’ card is only if you are going for the flush by having a good ‘Base’ and at least two of the four major cards, plus some self-dealt minor cards which you won’t know the value of until you reveal them.

The best part is we get to determine the value of each card!

Right now Romney’s supporting cards are in the “meh” range in supporting ‘Electability’, which isn’t good and the minor ‘Base’ card he has isn’t increasing the value of the revealed cards. He needs a Wild Card of some sort and it has only a few weeks of life left before any Wild Card becomes null.

ajacksonian on November 25, 2011 at 8:02 AM

I skimmed through about 30 comments and didn’t see anyone actually addressing the question God’s Critic asked more than once:

“So I repeat, why Romney instead of Huntsman?”

Because Romney is a politician and businessman whereas Huntsmann is a diplomat. In the political arena, diplomats are known as ‘squishy’.

The general consensus over at Maggie’s at this point is:

- Huntsman and Santorum need to get out of the race NOW

- Bachmann needs to stay in to forestall the lefty “Republicans are a bunch of male chauvinists!” articles

- Paul needs to stay in well past the time when he could effectively mount a 3rd-party campaign

Me, I’ve been calling Gingrich “Mr. Big Picture” from the first debate, but, as God’s Critic noted, the guy’s got friggin’ trainloads of baggage that’s going to be hauled out during the general election. As such, I never thought he really had a chance, but it’s been great seeing him do his ‘Big Picture’ routine on stage and occasionally tongue-lashing the moderators for their loaded questions.

We also think Perry’s not quite ready for the national stage, Cain needs some for-real political experience first, which leaves us with Romney, who’s earned my prestigious ‘Most Presidential’ award at every debate except two. (He shared it once with Huntsman who, admittedly, does comport himself rather well.)

If there’s one big difference between Maggie’s and Hot Air/PJ Media, it’s that we’re hardly focusing on “the issues” at all. To us, it’s all about (1) electability and (2) actually getting something done once they’re in office. In regards to the first, that means Romney or Perry, and in regards to the second, that means Romney, Perry or Gingrich. Even the Dems in the Texas Legislature admit Perry has a real knack for reaching across the aisle, and Romney, by very definition of being a Republican governor in the heartland of Kennedys and Kerrys, has shown he has the knack. Gingrich created a lot of enemies while Speaker, but he got things done.

That’s the one thing the Ron Paul fans just don’t get. Put Paul in the White House and he’d stand on those horrible “principle” things and we’d end up with another four years of stagnation.

Romney/Walker 2012? Some like Christie or Ryan for the V.P. slot, but I think Scott’s the guy.

Dr. Mercury on November 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM

ajacksonian on November 25, 2011 at 8:02 AM

It looks to me as though you are clearly over thinking things and trying to draw comparisons that just don’t hold any water. The year is 2011 and the environment both politically and economically are unlike those years past which were also unique in their own ways. You are drawing straight line extrapolations of trends when the dynamics that create such trends are obsolete.

We have a POTUS who inherited a bad economy and who has turned that down turn in to a grinding catastrophe spanning the entire duration of his administration. A POTUS who was swept in to power on the basis of euphoric expectations with no basis in reality from either past performance (there was none) or the ideas espoused. He won because Bush dragged the GOP name through the mud primarily due to the unpopular wars he waged and the banking collapse that rightly or not, he got tarred with. It was just that simple.

But now our POTUS has a track record and people can no longer deny that he is responsible for dragging our problems out rather than solving any of them. Many if not most have come to realize that he has in fact made our problems much worse by not only continued delaying tactics to address them but by the terrible consequences of the actions he has taken.

That is the backdrop of next year’s election. If the GOP nominates a candidate who is acceptable to most of America then it will win. Just as in 2008 when all the Donks needed was a candidate who they could at least pretend was acceptable based on lack of sufficient adverse information about him. That is what is meant by electability.

The way the GOP blows its chance is to nominate a candidate who’s qualifications voters can be skeptical about. The election then will no longer be a judgment on the PBHO administration. It will instead become a contest about whether the GOP alternative is even worse than the current loser. Romney is the only candidate on the GOP side who is free of scandal, has demonstrated experience both in and out of government and demonstrated that he can appeal to voters even in the bluest of states. He is not proposing the kinds of radical, simplistic and unrealistic schemes that can lead people to suppose that he is the fire to PBHO’s frying pan.

Any alternatives to Mitt have either chosen not to run or discredited themselves. Mitt is the only electable option. It’s not his fault that this is so, nor is it the fault of The Establishment or any of the other bete noirs that people have invented. He is the only option because his candidacy will keep the election about PBHO and not about whether he is too scary to put in power. Romney is in no trouble at all. In the end most primary voters (not the zealous ideologues who make far much more noise than their numbers) know in their hearts that he is the only game in town and that is why he will win.

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Romney does seem to be the candidate of choice among people who only want the guy most likely to win with “independents” but don’t seem to care much about what would happen after the inauguration.

The American people deserve better than a choice between a Romney C- or an Obama F ——

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Absolutely. Gingrich has baggage, but I think he’s much more likely to say “no” to the Democrats in Congress than Romney.

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM

ajacksonian on November 25, 2011 at 8:02 AM

Well written, however, I do not agree with your premise and your content, my friend!

Romney is/has been leading in most polls because people DO LIKE HIM…I mean people are being asked in telephone or email polls and that is why he leads in many categories. As much as MANY HA posters like to say he is not liked by using some false 75% number is just not true.

As I have pointed out time and again is Romney’s numbers are at 25% because there are 9 other candidates in the race…the exact reason why Gingrich ONLY polls at 23-25% or Cain at 13-15% etc etc NOT because they are not liked but because there are TOO many candidates splitting the votes.

Romney is more popular than some on here give him credit and the Indies will vote for him after seeing what Obama has done the last 3 1/2 years. The Indies will be leery of Gingrich as even this http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/195427-lawmakers-not-flocking-to-gingrich link points out that will be a challenge of Gingrich’s to overcome. Too many bad memories with him in the leadership position.

g2825m on November 25, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Who says Romney has no scandals? Do you know that for fact. We know what we are dealing with with Newt…with Romney there is a great deal we dont know especially about what the did as as an investor/manager with Bain…

And I keep hearing about this myth of the independents…true independents are less than 3% of the voters and just because they are independents that does not mean their vote will be swayed by some pretense about the Repub candidate. What exactly does Romney offer in policy for an independent that Newt does not?

And the real fact is that if those independents are truly undecided that is because they voted for Obama and now don’t like him…

Please, I beg you, tell me one thing that is likable for a middle class voter about spoiled rich kid Romney who has not the slightest idea how to relate to average Americans…

No, Romney is a loser is much less likely to be able to beat Obama that is someone who is obviously much smarter and frankly much more approachable than plutocrat, crony capitalist Romney

Romney is the Repub Crony Capitalist candidate

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 9:42 AM

If your going to blame Romney for O-Care; don’t forget to blame CATO for R-Care.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 25, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Romney is also the most likely to fall prey to the Obama attacks portraying the GOP as the “Wall Street evil Republican types” and the “Republicans are racists”. OWS does resonate with people to a certain extent, and I think Obama means to capitalize on that sentiment most because he is assuming Romney will be his opponent. The race card goes without saying with Obama and the Dem crowd and the country will get an education like they never had before about Mormons and race if Romney gets the nod, fairly or not.

txmomof6 on November 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM

I have major problems with All of our choices. I dont trust Newt or Romney and sorry but Huntsman just needs to get a clue.

ldbgcoleman on November 25, 2011 at 9:56 AM

If your going to blame Romney for O-Care; don’t forget to blame CATO for R-Care.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 25, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Uhhhhhh, it was the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation that Romney asked for advice not CATO…also Gingrich blessed off on this as well in 2006/7.

Romney is also the most likely to fall prey to the Obama attacks portraying the GOP as the “Wall Street evil Republican types” and the “Republicans are racists”. OWS does resonate with people to a certain extent, and I think Obama means to capitalize on that sentiment most because he is assuming Romney will be his opponent. The race card goes without saying with Obama and the Dem crowd and the country will get an education like they never had before about Mormons and race if Romney gets the nod, fairly or not.

txmomof6 on November 25, 2011 at 9:52 AM

Many of you underestimate Romney have been blinded by what you read from other second and third party accounts. Romney is a brilliant man and is known for his sharp mind backed by two harvard degrees graduating in the top 5% of his class. His business experience is sought out the country over…What I watched with what he did during the SLOC Olympic scandal was amazing as I lived in Utah during that time. Only Olympics to be profitable by the way…

And for you who think that he just lays over when attacked do not understand what it takes to run a world-wide company and also manage assets in the billions. He also managed and dealt with every foreign leader (100+) involved in the Olympics. Many of you need to do a better in-depth reading of Romney.

On the religion front, been down this road already and most of the people will get turned off by Obama if he plays this card as he does with the race card.

Bottom line in this election people need jobs and get America working again and people will see Romney as the BEST candidate to accomplish this task.

g2825m on November 25, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Romney/Walker 2012? Some like Christie or Ryan for the V.P. slot, but I think Scott’s the guy.

Dr. Mercury on November 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM

The VP slot is all about balancing the ticket, and nothing much else. Historically this has meant regionally, but now it means race and gender. I mind this particular form of racism/sexism far less than I do government mandated affirmative action. It’s what the political market demands these days. Conservatives respect the market. I am really impressed by Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina. I think his sunny disposition would do really well for Romney. Tim also provides balance to Romney in that he is a Tea Party favorite, a strong social conservative, and is from South Carolina.

thuja on November 25, 2011 at 10:40 AM

@g2825m: I won’t boycott Romney if he’s nominated, but anyone as brilliant as you claim wouldn’t hide his light under a bushel by declining to opine (or adjusting his opinion) until it was safe or moot. In fact some might consider that equivalent to voting present.

Seth Halpern on November 25, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Romney is a brilliant man and is known for his sharp mind backed by two harvard degrees graduating in the top 5% of his class

g2825m on November 25, 2011 at 10:02 AM

===============================

Well, let’s see, W has a Harvard Degree, Obama has a Harvard Degree, Clinton had Yale Degree, Bush 41 had a Yale Degree..

Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College in IL.

@g2825…Anyone who was on the fence about Romney, if they are smart, will definitely make the decision NOT to support him…

Exactly what we do not need in the White House is another Harvard or Yale man……are you kidding….Gheesh… Go Home Mitt!!!

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I’ll vote for him. Won’t like it, nosir, but what’s the alternative? And make it a Romney-Petraeus ticket and the enemies of liberty and prosperity…er, excuse me, the Democrats don’t stand a chance.

curved space on November 25, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Who says Romney has no scandals? Do you know that for fact. We know what we are dealing with with Newt…with Romney there is a great deal we dont know especially about what the did as as an investor/manager with Bain…

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Well, here’s what’s going to be the skinny on Mitt from the press on that subject:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/as_bain_slashed_jobs_romney_stayed_to_side/

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080125102908AAPqTQj

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/us/politics/after-mitt-romney-deal-company-showed-profits-and-then-layoffs.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Romney does seem to be the candidate of choice among people who only want the guy most likely to win with “independents” but don’t seem to care much about what would happen after the inauguration.

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 9:11 AM

Nice try, but once again, completely bogus. Romney is unique in having the virtue of being able to win among those in contention. That much is certainly true. But it is far from his only virtue. He is a shrewd student of real world economics, as demonstrated by repeatedly turning around flailing enterprises both large and small. I am convinced that he will make an outstanding POTUS.

He’s not your ideal candidate, we get that. But elections are not about dreaming, they are about doing what is possible to put a politician in office who is better than what we have. Supporting a candidate who is sure to lose is the same thing as supporting PBHO.

The ability to win is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for governing. I don’t care how much one agrees with the lunatic ravings of Ron Paul or the naive sound bytes of Herman Cain, not being able to win is a disqualifier.

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Well, let’s see, W has a Harvard Degree, Obama has a Harvard Degree, Clinton had Yale Degree,

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 10:55 AM

You are addicted to making the most moronic statements I have ever read.

Harvard grads…..

John Adams

John Quincy Adams

Rutherford B. Hayes

Justice John Roberts

You make everyone here dumber when we read your asinine comments.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Those are not scandals in any sense of the word. They are practical business decisions. And the answer to such bogus tripe is to point out that a company that lays off 10% of its work force to survive lives to keep the other 90% employed and then it grows to be able to bring those 10% and more back and on a sustainable basis!

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Romney impresses me as another guy who will kick the can down the road just far enough to get elected. Since both parties have been doing this for decades now, there will probably a crisis during the next election cycle that Democrats will blame on Republicans to get back into the White House. This will just start another cycle of can kicking. If Romney were the guy to break this cycle, we would have seen some evidence of that by now.

littleguy on November 25, 2011 at 11:54 AM

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Those are not scandals in any sense of the word. They are practical business decisions. And the answer to such bogus tripe is to point out that a company that lays off 10% of its work force to survive lives to keep the other 90% employed and then it grows to be able to bring those 10% and more back and on a sustainable basis!

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 11:47 AM

For a -businessman,- they aren’t (except possibly Damon Corp). For a politician in the midst of a horrible jobless economic downturn, they are devastating reasons not to vote for him. Mitt can’t have his cake and eat it, too, the Chicago Machine and LSM won’t let him. Those articles are markers for if and when Mittens gets the nomination locked up, then the poop storm hits. Even Little Willard admitted that his handling of AMPAD hurt his 1994 MA Senate campaign. (aside from grovelling before the Swimmer in debate)

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:56 AM

You are misguided.

The voters understand, because of Solyndra, and other Obama bail outs, that it is dumb to be bailing out failing companies and we are tired of it. Romney appeals to rational folks because he allowed hopelessly failing companies to fail and invested in companies that have the opportunity to succeed.

You are misreading the atmosphere of the country. Romney is the perfect candidate to get us off the slope to the cliff Obama has us on.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 12:04 PM

Yes, I’m sure Obama and the media won’t destroy Romney in the general election.

Supporting a candidate who is sure to lose is the same thing as supporting PBHO.

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Gosh, was it really just a couple of months ago that Palin supporters on this board were being dismissed as cultists whose fanaticism exceeded that of Nazi Germany? Seems the Romney cult doesn’t like competition.

Your crude attempt at morally blackmailing people into supporting YOUR ideal candidate is laughable. I’ll support who I please, and it won’t be the creepy flip-flopper.

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I don’t recall the NAZI part, but yes, Palin supporters were correctly dismissed as kooks and cultists. Nonetheless I said then that if she were the nominee I would put on my thick-rimmed glasses with the fake bushy eyebrows, bulbous nose and strap on a fake beard and futilely cast my vote for her.

What you call “a crude attempt at moral blackmail” is the plain truth. Reality sucks when you’ve been away from it for so long and can’t adjust to its ways. The difference between a cultist and a rational supporter is that we who back Romney fully understand what is possible and appreciate that our candidate also has that trait. We’re not expecting miracles and we are not backing a self-professed miracle worker.

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 12:46 PM

You make everyone here dumber when we read your asinine comments.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

================================================

Glad you are reader of mine. Good Choice. But making conclusions based on emotion vs intellect, while it may be the best someone like you can do, is not a good choice. So of you think what the American people need is another product of left wing un-American propaganda from another institute of the elite eastern establishment, my guess is that you and your friends should wander over to Think Progress with the rest of the morons.

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

The republican most likely to re-elect Obama

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=371177

Igor R. on November 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Supporting a candidate who is sure to lose is the same thing as supporting PBHO.

So why are you supporting Romney? He and Huntsman are the surest losers the GOP could put out there.

You can trash Palin and her supporters all you want, but at least if she had run her candidacy would have had the possibility of some fluidity about it. Romney has reached his ceiling and has nowhere to go but down. And down he will go. Bet ya.

The ability to win is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for governing.

MJBrutus on November 25, 2011 at 11:44 AM

And who’s judging “the ability to win”? Does it depend on being sufficiently squishy? If so, it’s the same lame, losing mindset that dates at least to 1976.

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I’m probably the only guy with a chance to beat Obama. Promise them anything. Just get their votes.

Romney’s camp supports the corrupt insider status quo.

Voters so well off as to consider themselves to be part of the elitist clique are fewer than what’s required to claim “electability” given the duration already of the BAD ECONOMY.

In ’08, before Mitt “Promise them anything just get their votes” LOST (hardly an “Electable” record), Romney told American manufacturing labor that those jobs were gone and never coming back. Now he’s pretending otherwise, catering for support. This isn’t the damned Olympics one time event. Romney hasn’t a long term conviction beyond more Keynesian exercises.

There is no way that a constitutional conservative or a fiscal conservative would play the apologist for Obamalite Romney, let alone vote for him. Sure, he might get the neoconservatives since his backbone’s plastic and is a sure push-over to keeping up appearances despite the destructive costs. Evidently since Bush, social conservatism adopted military interventionism on behalf of anything other than the American domestic front at home. Hm. So much for cutting spending or balancing any budget, let alone shrinking the size of federal authoritarianism. Economically, Romney plays by the corrupt Paulson and Geithner rules, begging to be in on the take of the piracy of the Dollar’s value via taxpayer funded globalist bail-outs of unfathomable fraud.

Romney is betting on pocketing the gullible vote. There’s yet a year to go, a very long year for voters to go figure.

maverick muse on November 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I don’t recall the NAZI part, but yes, Palin supporters were correctly dismissed as kooks and cultists. Nonetheless I said then that if she were the nominee I would put on my thick-rimmed glasses with the fake bushy eyebrows, bulbous nose and strap on a fake beard and futilely cast my vote for her.

Oh really? You mean you were never one of the TWO-FIFTHS of all conservatives whom Rasmussen told us would at least consider voting for Obama — not just staying home or refraining from voting for a President — if Palin were the nominee?

If “conservatives” are so implacable about Palin that they would willingly march to the voting booth and help re-elect the worst president in U.S. history just to keep her away from the Oval Office, don’t be surprised if there are those of us who feel the same way about Romney.

We’re not expecting miracles

A miracle would involve Obama and the media going easy enough on Mitt in the general election to allow him half a chance to win. They’ve gone after everybody else — every other potential candidate has had his or her “scandals” or “dirty laundry” or “weirdness” or “gaffes” aired on television except Mitt. Somehow I don’t expect that trend to continue after the primary.

and we are not backing a self-professed miracle worker.

Translation: Even if Romney becomes President, don’t expect results from him because it’s unrealistic to expect him to even try to reverse course. Great: “Obama’s driving us into the abyss at warp speed! Vote for Romney — he’ll slow down to sublight speed! Really!” I’m sick of that game.

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Again…Show me in Romney’s record here what is liberal, all of you who CLAIM to know so much about Romney!

Romney’s record:
Cut taxes in MA – Check

Closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did – Check

Voted pro-life bills as GOV – Check

Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA – Check
See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”

Against illegal immigration – Check

Signed bill against Illegal Immigration Recv tuition breaks – Check

Build the complete fence along the border – Check

For Defense of Marriage Act – Check

For Cut, Cap, and Balance – Check

Pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open – Check

Drilling in ANWR – Check

Investing in new technologies for oil – Check

Develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal – Check

Conservative Reagan could vote for Romney…Reagan: “I’m not retreating an inch from where I was. But I also recognize this: There are some people who would have you so stand on principle that if you don’t get all that you’ve asked for from the legislature, why, you jump off the cliff with the flag flying. I have always figured that a half a loaf is better than none, and I know that in the democratic process you’re not going to always get everything you want. So, I think what they’ve misread is times in which I have compromised.”

Many of you need to check Reagan’s Governing and POTUS record to Romney’s!

You all spout off and have nothing to back it up with while he was in office he Governed with as a conservative. Did you know that Reagan vetoed his Tip O’Neill Congress 78 times in 8 years.
Romney vetoed his Massachusetts legislature over 800 times in 4 years. Virtually all were overridden–including the entirety of his 8 “Romneycare” vetoes because he governed as a Conservative!

g2825m on November 25, 2011 at 8:00 AM

Well said. I’m favoring Romney after Gingrich let fly his plans for amnesty for ~some~ illegal aliens (it is very likely that he’s also got ~other~ plans he hasn’t yet made public that are as unsupportable — I said, “likely” because I’m now concluding that Gingrich is running a stealth operation based upon a “nice” facade that covers something else; concerned about this…). Thus, now re-considering Romney, Bachmann and Santorum (though the latter two aren’t likely to win a national competition against Obama, I do think that Romney can).

I’m also concerned at the ready-insults Gingrich supporters are flinging about when he’s questioned or his latest statement about illegal aliens, particularly, is closely examined. It suggests the same sort of forceful — and not in a good way — attacks that the Palin people launched upon anyone who questioned her and her positions (which, I remind everyone yet again, she claims are the same as McCain’s, or “were” but what are they now…).

I haven’t been maligned and attacked by any Romney supporters, to my knowledge, when I’ve withheld support from Romney as nominee or questioned his positions on anything. But I have when ASKING (so much as asking) for more information as to positions held by Palin, Gingrich.

Even with the annoyance by the Paul onslaught, they’ve never maligned me on any personal level when I’ve criticized him (not to my knowledge, anyway).

I’m now favoring Romney, like Bachmann and Santorum, have lost enthusiasm for Cain, Perry and never had it for Huntsman and Paul.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:13 PM

Romney probably is the only guy that can beat Obama.

But all those true conservatives out there will be hoping that Newt Gingrich will get the nomination because he is one of them..gag. And then Obama will win and they can get back to complaining and whining and crying.

Gingrich is a pompous ass and a crook and a fraud..but what the hell, he is not Romney..It is like the latest dust up over immigration when Rush actually felt the need to edit some video in an attempt to run interference for the former Speaker. But even Rush’s lies can not change the fact that Romney did not support that comprehensive immigration bill as it was written and Newt did.

In fact for people who actually care about the truth. You can hear Romney’s whole statement at Right Speak.

Romney is the most qualified candidate out there. Trashing him won’t change that.

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

Yeah, I agree (now) with you there.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Gingrich is a pompous ass and a crook and a fraud..but what the hell, he is not Romney..It is like the latest dust up over immigration when Rush actually felt the need to edit some video in an attempt to run interference for the former Speaker. But even Rush’s lies can not change the fact that Romney did not support that comprehensive immigration bill as it was written and Newt did…

Terrye on November 23, 2011 at 8:56 PM

That ^^.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:17 PM

“I’M SPEAKING! I’M SPEAKING! I’M SPEAKING! I’M SPEAKING! I’M SPEAKING!”

— Mitt Romney

fossten on November 23, 2011 at 9:01 PM

At least he isn’t gossiping on the internet about others by making up ugly allegations about them. Like you do.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Mitt has been talking about electability for a while…

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2011 at 9:14 PM

My assumption about why he is doing that is because he’s trying to impress upon voters the importance of WINNING THE ELECTION.

No one gets anything if Obama wins another term, not anyone, at least, with any sense and good intentions as recognized by the average person in the Moderate, Middle, Somewhat Right and Right.

You can’t make anything happen differently than now if you can’t and don’t win the election. Romney appears to be patiently reminding voters about that: “electability” means, winning the election, not entering and making a big show but losing the election.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 4:24 PM

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney-part-ii/

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

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

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

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM

georgealbert on November 25, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Normally I don’t pay attention to individual names on comments. In the case of the comment you left, it was so entire devoid of logic that just reading it caused an impulse to wretch. That was the tip off that I had seen this author in the recent past. Sure enough, I looked down and there was your name. And, just as the last comment I read of yours, your rebuttal was a nonsensical ad hominem rambling that had no defense for your initial illogical comment.

So, the assessment of you stands. Your absolute asinine premise that those who graduate from Ivy League schools are of little value is the most mind numbingly idiotic statement I have read on Hot Air since the last time you opined in written form.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 5:10 PM

It’s pathetic enough that Romney’s supporters are making this massively refutable assertion rather than building a compelling case for the man, but for the candidate himself to do so is pathetic and unctuous beyond measure. What type of person says such things about himself at this point in a race? Only one insecure enough to doubt the premise and therefore attempting a too-coy-by-half preemptive strategy.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 5:12 PM

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

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

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Quoting Red State is not the best or most credible source to condemn Romney.

Red State has a poor batting average as to candidate support. They’re entitled like any site to rally behind favored candidates, but they aren’t necessarily gospel when they do so by trying to condemn others.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:15 PM

It’s pathetic enough that Romney’s supporters are making this massively refutable assertion rather than building a compelling case for the man, but for the candidate himself to do so is pathetic and unctuous beyond measure. What type of person says such things about himself at this point in a race? Only one insecure enough to doubt the premise and therefore attempting a too-coy-by-half preemptive strategy.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 5:12 PM

There’s more than a case been built for Romney. What I read is that Romney supporters (and even non-Romney supporters) have tried to confront and dissect a lot of lies and misunderstandings being spread about him.

I’ve never been a “Romney supporter” per se, or expressly, and yet his supporters are the only ones so far who haven’t attacked me by way of ugly irrational gossip and other insults. Mostly by the Palin people, now by the Gingrich people.

It speaks badly of their own candidates; meanwhile, Romney supporters have never engaged in that, which speaks well about him and them.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Gosh, was it really just a couple of months ago that Palin supporters on this board were being dismissed as cultists whose fanaticism exceeded that of Nazi Germany? Seems the Romney cult doesn’t like competition.

Aitch748 on November 25, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Their man isn’t doing well in the polls and really stepped in it on his new found position on immigration.

Punchenko on November 25, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Quoting Red State is not the best or most credible source to condemn Romney.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I wouldn’t quote anybody who didn’t say what I would say or what I believed. These are all critical points worth noting and quoting again and again. RedState is right as much as they are wrong, in my view. On this, they’re making a case far too many people are missing.

A Romney candidacy would be desolating to conservatism, and more widely depressing to the nation. A Romney-Obama race would be a catastrophe of lost hope and choice for America.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

…those who graduate from Ivy League schools are of little value is the most mind numbingly idiotic statement I have read on Hot Air since the last time you opined in written form.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 5:10 PM

I agree with you for once. I am so sick and tired of hearing where one went to school counts as a qualification or a disqualification for high office. Harvard is a fantastic place to spend one’s undergraduate or graduate years, and we should not discount a candidate who earned a degree there or anywhere else.

Punchenko on November 25, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Quoting Red State is not the best or most credible source to condemn Romney.

Red State has a poor batting average as to candidate support. They’re entitled like any site to rally behind favored candidates, but they aren’t necessarily gospel when they do so by trying to condemn others.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I don’t like RS either, but instead of relying on shabby debating techniques like “poisoning the well”, point out where they are factually in error.

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Red State has a poor batting average as to candidate support.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:15 PM

By the way, is it any worse than Romney’s batting average at winning elections?

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 5:35 PM

A Romney-Obama race would be a catastrophe of lost hope and choice for America.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 5:24 PM

You keep regurgitating that comment yet the polling proves you to be in error. Do you even care, or is it your goal to try and make it true by asserting it long enough and loud enough?

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 7:41 PM

You keep regurgitating that comment yet the polling proves you to be in error.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 7:41 PM

You mean the polling that shows Romney at best in the low 20s among Republicans, regardless of how many NotRomneys crash and burn?

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 7:41 PM

No, I don’t care about the “polling.” If there is extant polling on this particular assertion, it is wrong. Faced with the material and unalterable reality of this choice, the country will soon sink into a spiritual/political anomie. Moreover, Romney will lose. Obama will win a camapign of brutal attrition. The argument for this latter point has been made many times here by many others, from objective evidence. On top of the extrapolations we can make from Romney’s history of combative ineptitude, his uninspiring persona and his no-growth electoral appeal, we have the rise of the Left into a cultural influence as never before. And now the Left will have, in Mitt Romney, a fat and slow-moving target beyond their dreams: “Mr. Wall Street” Mitt, corporate predator and poster boy for the 1%. Mitt has even been accommodating enough to memorialize his proud predations with a wonderful photograph in which he manifestly boasts, along with his grinning Bain buddies, of the overflowing bounty of his plunders.

And when they get tired of “Mr. Wall Street,” it’ll be “Mr. Who Knows Where He Stands?” They’ll throw another $200 million at this ad campaign. They’ll ask, Romney’s shifted his position on so many issue so many time, how could you ever believe him? How do you know he won’t go right back to Mr. Wall Street the week after he’s elected? His word is meaningless. They won’t even dignify him with the label “conservative.” They’ll call him a soulless nowhere man who stands for nothing. “This is a guy who pushed through the precursor to Obamacare but who now says he’s going to scrap Obamacare? Wtf?”

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM

No, I don’t care about the “polling.” If there is extant polling on this particular assertion, it is wrong. Faced with the material and unalterable reality of this choice, the country will soon sink into a spiritual/political anomie. Moreover, Romney will lose. Obama will win a camapign of brutal attrition. The argument for this latter point has been made many times here by many others, from objective evidence. On top of the extrapolations we can make from Romney’s history of combative ineptitude, his uninspiring persona and his no-growth electoral appeal, we have the rise of the Left into a cultural influence as never before. And now the Left will have, in Mitt Romney, a fat and slow-moving target beyond their dreams: “Mr. Wall Street” Mitt, corporate predator and poster boy for the 1%. Mitt has even been accommodating enough to memorialize his proud predations with a wonderful photograph in which he manifestly boasts, along with his grinning Bain buddies, of the overflowing bounty of his plunders.

And when they get tired of “Mr. Wall Street,” it’ll be “Mr. Who Knows Where He Stands?” They’ll throw another $200 million at this ad campaign. They’ll ask, Romney’s shifted his position on so many issue so many time, how could you ever believe him? How do you know he won’t go right back to Mr. Wall Street the week after he’s elected? His word is meaningless. They won’t even dignify him with the label “conservative.” They’ll call him a soulless nowhere man who stands for nothing. “This is a guy who pushed through the precursor to Obamacare but who now says he’s going to scrap Obamacare? Wtf?”

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Like the other RINO “elites,” Romney only talks tough against conservatives, but he’ll grovel like the little moral coward he is when a Democrat breaks a foot off in his fundament. We’ve seen that in the 1994 campaign, and the Swimmer was a piker in comparison to the sliminess of Obama and his Chicago machine.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM

It speaks badly of their own candidates; meanwhile, Romney supporters have never engaged in that, which speaks well about him and them.

Lourdes on November 25, 2011 at 5:18 PM

You certainly have -abdicated- your responsibility to correctly remember the history of this subject.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 9:49 PM

By the way, is it any worse than Romney’s batting average at winning elections?

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 5:35 PM

You should concern yourself with your 0.000 batting average when it comes to selecting viable candidates.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM

You should concern yourself with your 0.000 batting average when it comes to selecting viable candidates.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:07 PM

Like Romney? And McCain? ROFLMMMFAOOAOAO Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM

You mean the polling that shows Romney at best in the low 20s among Republicans, regardless of how many NotRomneys crash and burn?

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

No. The polling that shows the huge majority of the GOP that values nominating the candidate that will beat Obama and couldn’t care less about nominating an ideologically pure candidate that will lose. And the polling that shows that same GOP that has a 40 point advantage on the dems in intensity to vote.

But you keeping vomiting out your opinion and the rest of us will continue to hold our nose when you do so.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM

No. The polling that shows the huge majority of the GOP ….

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM

…are dying to find someone other than Romney.

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:13 PM

You mean the polling that shows Romney at best in the low 20s among Republicans, regardless of how many NotRomneys crash and burn?

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Yep, the man’s been running for almost 5 years and can’t crack 30% support, for good and sufficient reason.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 10:16 PM

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 9:01 PM

Hahahaha! The public is tired of bailouts and Romney’s dissolution of certain companies and his investment into others that thrived will be very well received by the public this cycle. He has been a consistent fiscal conservative and has solved many problems in his political and professional career.

Your bias against anyone who isn’t Palin has distorted your ability to process the facts into a world view that is grounded in reality. But don’t cry about it. You aren’t alone. There are quite a few of you bitter former worshipers of St Palin the Victimized. You should start your own blog so you can reinforce your derangement.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:17 PM

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 9:44 PM

You got it.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 10:21 PM

Like Romney? And McCain? ROFLMMMFAOOAOAO Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Romney was a successful governor, an outstanding businessman, saved the Olympics, and has always been a fiscal conservative.

As the group can see, it is your support for a failed 1/2 term governor of the 46th rated state in the nation, a failed vp candidate, and a failed politician who couldn’t get enough support to even mount a run for POTUS, your failures should be the only failures you should be concerned with. Because for the rest of us, those failures render every opinion you have as null.

Try predicting if the sun will shine every day for a month or so. Once you get at least a 50% success rate, you can come back here and opine and some might just take you seriously.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:24 PM

There are quite a few of you bitter former worshipers of St Palin the Victimized. You should start your own blog so you can reinforce your derangement.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Pssssst…you can continue to b1tch about Palin all you want, but it still won’t help Romney….

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:24 PM

Romney was a successful governor, an outstanding businessman, saved the Olympics, and has always been a fiscal conservative.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:24 PM

He’s also on his way to being yet another failed squish presidential candidate that we were assured was sure-fire electable Superman.

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:26 PM

Yep, the man’s been running for almost 5 years and can’t crack 30% support, for good and sufficient reason.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Sure there is a reason. Rational reasons. But in the end, the most important rational reason will be the priority. Romney will beat Obama.

And considering every other GOP candidate never sustained even a 15% support, Romney’s consistent 25%+ is much better.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:26 PM

And considering every other GOP candidate never sustained even a 15% support, Romney’s consistent 25%+ is much better.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:26 PM

LOL, you dunce. What you have to do is combine the total NotRomney portion and compare that with Romney’s numbers. It’s probably on the order of 75-25. Like the man said, Romney’s been running forever.

ddrintn on November 25, 2011 at 10:29 PM

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Palin is it? Again?

Palin is gone. You’re going to have to accept this. Repeatedly performing some kind of love-hate keyboard voodoo ritual won’t change the facts or reform or redeem Mitt Romney. We’re faced with three or four possibilities now. “Ideological purity” also has nothing to do with it. It’s finding a warrior, insofar as that is possible.

The meat of argument is laid bare — Romney’s demonstrated incapacity as a political warrior.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 10:44 PM

We’re faced with three or four possibilities now. “Ideological purity” also has nothing to do with it. It’s finding a warrior, insofar as that is possible.

The meat of argument is laid bare — Romney’s demonstrated incapacity as a political warrior.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 10:44 PM

That’s why the RINO “elites” were floating the Christie boomlet a while back, they knew that the Fat Man would fight Obama, at least, unlike Romney the Gutless.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:02 PM

Palin is gone. You’re going to have to accept this.

Hahahaha! Yeah, she is done and it’s time you get over it and thinking rationally.

We’re faced with three or four possibilities now.

We have three or four possiblilties if we want to lose to Obama. Only one and perhaps a second that will beat Obama.

“Ideological purity” also has nothing to do with it. It’s finding a warrior, insofar as that is possible.

Nice try. You want an ideological warrior that will lose to Obama. That isn’t the type of warrior we need. We need someone who can beat Obama. And beating Obama makes that candidate a warrior!

The meat of argument is laid bare — Romney’s demonstrated incapacity as a political warrior.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 10:44 PM

There you go again. Your irrational view of the facts leads you to make statements which have no basis in fact. Romney has won more than he has lost. For some bizarre reason, in your reality, winning means losing, up means down, etc. Which leads us back to the St Palin the Victimized reference. You saw her abdication of her governorship as a success, her total failure as a vp candidate as a badge of honor, and her utter failure to win support of a majority of Americans as proof of her success as a politician.

There is no meat to your argument because it is a figment of your imagination.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Romney has won more than he has lost.
csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Three races, one victory. Against a weak and non-incumbent democrat.

There is no meat to your argument because it is a figment of your imagination.

Then you have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately the rest of us do. So we’ll attend to the job of dumping Romney. For your benefit.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Romney is not a consistent failure. We all know you want to pigeon hole Romney’s worth to only include politics and ignore his private sector successes and his successes in political office. No one in his right mind would use political campaigns as the metric to determine whether a candidate will win a certain election. Especially when the elections are different venues.

If Romney loses this nomination then he’s done politically. But as it is, the majority of the GOP will vote for him and the indies support him over Obama.

So you can keep on fighting to dump Romney. But you’re going to find yourself in the smallest iota of the tiniest minority and that in the end, you will only serve to give us all a good laugh. Just like we did when St Palin the Victimized proved you to be a colossal fool.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Three races, one victory. Against a weak and non-incumbent democrat.

rrpjr on November 25, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Yep, Mittie can only win against the weakest opposition. Going up against the Chi-town barracudas will reveal his essential spinelessness.

Meanwhile, we’ll get golden moments like this one:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147321.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3147321

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

No one in his right mind would use political campaigns as the metric to determine whether a candidate will win a certain election.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 11:40 PM

LOL…

ddrintn on November 26, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Yep, Mittie can only win against the weakest opposition.

ebrown2 on November 25, 2011 at 11:50 PM

Well, he has beaten Palin, Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, T-Paw, and Huntsman. The only person left is Gingrich, and if he beats Gingrich, you insist he will lose to Obama.

Can you explain to the group which of those weak candidates you have supported in the past and have been shown to be weak?

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Well, he has beaten Palin, Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, T-Paw, and Huntsman.
csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Really? In what plebiscite? I was under the impression no votes had been cast yet.

Last tabulation I recall he came in third behind McCain and Huckabee. And in then process spent more money for fewer votes than any candidate in history.

rrpjr on November 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Well, he has beaten Palin, Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, T-Paw, and Huntsman. The only person left is Gingrich, and if he beats Gingrich, you insist he will lose to Obama.

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 12:05 AM

Palin was never in the race, and you’re reduced to using Romney vs Gingrich as your standard for Romney’s chances. success against Obama. Romney hasn’t beaten anyone yet. There hasn’t been a primary or caucus, and Romney has consistently trailed the Not-Romney of the Month ever since Perry got in. But, he’ll probably get the nomination anyway and then lose to Obama…and then we can get around to a serious house-cleaning.

ddrintn on November 26, 2011 at 12:15 AM

* Romney’s chances of success

ddrintn on November 26, 2011 at 12:16 AM

Last tabulation I recall he came in third behind McCain and Huckabee. And in then process spent more money for fewer votes than any candidate in history.

rrpjr on November 26, 2011 at 12:11 AM

Now, now, you’re being unfair to little Mittens. Connally and Giuliani both have him beat in that regard, at least on a money-to-delegate ratio. Big John dropped 11 million dollars for just one delegate back in 1980 and Rudy broke his record by spending 57 million for one in ’08.

http://www.observer.com/2009/politics/rudys-unkillable-dream

ebrown2 on November 26, 2011 at 12:35 AM

The day I vote for Romney is the day I lose 20 pounds in 3 days. gain 2 bra sizes in 3 weeks. Romney is a reptile, most common of snakes.

Ive noticed out of the 2 debates Romney only gets testy about immigration.

Perry tussed the hair bout his lawn mowers. Newt put a brown spot in his hanes about having ILLs around. REgardless. Mitt in the liquid form can solve all your headaches. Pour some Mitt in your toilet, you get no backlog. If you smack your other wife. (non LDS) sprinkle a little mittease on your elbow for relief.

Gedge on November 26, 2011 at 3:04 AM

Romney might not be the ultimate flip flopper, but he is close.

V-rod on November 26, 2011 at 3:49 AM

hahaha…suuuuuuure. You keep saying that and it might come true! And don’t take your failure with ?fred? teach you anything.

lol

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I guess making an argument, or even a rational statement is beyond you now? What here in any way responds in the slightest to my comment?

Aside from some more random slights; what do you have here?

Or did I miss the day in debate class where slighting someone was designed to persuade them to accept your point of view?

Should I try that?

CSDevin, you have the brains of a slug, the logic of a pretzel, and the grammatical skills of a kindergartener… you’re clearly outmatched trying to figure out a 4 piece wooden puzzle designed for toddlers, and your attempt to make a point is not just disappointing, but insulting for anyone with a room temperature IQ or higher… so quit supporting Romney because you’re too stupid to have an opinion.

Have you changed your mind yet? Or are condescension, insults, and arrogance not quite as persuasive as your previous posts show you believe?

I’m assuming since this is your level of argument you’ll find this post both insightful, information, and moving and you’ll adjust your opinion accordingly.

Or do I need to try again with run-on and fragment sentences, odd word choices, bizarre punctuation, and text-speak style writing; as well as the arrogance, insults, and condescension?

gekkobear on November 26, 2011 at 3:50 AM

Well, he has beaten Palin, Perry, Cain, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, T-Paw, and Huntsman. The only person left is Gingrich, and if he beats Gingrich, you insist he will lose to Obama.

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 12:05 AM

OK, this one is just absurd. Romney hasn’t beaten anybody. It isn’t just that no one’s voted in the primary yet; it’s that Romney’s mostly hidden in the shadows. The media have focused on everybody else’s faults and foibles; they haven’t gotten around to Mitt yet. There’s every reason to believe that the media either (1) like Mitt as a fallback progressive in case Obama loses, or (2) is waiting until after the primaries to hammer Mitt the way they have every other prospective candidate.

How the hell does Romney get the credit for Perry’s bad debate performances, or Cain’s apparent ignorance of foreign policy, or Palin’s decision not to run? What genius techniques did he employ against the other GOP candidates? What’s Mitt going to do in the general election — hide in the shadows some more while the media picks Obama’s gaffes apart?

Oh wait, it’s csdeven, who always looks for an excuse to shriek with laughter at other posters and who takes such an extreme position on everything that he never makes sense. Never mind.

Aitch748 on November 26, 2011 at 8:04 AM

Romney’s running mate will either be T-Paw or Gov. Fatass from New Jersey. Either way, the GOP Smart Set has lost my vote. I’ll either write in a candidate of choice or vote 3rd Party.

We. Are. So. Screwed. Thanks for nothing, GOP Smart Set.

pdigaudio on November 26, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Romney’s running mate will either be T-Paw or Gov. Fatass from New Jersey. Either way, the GOP Smart Set has lost my vote. I’ll either write in a candidate of choice or vote 3rd Party.

We. Are. So. Screwed. Thanks for nothing, GOP Smart Set.

pdigaudio on November 26, 2011 at 9:14 AM

Christie won’t want to be his running mate, and it is a bad match for both regional reasons and the race/gender card like Thuja mentioned up-thread. The same goes for a lesser reason for T-Paw.

ebrown2 on November 26, 2011 at 9:59 AM

ebrown2 on November 26, 2011 at 12:35 AM

Thanks for correction. I knew about Connolly but not Giuliani. I’d thought I read a piece asserting that Romney had spent more of his personal wealth for fewer popular votes than anybody.

You’re right about the VP. If nominated, Romney will select some regional faux “conservative” — a transparent ploy to the base and poor imitation of McCain’s choice of Palin.

rrpjr on November 26, 2011 at 11:37 AM

There are quite a few of you bitter former worshipers of St Palin the Victimized. You should start your own blog so you can reinforce your derangement.

csdeven on November 25, 2011 at 10:17 PM

If people like you represent the best support that Mitt has to offer, then you only reinforce my opinion that Mitt is not the person to elect. Not only can you not debate on what Mitt would do AFTER elected to President, you browbeat and name-call to force the few points you do have.

You can tell a lot from the people that support you.

Bullies are ugly people.

dominigan on November 26, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Hahahaha!! No one except Romney has polled consistently. Ergo, he is the major threat to the rest of the field. And considering that none of those candidates even come close to the support Romney receives, he wins and they lose.

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Hahahaha!! No one except Romney has polled consistently. Ergo, he is the major threat to the rest of the field. And considering that none of those candidates even come close to the support Romney receives, he wins and they lose.

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Who really gives a flying f___ how well Romney is polling when he’s the only potential nominee who has yet to get his public rectal exam from the media? Factor that in, and suddenly Gingrich makes Romney look like the loser many of us suspect he would become in the general election.

Aitch748 on November 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Hahahaha!! No one except Romney has polled consistently. Ergo, he is the major threat to the rest of the field. And considering that none of those candidates even come close to the support Romney receives, he wins and they lose.

csdeven on November 26, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Yeah, but Romney consistently only polls about 17%-25%. The rest is pretty much the Not-Romney vote, which doesn’t look too good for Romney. What you’re counting on is that 75%+ going to the polls and voting enthusiastically for Romney just because they can’t stand Obama. You’ll probably in for a good dose of reality.

ddrintn on November 27, 2011 at 3:30 PM

What you’re counting on is that 75%+ going to the polls and voting enthusiastically for Romney just because they can’t stand Obama. You’ll probably in for a good dose of reality.

ddrintn on November 27, 2011 at 3:30 PM

I agree. McNumbnuts lost in just this manner. 8 – 10% of the base stayed home, rather than vote for him.

In that case, I held my nose. Never again. The GOP needs to wake up and realize they cannot take the conservative base for granted anymore.

dogsoldier on November 28, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3