New Romney ad hits Obama over NLRB in South Carolina

posted at 11:45 am on January 5, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

You have to hand it to Mitt Romney’s campaign for fortunate timing. Thanks to Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board yesterday, the NLRB has become a hot topic again — especially in the Carolinas.  In his new campaign ad, “Free Enterprise,” Romney rips Obama for appointing “union stooges” to the NLRB and calls the NLRB attack on Boeing “simply un-American … political payback of the worst kind”:

National Journal calls this a “smart move” in the next big primary state:

Romney has consistently hammered the right-to-work issue during his campaign stops in South Carolina, often referring to Obama-allied labor leaders as “union stooges.” Romney’s new ad pounds that theme, and shows him telling Boeing workers, “You’re seeing a president adopt policies which affect our economy based not upon what’s right for the American worker but instead what’s right for their politics.”

It’s a smart tactical move in socially conservative South Carolina, where Romney is considered vulnerable because of his moderate reputation. (He only won 15 percent of the vote there in 2008, finishing a disappointing fourth.) The state suffers from an unemployment rate that is hovering around 10 percent, and Romney is hoping to win over moderate Republicans and independents — it’s an open primary — while the conservative vote is splintered between Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry (whose decision to keep running helps Romney immensely in a state like South Carolina).

To be sure, Romney’s won’t be running a one-note campaign in South Carolina; he’ll also likely talk at length about military and foreign policy issues in a state with a high proportion of veterans. But while his Republican rivals barnstorm the state next week professing their faith and support for the tea party, look for Romney to project a laser-like focus on restoring jobs to the state.

Yes, it’s a smart move, and it could help Romney raise his support in the state. The last polling showed Newt Gingrich still holding a double-digit lead, but that was in the middle of December when Gingrich rode a little higher in the polls than he does at the moment. Rick Santorum will almost certainly gain support with the social-conservative voters in the Palmetto State, but the economy will be the biggest issue — and especially Obama’s attempt to use the NLRB to punish right-to-work states for attracting business. I’d expect other Republicans in the race to make similar pitches in the next few days, but the timing of Romney’s ad will perhaps get him the most notice for it.


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

Wow… well done, Mitt. And I’m no fan of Mitt.

beatcanvas on January 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM

He needs to hit Obama on the illegal new NLRB appointees. As I said, the way to fight these illegal non recess appointments is to aid anyone who comes into conflict with the CPB or the NLRB to state that the actions taken by people who were not either confirmed by the Senate or appointed when the Senate declared itself in Recess do not hold their office legally and thus any actions taken are null and void.

wildcat72 on January 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM

There is that RINO Mitt again, making the case for free enterprise with conviction. Santorum likes unions from what I hear.

echosyst on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

It’s about time they turned their fire on JugEars, instead of each other!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Meanwhile Newt’s talking about hemp.

aquaviva on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Not being from South Carolina… how big a deal is the whole Mormon/Catholic thing there? I know the South has a bit of a reputation for being evangelical and I know a lot of evangelicals are not fans of Mormons or Catholics, and Santorum is kind of an uber-Catholic – one that still goes to Latin Mass.

I’m Catholic myself, so I don’t mean that as a slight. I’m just wondering what the impact will be in the evangelical Protestant South.

Red Cloud on January 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

NLRB is the new four letter word in South Carolina. I can only imagine that all the candidates will pile on Obama over these “illegal” appointments.

SC.Charlie on January 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I like it.

WisRich on January 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

National Survey of 1,000 Likely GOP Primary Voters
Conducted January 4, 2012 By Rasmussen Reports

Romney 29%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 16%
Paul 12%
Perry 4%
Huntsman 4%

Santorumentum!!

dforston on January 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Meanwhile Newt’s talking about hemp. – aquaviva on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Yep, one of South Carolina’s main cash crops. Ron Paul will get their vote.

SC.Charlie on January 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM

The Union Leader says Gingrichs NOT O’Romney’s economic plan

LeeSeneca on January 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Why is this getting praise? This should be standard protocol.

Midwestprincesse on January 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Yet Romney’s tax plan is pretty similar to a democrats. Nice try mitt.

Flapjackmaka on January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Great ad.

Esoteric on January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I’m Catholic myself, so I don’t mean that as a slight. I’m just wondering what the impact will be in the evangelical Protestant South.

Red Cloud on January 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Red Cloud, I’m a Catholic that has lived in the south (Alabama) for 22 years having been born and raised in Massachusetts. I can tell you that Catholics are more tolerated here than Mormans. I was commenting on another thread earlier that the local talk radio show here this morning was debating whether Santorum could get the nomination. They saw no problem with his being Catholic. However, they stated flat-out that the south won’t go for a Morman. This is just my observation of what I have seen and heard.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Would the Democrats be so kind as to block GOP nominations to the NLRB so it does not have a quorum?

Better yet, does the President have to appoint anyone to the NLRB?

WashJeff on January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

National Survey of 1,000 Likely GOP Primary Voters
Conducted January 4, 2012 By Rasmussen Reports

Rasmussen is the GOP pollster, not independent , not very accurate outside of the week before an election when pollsters have to give up their attempt to create a bandwagon effect and go for truth , as not be be exposed by actual election results.

LeeSeneca on January 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Very good ad by Romney. Curiously, SC is the first state in the primary with an unemployment rate above the national average. Probably the first one where economic issues will be decisive.

South Carolina GOP is as establishment and non-ideological as it gets.

They always coalesce around the favorite for the nomination, around Mr. “This-is-my-turn-to-be-the-GOP-nominee”, and crush the insurgent. They crushed Huckabee in ’08, McCain in ’00, Buchanan in ’96 , Robertson in ’88, Bush in ’80. They’ve always voted for the eventual nominee. Every single time.

Romney will win in SC by double-digits.

SC republicans elect all brands of GOPers: red-meat conservatives like DeMint, moderates like Graham, libertarian leaning like Sanford, country club like Halley. The idea that they are dominated by socially conservative or evangelical constituencies is a myth.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Why is this getting praise? This should be standard protocol.

Midwestprincesse on January 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

If you have links to these standard ads from other candidates, I’d love to praise them.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (“Officials: White House To Bypass Congress For Bolton Nomination,” The Associated Press, 7/30/05)

· OBAMA: A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Gingrich, on the other hand, is for violently attacking South Carolina pot growers.

Smnartest man in the room!

If he’s alone in it.

profitsbeard on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Good!

Keep on hitting him!

It’s time to act not merely like the front-runner, but the next President of the United States.

M240H on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

My ad would be about abolishing the NLRB. We need them like we need small pox.

Big Orange on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Why is this getting praise? This should be standard protocol.

Midwestprincesse on January 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Yep….I’m waiting for the Mitt Romney campaign to run an add about repealing Obama-Care with no replacement….oh…wait…

oldroy on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Smartly done.

talkingpoints on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

It’s about time they turned their fire on JugEars, instead of each other!

KOOLAID2 on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

..A-MEN! (Or A-PERSON for the politically correct.)

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Midwest, it gets praise because it is so rare for Republicans to show any spine. And coming for the supposedly biggest RINO/moderate, it is an encouraging sign.

kpguru on January 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Guessing he won’t be getting that union stooge endorsement.

Bmore on January 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

It’s about time they turned their fire on JugEars, instead of each other!

KOOLAID2

AMEN!!!

Say it LOUD and PROUD!!

tree hugging sister on January 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

It was lucky timing but a good jab at Obama. But being from a big union state (same for Santorum) I don’t think he’ll get as much out of the issue as Perry will.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

The War Planner

JINXJINX!!!

tree hugging sister on January 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Smart move by Mittens! His Mormanism is an anchor dragging him down in Baptist/Evangelical states. But if he keeps hammering home and focusing on the economy and jobs, he may get by in the South.

Bob in VA on January 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Wow… well done, Mitt. And I’m no fan of Mitt.

beatcanvas on January 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM

My sentiments exactly. I hate to admit it but this is expertly played.

Caiwyn on January 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM

If I didn’t know that Mittens was on the phone to the White House apologizing for this ad five seconds after it aired…

… I might think he was serious.

Obowma needs to be destroyed…!

Seven Percent Solution on January 5, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Good ad. Mitt comes off strong, doesn’t shrink from using the words “stooges” and “political payback”. Very direct. And taking it to right to Obama. As a sneak peek of what the general election might look like, it’s confident and in charge. I like it.

Murf76 on January 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Timid. He could have declared he’d present a bill to eliminate the NRLB.

Dusty on January 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

If you have links to these standard ads from other candidates, I’d love to praise them.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The point being that this is small potatoes.

Midwestprincesse on January 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

It’s a great start, Mitt. Now lets see lots more of this, not letting up for a second! It’s going to be tough to defeat a sitting president, even one as horrible as O.

plumorchard on January 5, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Romney 29%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 16%
Paul 12%
Perry 4%
Huntsman 4%

Rasmussen is the GOP pollster, not independent , not very accurate outside of the week before an election when pollsters have to give up their attempt to create a bandwagon effect and go for truth , as not be be exposed by actual election results.

what do you dislike about this poll. that Romney is first-that santorum is now second-that gingrich or perry is down

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Now to further hammer nails into the coffin lid of the Constitution comes Mitt Romney.

This is straight forward FACT.

To be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN … you must be born in the country and your parents must BOTH BE CITIZENS.

BOTH REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET!

PARENTS can be born citizens or naturalized (naturalized at the time of the child’s birth).

If both requirements are not met the child can still be a “US citizen” just not “natural born”.

My basic premise is simple…Mitt Romney, candidate for President 2012 cannot be eligible for President because his entire family converted to Mexican citizenship and relinquished their US Citizenship.

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

Capt-Dax on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Gingrich, on the other hand, is for violently attacking South Carolina pot growers.

Smnartest man in the room!

If he’s alone in it.

profitsbeard on January 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’ve been telling folks here on HA for weeks, if not months, that New is nowhere near as “smart” as everyone seems to think he is. My point is finally being confirmed on a daily basis.

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Rancid Cetus Parabus — the RNC guy — said that they had a ton of stuff on Obama where he said one thing back as a senator and did another as POTUS. Supposedly, Tuesday (the Caucii) was to commence with this great holy war on The Pantload unleashing all fo these stink bombs in an unceasing barrage culminating on election night in November.

..one can only hope.

The War Planner on January 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM

“Union Stooges”

Yea, that’s a term you hear “RINOs” say all the time. Do you think Santorum will ever say something like that in an ad?

BradTank on January 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Might as well shift the domain name of Hotair.com to ShillForRomney.com

Every Romney move or ad is “smart” and “excellent”
Every event “benefits” Romney

Etc. Etc

Norwegian on January 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Good ad. Need more.

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

His Mormanism is an anchor dragging him down in Baptist/Evangelical states.

People focusing too much on differences and not enough on similarities – amazingly self-defeating.

rhombus on January 5, 2012 at 12:14 PM

There is that RINO Mitt again, making the case for free enterprise with conviction. Santorum likes unions from what I hear.

echosyst on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

From RedState:

In the 104th Congress Sen. Santorum joined all Democrats and a minority of Republicans in voting to filibuster the bill S. 1788, the National Right to Work Act of 1995. (“On the Cloture Motion (motion to invoke cloture on motion to proceed to consider S.1788),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 188, http://www.senate.gov, 7/10/1996)

During that same congressional session, Santorum also voted to retain the 1930s-era Davis-Bacon Act that forces taxpayers to pay union wages in government-funded construction and gives Big Labor an unfair advantage over non-union companies and workers (“On the Motion to Table (motion to table Kennedy Amendment No. 4031 to S.Amdt. 4000 to S.Con.Res. 57),” Senate Bill Clerk, Vote Number: 134, http://www.senate.gov, 5/22/1996)

Read the whole thing. Santorum went up against DeMint, too, to DEFEND earmarks. Yeah, it’s RedState, but it’s also a well-sourced post.

Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

My basic premise is simple…Mitt Romney, candidate for President 2012 cannot be eligible for President because his entire family converted to Mexican citizenship and relinquished their US Citizenship.

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

Capt-Dax on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Some credible cites would be nice. Pity you don’t have any. The first result I got from a Google search on this was a blog that featured a picture of its “author” wearing a tin foil hat on his head.

http://usa-wethepeople.com/2012/01/mitt-romney-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

G-

Del Dolemonte on January 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

Capt-Dax on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

Here we go again, Some people just LOVE conspiracy

Wouldn’t it be awesome if Romney the not natural born citizen beats another non born citizen

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

My basic premise is simple…Mitt Romney, candidate for President 2012 cannot be eligible for President because his entire family converted to Mexican citizenship and relinquished their US Citizenship.

Mitt Romney IS NOT a natural born citizen!

Capt-Dax on January 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM

What??? When was this?

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Folks, Mitt is the ONLY candidate that can beat the Failed President period. He has the money, support, and organization. His background in private business is super, and will have real economic staff around him in the White House, and he believes in America as a strong nation around the world. Get behind this man so we can send the Messiah out the back door of the White House in shame with his beastly wife whom hates whites as he does.

The Failed President is both a liar, loser, and is destroying America. Secret Service personnel have stated he is a dishonest person and his wife hates white people. He is a very dangerous man and ignores the law in general, the will of the American people, Congress, and the Constitution.

There are no longer massive adoring crowds to deceive. For the first time in Barack Obama’s life, he is accountable. He has repeatedly shown that he cannot deal with, and will never be able to shoulder responsibility, as he is at his core a self-absorbed man, and a very dishonest human being.

Obama has never stood for individualism, capitalism, or liberty. The citizens of our country naively gave the reins of power to a tyrant. The White House has been marginalized and he has proven himself to be the most inept president in modern history. He is symbolic of a man who has downgraded the White House, the Constitution, human life, foreign policy, race relations, and America herself.

His resignation from office would be a great first step toward economic recovery. The majority of Americans are sick of his condescension, his policies, his racist bigotry, and his incompetence. Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.”

This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history.

Brushjumper on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

I’m waiting for Republicans to hit Obama on tearing up the Constitution. . . . Waiting . . .

WannabeAnglican on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Norwegian on January 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Romney puts out a great ad against Obama. Newt talks about violently going after pot growers. What’s a blogger to do?

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Good ad…

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

What??? When was this?

tinkerthinker on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Just walk away slowly so as not to startle it. lol

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I’ll give Mittens credit on this. He’s a big govt statist. But I don’t think he has much love for unions.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Norwegian: Might as well shift the domain name of Hotair.com to ShillForRomney.com

Ed? A Romney shill? That’s not how I read his opinions… unless it’s the intellectual honesty you’re objecting too. Don’t want to speak for him but he seems more of an “anybody but Romney guy” without the suicidal tendencies.

rhombus on January 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I’m looking forward to witnessing Newt’s attack on the scurrilous Romney unfold in full.

Reggie1971 on January 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

National Survey of 1,000 Likely GOP Primary Voters
Conducted January 4, 2012 By Rasmussen Reports

Romney 29%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 16%
Paul 12%
Perry 4%
Huntsman 4%

Santorumentum!!

dforston on January 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Well, that’s just splendid news.

Wife calls him SanitORium.

Norky on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Read the whole thing. Santorum went up against DeMint, too, to DEFEND earmarks. Yeah, it’s RedState, but it’s also a well-sourced post.

Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:15 PM

What did you expect? Santorum represents a union state. This is much the same as Perry giving in-state tuition to illegals–because there are so many hispanics in the state. Or Mitt, giving his state Romneycare–because, as he puts it, “it was right for our state.” Is Santorum somehow different than the rest?

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Might as well shift the domain name of Hotair.com to ShillForRomney.com

Every Romney move or ad is “smart” and “excellent”
Every event “benefits” Romney

Etc. Etc

Norwegian on January 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Usually when someone leads in the polls and nothing seems to go against him at the moment, everything is considered smart or good news,

You only need one poll that shows Romney is in trouble in NH or SC and i bet HA will provide you with your daily not Romney comment section

OrthodoxJew on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I’ll give Mittens credit on this. He’s a big govt statist. But I don’t think he has much love for unions.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:17 PM

And unions RUN Massachusetts.

rhombus on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

RINO! Liberal! Rockefeller!

therightwinger on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

I’m looking forward to witnessing Newt’s attack on the scurrilous Romney unfold in full.

Reggie1971 on January 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM

So far he’s rich, or something.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Is it just be or is there an ever so slight Southern twang in when he’s talking in that ad? Channeling Hillary Clinton I see.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Is it just be or is there an ever so slight Southern twang in when he’s talking in that ad? Channeling Hillary Clinton I see.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:21 PM

It’s just bou.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

It’s just bou.

Ronnie on January 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Bou hoo.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Timid. He could have declared he’d present a bill to eliminate the NRLB.

Dusty on January 5, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Ever notice how GOP “conservatives” in general shriek about some big government entity’s evil actions but rarely want to get rid of the government entity, but rather put the “right” people in there? The NRLB was created by executive order so it should be easy to get rid of it. Plus it is an “independent” agency with executive AND judicial powers which shouldn’t sound very constitutional to a conservative.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Meanwhile Newt’s talking about hemp.

aquaviva on January 5, 2012 at 11:49 AM

The Union Leader’s endorsed candidate…

#headdesk

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

And unions RUN Massachusetts.

I live in Mass. Unions are very powerful. LONG before Mitt Romney
came here. To blame him for our Unon situation is crazy.

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

The way he says Carolina…sounds well Carolinian. It’s actually not that unheard of. People often change their speech patterns to reflect their audience, subconsciously.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Romney should run his whole campaign based on Obama’s unconstitutional executive and regulatory overreach. It is the only area in which he is convincing that he would be different and better than Obama. Because from a policy record perspective, there isn’t much daylight between the two.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:24 PM

“Union Stooges”

Yea, that’s a term you hear “RINOs” say all the time. Do you think Santorum will ever say something like that in an ad?

BradTank on January 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Show me a santorum ad.

rubberneck on January 5, 2012 at 12:25 PM

What did you expect? Santorum represents a union state. This is much the same as Perry giving in-state tuition to illegals–because there are so many hispanics in the state. Or Mitt, giving his state Romneycare–because, as he puts it, “it was right for our state.” Is Santorum somehow different than the rest?

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Apparently not, so let’s go with the most electable one, shall we? Here’s a hint: It isn’t the religious zealot.

Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Might as well shift the domain name of Hotair.com to ShillForRomney.com

works for me.

gerry-moderate republican-mittbot(less letters than Romney supporter)

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM

The mittens have come off against Barry?

Let the bare knuckles begin!

Theses union stooges would concur!

profitsbeard on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Apparently not, so let’s go with the most electable one, shall we? Here’s a hint: It isn’t the religious zealot.

Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Well, that would only leave us with the MSM’s favorite nominee.

Norky on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

They saw no problem with his being Catholic. However, they stated flat-out that the south won’t go for a Morman. This is just my observation of what I have seen and heard.

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM

We’ll gladly take a Mormon over a generational muslim steeped in Trinity United Methodist orthodoxy. We’re not suicidal over religion down here.

DanMan on January 5, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Brushjumper on January 5, 2012 at 12:16 PM

If Obama is all those things you say he is, and I believe he is, then obviously Mitt is NOT the only Republican that can beat him.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

The mittens have come off against Barry?

Let the bare knuckles begin!

Theses union stooges would concur!

profitsbeard on January 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Romney will borrow McCain’s kid gloves to duke it out with BHO.

Norky on January 5, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Romney +1

petefrt on January 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Romney 29%
Santorum 21%
Gingrich 16%
Paul 12%
Perry 4%
Huntsman 4%
Santorumentum!!
dforston on January 5, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Perry’s support all went to Santorum when did the head-fake that he was quitting. It’s too bad,really because he was one of the only candidates that demonstrably believed in limited government. Guess I may have to wait for Rand Paul in 2016 – if Romney wants me to vote for him in the general (and potentially donate to and/or volunteer for) he should pick Rand Paul as his VP. It would also foreclose a Pon Paul run.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Meanwhile Newt’s talking about hemp.

He’s acting like He’s smoking it

gerrym51 on January 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I’m not surprised he had an ad ready to roll in South Carolina. This is entirely consistent with Romney’s history of going after the unions, going back at least to 2007. I compiled a string of info starting here. That link happens to come from the Teamsters Union who are not happy:

As if his history of buying companies and firing workers isn’t bad enough, Mitt Romney is attacking unions in his campaign for president. He supports Koch whore Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio’s SB5, Boeing’s union busting and right-to-work to destroy unions.

Also notable, from The Hill, August 15th:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) has incorporated vocal criticism of organized labor into his stump speeches, making it a central component of his presidential campaign.

Romney seems to have made unions — traditionally a bugaboo of many conservatives — a focal point of his jabs, hitting labor groups more often than most of his fellow contenders for the Republican presidential nomination.

Twice this week, during campaign stops in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Romney expressed unprompted support for so-called right-to-work laws, which allow workers to join a workplace without being forced to either join a union or pay its membership fees.

Much more at the link…

Buy Danish on January 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Great ad.

Meanwhile, Newt is running around calling Mitt a liar and talking about how the founding fathers would get violent against people who grow hemp.

Sanitorium wont get the “true conservative” bounce enough to matter because unless you believe in Jesus the exact way that the evangelicals do….you dont belong.

Mitt is in perfect shape to wrap this thing up.

Jailbreak on January 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Apparently not, so let’s go with the most electable one, shall we? Here’s a hint: It isn’t the religious zealot.
Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Guess that means that you think that attacks on a candidate’s religion is fair game now?

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM

What did you expect? Santorum represents a union state. This is much the same as Perry giving in-state tuition to illegals–because there are so many hispanics in the state. Or Mitt, giving his state Romneycare–because, as he puts it, “it was right for our state.” Is Santorum somehow different than the rest?

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Yeah, he’s different from Pat Toomey, the republican senator from Pennsylvania. He’s different from Tom Corbett, the republican governor of the same state.

On the other hand, he’s very similar to Bob Casey Jr., the other senator from Pennsylvania- A democrat, obviously. I think Santorum is a bit to the left of Casey on spending issues though.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

What did you expect? Santorum represents a union state. This is much the same as Perry giving in-state tuition to illegals–because there are so many hispanics in the state. Or Mitt, giving his state Romneycare–because, as he puts it, “it was right for our state.” Is Santorum somehow different than the rest?

KickandSwimMom on January 5, 2012 at 12:20 PM

That’s NOT why children of illegals are charged in-state college tuition in Texas and Perry didn’t “give it to them”. But the fact that Santorum and Romney are both big government Republicans remains.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Don’t think I’d call an inability to break 30% “perfect shape to wrap this up”.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

McCain was pretty tough on Obama/Clinton in the primaries as well. When the audience was toothless hicks in SC that was fine. When the audience was precious moderates in Ohio and Florida in the general, that line of attack ended quickly and was replaced by platitudes like Obama’s a good man.

Romney will be the same.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Guess that means that you think that attacks on a candidate’s religion is fair game now?

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Only if he uses his religion as a backdrop for his policies.

Rational Thought on January 5, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Mitt is in perfect shape to wrap this thing up.

Jailbreak on January 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Let’s hope so.

VegasRick on January 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Don’t think I’d call an inability to break 30% “perfect shape to wrap this up”.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Math is hard for liberals. Don’t confuse them.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Don’t think I’d call an inability to break 30% “perfect shape to wrap this up”.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Yeah, you’re right. With 6 candidates all fighting for votes, Romney should have at least 85% of the vote by now leaving 15% for the other 5 as well as the undecideds.

Jailbreak on January 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Perfect.

With Nikki in his pocket, I do not see how he loses SC.

so-notbuyingit on January 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

[cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:23 PM]

Yeah, I noticed, and seems especially applicable to Romney.

And thanks for info. I hadn’t realized it was established by executive order.

Dusty on January 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Perry’s support all went to Santorum when did the head-fake that he was quitting. It’s too bad,really because he was one of the only candidates that demonstrably believed in limited government. Guess I may have to wait for Rand Paul in 2016 – if Romney wants me to vote for him in the general (and potentially donate to and/or volunteer for) he should pick Rand Paul as his VP. It would also foreclose a Pon Paul run.

besser tot als rot on January 5, 2012 at 12:33 PM

No, the same poll had Perry at 4% 2 months ago.

cartooner on January 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Yeah, he’s different from Pat Toomey, the republican senator from Pennsylvania. He’s different from Tom Corbett, the republican governor of the same state.

On the other hand, he’s very similar to Bob Casey Jr., the other senator from Pennsylvania- A democrat, obviously. I think Santorum is a bit to the left of Casey on spending issues though.

joana on January 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

So let me get this straight…

We vilify Santorum because he did what he had to do to please the union members in his state in order to get re-elected.

But we give a pass to Romney because he did what he did to please the far left voters in his state.

That makes sense.

angryed on January 5, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Yeah, you’re right. With 6 candidates all fighting for votes, Romney should have at least 85% of the vote by now leaving 15% for the other 5 as well as the undecideds.

Jailbreak on January 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Dontcha know? The 70% that are in favor of another candidate will either sit out 2012 or vote for obambi.
/right

VegasRick on January 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2