New Romney ad: Let Tom Brokaw tell you about Newt’s ethics

posted at 1:36 pm on January 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

Watch this one while you can because Brokaw and NBC are, apparently, “extremely uncomfortable” with it.

In a statement Saturday, former NBC “Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw, who is featured in the ad reporting on Gingrich’s 1997 ethics investigation, said, “I am extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”…

The NBC legal department has written a letter to the campaign asking for the removal of all NBC News material from their campaign ads. Similar requests have gone out to other campaigns that NBC says have inappropriately used clips from “Nightly News,” “Meet the Press,” “Today” and MSNBC material.

Wouldn’t surprise me if Team Mitt used the Brokaw footage in the full expectation that NBC would raise a stink. They used the same strategy a few months ago, I suspect, in that ad taking Obama out of context on the economy. They knew the left would flip out and, in so doing, increase the ad’s exposure; it’s “earned media” in the most cynically earned way. This ad is doubly clever insofar as it uses an, ahem, impartial newsman to lay out the “facts” of Gingrich’s ethics reprimand in the House. That’s an effective counter to Newt’s complaints that Romney is distorting what happened in that ethics saga — after all, we’ve got fair-and-balanced Tom Brokaw reporting on it right here — but of course, there is some distortion happening: As Byron York explained in a post a few days ago, Gingrich was ultimately exonerated of any illegality after an investigation by Bill Clinton’s IRS. (See the second clip below.) Doesn’t change the fact of the House reprimand but it does call into question whether it was warranted.

Too bad there are no more debates before Tuesday. Newt could have packaged this spot plus Romney’s defense of John King into a fine little rant about cozying up to the “elite media.” Exit question via Johnny Dollar: Since when does NBC News or its subsidiaries object to promoting certain politicians?

Update: The NYT has an interesting piece today about Team Mitt’s use of Twitter to take the pulse of Republican reaction to developments in the campaign. Here’s their newest step, another aspect of their “Newt is totally unelectable” messaging: “Romney’s campaign also debuted a new Twitter hashtag to accompany the [Brokaw] television spot: #Newtorious.”


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 3 4 5 6 7

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Then use that tab to look at the letter on page 79, and then the page 85 footnotes. He lied. Period. It does not matter that he did not violate IRS law. As a matter of fact, if he truly thought he was on sound legal ground, he screwed himself by lying about something he didn’t have to lie about. So not only is he a liar, but he’s a stupid liar. He rivals those idiots on “The Worlds Dumbest Criminals” videos.

Deal with that or you’re on your own.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

And Rush and Levine are Newt’s propaganda tools. What are you whining about?

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Don’t forget Palin and ?fred?.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Compare and contrast

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Thanks for the link. I haven’t read a more clear and concise comparison.

For myself, this election is pretty much it. If someone isn’t elected who can turn Washington / “the establishment” (doesn’t matter the coinage) on its collective ear, then, I’ll just buckle down, survive on my own terms, and let the rest of ‘em argue how fast the country will go off that proverbial cliff.

And, well, nothing Romney has accomplished politically says conservative to me.

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Brokow/NBC demand withdrawal of ad.

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Newt is a catalyst for an explosion within the GOP. This has been a long time percolating–the Southern evangelical religious and populist intransiency vs. Northern fiscal pragmatism and social moderation. We saw it with Giuliani’s put-down–ferocious on conservative websites like redstate and freerepublic. Rudy’s high positives and strong polling numbers meant absolutely nothing to the purists from the South. The animosity is just as nasty against Romney–and has been from the beginning. On the one hand there is the Southern tolerance for populists like Huckabee and Newt who are every bit as compromised in their way as Rudy and Romney are in theirs–and at the same time there’s complete indiffernce to the kind of experitise and fiscal conservatism brought to the process by candidates from less homogeneous–and less socially intolerant–blue states. It’s a regional struggle fueled by deep-rooted prejudices.

One example of all this is the lie told from the beginning–that “Romney would be another McCain.” In fact he’d be another Rudy, strong in the polls and in the central swing states. McCain was from the sunbelt, was weak in the central swing states, and was still another legislator with no executive experience and a poor grasp of economic issues. This was never true of Rudy and is not now true of Romney. It’s the South, on the other hand, that keeps filtering out our strongest candidates in the name of social conservatism while giving a pass to fiscal moderates like Bush and Dole and McCain–and now Newt who attacks Romney from the left. Southern intolerance and bias is the problem, not Rudy and Romney who more perfectly reflect national preferences. It’s Rudy and Romney who led and lead in the polls against Obama, not McCain or Newt, the South Carolinian choices.

writeblock on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

As the soon to be fourth wife of Newt asks to her mom….

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:31 PM

I wonder how many babies in Massachusetts were aborted while Mitt Romney was governor? Too bad we can’t ask them their thoughts on which type of liar is the worst.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

FL poll today:

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

A look at a Romney/Obama match up shows Romney taking Florida 48 percent to Obama’s 44 percent. He seems to be the only candidate with that strength. A Gingrich/Obama race has Obama leading by 9 points, and against Rick Santorum Obama leads by 11 percent.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Remember when we thought that Newt would be the toughest candidate against Obama. Now he has been reduced to whining sissy-boy by former milquetoast, Mitt Romney. Talk about role change. I suspect Axelrod and Plouffe are shaking in their fuzzy slippers, as we blog.

TheStatistQuo on January 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Schadenfreude on January 28, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I posted a link to that a couple of hours ago, plus sent Allah a tweet directing him to the story. I’m sure he’ll be updating this post, or create a new one with the update soon.

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You are trying to change the subject because you can’t bring yourself to admit the facts don’t support your claims. When you’re ready to admit Gingrich is a serial liar, then you’ll get the respect from me that earns you a serious response.

You have to earn it, you don’t get to demand it.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Flora Duh on January 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Zzzzzzzzzz. That was not what he was sanctioned for.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

another poll another day. Yawn

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:41 PM
Then use that tab to look at the letter on page 79, and then the page 85 footnotes. He lied. Period. It does not matter that he did not violate IRS law. As a matter of fact, if he truly thought he was on sound legal ground, he screwed himself by lying about something he didn’t have to lie about. So not only is he a liar, but he’s a stupid liar. He rivals those idiots on “The Worlds Dumbest Criminals” videos.

Deal with that or you’re on your own.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM

How is it relevant? He admitted later that the letter was drafted in haste and that he was in the midst of pushing the Contract with America through. You certainly realize by now that he was not only investigated and cleared of the charges against him, they were DISMISSED. How honest is it of Mitt Romney to be airing the commercial with Tom Brokaw today as if the charges had never been dismissed. Did you really watch either of the videos?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Johnny Mac and Tom Brokaw ain’t getting 1700 comments . You Betcha!

Bmore on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Reasons why Conservatives with principle will NEVER vote for romneycare;

No difference between Romneycare & Obamacare.

Both appointed the most liberal judges

Both favor higher taxes

Both are for gay marriage & abortion

Both are for gun control

Both appointed more democrats to their administration than republicans

Both are for every bailout and wall street owned

Both spent their entire adult life in liberal cities- Chicago/boston

Both were terrible at job creation

Both are dispised by conservatives

Both are the poster boys of their respective establishment

In short, no matter who wins from these two conservatives are screwed.

Start a new conservative party!

Danielvito on January 28, 2012 at 5:02 PM

He admitted later that the letter was drafted in haste and that he was in the midst of pushing the Contract with America through.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:01 PM

He lies to cover up the first lie. Brilliant.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

I wonder how many babies in Massachusetts were aborted while Mitt Romney was governor? Too bad we can’t ask them their thoughts on which type of liar is the worst.

you know i read comments like this and wonder.
as far as I know ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. How many babies were aborted in YOUR state.

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

You are trying to change the subject because you can’t bring yourself to admit the facts don’t support your claims. When you’re ready to admit Gingrich is a serial liar, then you’ll get the respect from me that earns you a serious response.

You have to earn it, you don’t get to demand it.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Really? This is what I asked you 2 HOURS AGO:

I am well aware that you are a fervent Mitt Romney supporter as well as his fellow Mormon, but to stubbornly persist in trying to build this up into something that it wasn’t diminishes your credibility. Although you dutifully step into the fray to defend Mitt on an almost daily basis, I’ve yet to see you finding “plausbile deniability” for his specific flip-flops and pandering in Massachusetts on abortion, the gay rights agenda, gun control, etc. As someone who would characterize myself as EXTREMELY conservative, those issues are important to me and I would NEVER, NEVER vote for someone who is in favor of any of them. Rather than try to tear Newt down with a false premise, why don’t you stick to helping your fellow conservatives understand why we should believe that Mitt is telling the truth now, because frankly, I don’t believe him.

Then I said this:

The fact of the matter is that you keep trying to use this as a way to indict Gingrich when in fact, it was reviewed over a period of more than four years and dismissed by a panel of experts. It is unimportant and the fact that you keep trying to build up Mitt by tearing down Newt is not effective. Why do you keep deflecting attention from the real questions people have about Mitt’s commitment to conservative principles?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Then this:

You asked for proof that the ethics charges were dismissed and I furnished it. You said all of Hotair would wait. Okay, now you’ve got it. So, what? I’m not ‘mad’ at you because you support Mitt Romney, I don’t even think you’re less ‘intelligent’ than I am. I’m glad you can be enthusiastic about a candidate and for your sake, if he’s nominated and wins, I hope he’ll be a good President.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You only seem to read the parts that you want to and you just ignore the rest. Now I understand how you can get so exercised over Mitt Romney.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM

you know i read comments like this and wonder.
as far as I know ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. How many babies were aborted in YOUR state.

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

And Mitt Romney asserted that he would do “everything in his power: to keep it legal. Here in Ohio we finally have a Republican governor and Congress and they immediately got to work on a law banning abortion once a heartbeat is detected. Romney says he’s pro-life now, but the fact is that he has never done a single thing to promote pro-life causes. Period.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I.WILL.NEVER.VOTE.FOR.MITT.ROMNEY . …NEVER!

Pragmatic on January 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM

FL poll today:

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

A look at a Romney/Obama match up shows Romney taking Florida 48 percent to Obama’s 44 percent. He seems to be the only candidate with that strength. A Gingrich/Obama race has Obama leading by 9 points, and against Rick Santorum Obama leads by 11 percent.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Good to see. Romney is holding onto his electability argument. Taking back Florida is a great big step to the White House. I am anxiously awaiting some more swing state polls. If Romney has numbers anything like this against Obama in Ohio, the Obama campaign team is going to go berserk. If he turns up competitive in Michigan, as many think he will, the meltdown at Obama HQ will be epic. Oh to see that… And both Michigan and Ohio have Republican secretaries of state, so democrat shenanigans are somewhat limited. 2012 is gonna be great!

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

He lies to cover up the first lie. Brilliant.

csdeven on January 28, 2012 at 5:03 PM

So tell me one wonderful thing about Mitt Romney that will convince me to vote for him.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

So tell me one wonderful thing about Mitt Romney that will convince me to vote for him.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

He can beat Obama.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM

you know i read comments like this and wonder.
as far as I know ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. How many babies were aborted in YOUR state.

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I am pro life, but your comment is spot on

bluealice on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

An exclusive statewide Florida Decides poll finds Mitt Romney with a solid lead. The poll, conducted by Mason-Dixing Polling and Research for Bay News 9, News 13 and the Tampa Bay Times, shows if the election were today, 42 percent of GOP voters would vote for Romney. Newt Gingrich trailed by 11 points with 31 percent of the vote. Behind him was Santorum with 14 percent and Ron Paul with just 6 percent of the vote.

another poll another day. Yawn

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I’d like to read that poll. Do you have a link? I don’t think that Mason-Dixing is the real name of a polling firm. Could you mean “Mason-Dixon?”

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

He can beat Obama.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:22 PM

You don’t think Romney Care will fatally wound him there?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I have to admit that was funny. I wish Mitt WOULD give me some of his money.

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM

Well then, if that’s all that matters to you, just go to a mitt rally. I think the last lady got a whole $65!

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Romney says he’s pro-life now, but the fact is that he has never done a single thing to promote pro-life causes. Period.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Wrong. If you would check you would see that he has the support of the pro-life group in MA. He vetoed a lot a crap that came to him.

bluealice on January 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

John McCain’s campaign playbook on Mitt Romney from 2008 election.

Tell me again how much of a Conservative Romney is.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-book-on-mitt-romney-here-is-john-mccains-ent

Sparky5253 on January 28, 2012 at 5:25 PM

And Mitt Romney asserted that he would do “everything in his power: to keep it legal. Here in Ohio we finally have a Republican governor and Congress and they immediately got to work on a law banning abortion once a heartbeat is detected. Romney says he’s pro-life now, but the fact is that he has never done a single thing to promote pro-life causes. Period.

although i live in ma. my two daughters married ohio men and live in columbus ohio. I know a lot about ohio and John Kasich.

So please stop grandstanding.

Ps. both my daughters are gasp “LIBERALS”. I failed on that score. must be the water in Columbus.

LOL

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I’d like to read that poll. Do you have a link? I don’t think that Mason-Dixing is the real name of a polling firm. Could you mean “Mason-Dixon?”
cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Eh, a typo. At any rate, it’s in range of all the other FL data:
RCP – 2012 Florida Republican Presidential Primary

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Good to see. Romney is holding onto his electability argument.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Really? check gallup

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Ps. both my daughters are gasp “LIBERALS”. I failed on that score. must be the water in Columbus.
gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Give it some years, as the reality of life sets in more & more.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

http://www.baynews9.com/article/news/2012/january/375474/

Here’s the FL poll link.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

hey jersey, i lived in Budd Lake NJ from 79-84.

although Bergen county and trenton county are not that great i found the rest of the state to be truly the “garden state”

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:32 PM

You don’t think Romney Care will fatally wound him there?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Nope. As I said here yesterday, running against Romneycare is fraught with much more danger for Obama than it is for Romney. The more he says “Your plan was the blueprint for ours,” the more Romney draws contrasts between the 2 plans, the more voters get to learn what is really in Obamacare. The democrats have been trying to avoid that since the day they rammed the bill through. Just these two differences alone — Romneycare had full bipartisan support and was wanted by the voters of Massachusetts — will remind American voters again of how pissed off they were when the democrats — and the democrats alone — passed Obamacare over the people’s objections.

I can just hear Romney: “Good grief, Mr. President. I would have never signed a health care reform bill in Massachusetts that none of the citizens wanted, that they were protesting against all over the state, but you did exactly that. I listened to my constituents; you ignored yours.”

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 5:29 PM

That Gallup poll being discussed here was done before Thursday night’s devastating debate for Gingrich. Moreover, national polls are meaningless. All that matters — and what I said in the part of my post you did not copy and paste — are the swing states. The only current swing state poll we have right now is one out today about Florida — and Romney is up 4 over the president. That is good news!

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Looks like Romney knows how bloody the nose of the MSM as well.

NickDeringer on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

although i live in ma. my two daughters married ohio men and live in columbus ohio. I know a lot about ohio and John Kasich.

So please stop grandstanding.

Ps. both my daughters are gasp “LIBERALS”. I failed on that score. must be the water in Columbus.

LOL

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:27 PM

How is it grandstanding to point out that if a governor is pro-life he can initiate pro-life legislation? You’re the one who dismissed a governor’s influence by saying this:

you know i read comments like this and wonder.
as far as I know ABORTION IS LEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. How many babies were aborted in YOUR state.

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:08 PM

So what’s your point? That you don’t care about abortion? Why is it relevant that your daughters are “liberals?” How does that in any way change the fact that Republicans in my state elected people who are trying to advance the pro-life cause?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

That Gallup poll being discussed here was done before Thursday night’s devastating debate for Gingrich. Moreover, national polls are meaningless. All that matters — and what I said in the part of my post you did not copy and paste — are the swing states.
Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I tried to explain it to someone else here. If there were a national primary that coincided with fleeting temporary highs – a la Perry, Cain, Newt bumps – a poll might have some bearing. But if you’re talking about where things are decided, it is indeed in the state primaries.
Also, it’s live by the polls – die by the polls. The national polls show Newt losing in a massive landslide to Obama.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I can just hear Romney: “Good grief, Mr. President. I would have never signed a health care reform bill in Massachusetts that none of the citizens wanted, that they were protesting against all over the state, but you did exactly that. I listened to my constituents; you ignored yours.”

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

That’s a good point and the Romney campaign should use it!

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Well then, if that’s all that matters to you, just go to a mitt rally. I think the last lady got a whole $65!

jersey taxpayer on January 28, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Getting votes the old-fashioned way — $65 at a time!

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM

“I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”…
Tom Brokaw

Now that there is some funny shit…..

TheGarbone on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The national polls show Newt losing in a massive landslide to Obama.

whatcat on January 28, 2012 at 5:42 PM

This is what I do not get about the “Republican establishment” argument. I hear so many people here saying that the so-called establishment doesn’t care if its guy wins or loses, so long as it’s their guy running. And I think: Or maybe, just maybe, they do care about winning and have done the math and are backing the more electable candidate. One can agree or disagree about electability, but the evidence we have before us at this time makes Romney more electable than Newt. Those are just facts, totally separated from emotion.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

You should have listened to the video first. Bondi did not say Romney wants ROMNEYCARE in every state. Quite the opposite.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I listened to it twice. She did talk about state’s rights, i.e., each state can have ROMNEYCARE for itself granted the state wants it. She does imply that Romneycare would be a great idea for every state though. I went a step ahead of what she said by implementing this in every state and I should have refrained from that.

On her other points, she’s delusional. Here’s a response on page 2 from a MA resident to your comment:

No, she just lied through her teeth. RomneyCare didn’t overrun its budget? Won’t raise taxes? Won’t create new bureaucracy? Doesn’t reduce choices? I live in Massachusetts, and I will tell you flat-out: she is LYING on every point. RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a disaster, over budget, forcing tax increases, creating intractable bureaucracy, forcing nearly every insurer out of the state with draconian regulation, robbing everybody of any legitimate choice. You can’t even find a … primary care physician if you’re on any form of state insurance, which is about half the damn state.

The only item on which she was not 180 degrees off the mark is that Romney’s plan wouldn’t divert money from Medicare. That’s a reason to vote AGAINST Mitt Romney, because the funding deficit in Medicare is two or three times the size of the funding deficit in Social Security, and any plan that does not include fundamental changes in Medicare is a plan to allow the dollar to collapse.

philwynk on January 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Basilsbest: Romney will not apologize for Romneycare. Why? Does he really think it’s a good idea? Why does he willfully ignore the facts on his signature bill?

conservative pilgrim on January 28, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Good to see. Romney is holding onto his electability argument.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:20 PM

LOL. Romney is 1 for 3 so far and trying to beat back a challenge from a washed-up former Speaker with baggage galore, but he’s hanging on to his electability argument.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:41 PM

obviously you do not read carefully.Republican governor WITH REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE.

Obviously not the case in mass.(or maybe not obvious to people who don’t live here)

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I have been on the fence for a bit now but I think I will be voting for Mitt on Tuesday. The reason is if he can bring the hammer down on Obumbles like he has on the Newt we will be in good shape.

TheGarbone on January 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Moreover, national polls are meaningless.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM

The second Mittbot today to say that. And this after 3 years of pointing to national polls to show us how electable Romney is.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Nope. As I said here yesterday, running against Romneycare is fraught with much more danger for Obama than it is for Romney. The more he says “Your plan was the blueprint for ours,” the more Romney draws contrasts between the 2 plans, the more voters get to learn what is really in Obamacare. The democrats have been trying to avoid that since the day they rammed the bill through. Just these two differences alone — Romneycare had full bipartisan support and was wanted by the voters of Massachusetts — will remind American voters again of how pissed off they were when the democrats — and the democrats alone — passed Obamacare over the people’s objections.
against all over the state, but you did exactly that. I listened to my constituents; you ignored yours.”

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM

+1

Running hard against Obamacare comes with dangers as well (50% oppose Obamacare, 40% support). People might not like the mandate, but that pre-existing conditions rhetoric do sway people even if in reality it applies to a very small number of people. I think Romney having Romneycare inevitably forces the Democrats to soften the “Republicans want you to just die on the street” rhetoric. It just doesn’t jive well using that line of attack against the guy who brought us Romneycare. So rather than Romneycare being a liability for Republicans, I view it as a neutralizing force for the unhinged moral grandstanding that is sure to come from the liberals on health care.

The best is to win the election on the economy and the direction the country is heading towards, and then repeal Obamacare afterwards. Argue instead that Obamacare is just not very good law (which is true, 2000 pages of special interest and panels that are unaccountable).

haner on January 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

“I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.”…

Tom Brokaw

if browkaw wants this down he should admit his position has changed and time has shown it to be untrue. if not he should shut up

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:54 PM

The reason is if he can bring the hammer down on Obumbles like he has on the Newt we will be in good shape.

TheGarbone on January 28, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Chances of that happening are the same as my chances of being nominated.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM

The second Mittbot today to say that. And this after 3 years of pointing to national polls to show us how electable Romney is.

Let me get this straight. the NATIONAL poll that shows NEWT ahead is valid-but the NATIONAL poll that shows NEWT getting clobbered by OBAMA is invalid.

Sounds like a plan

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM

I think Romney having Romneycare inevitably forces the Democrats to soften the “Republicans want you to just die on the street” rhetoric. It just doesn’t jive well using that line of attack against the guy who brought us Romneycare. So rather than Romneycare being a liability for Republicans, I view it as a neutralizing force for the unhinged moral grandstanding that is sure to come from the liberals on health care.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

ROFLMAO…you can’t see a better contortionist act in a circus. Why don’t we nominate an abortion doctor so the Democrats can’t use the “Republicans want women to go back to the coat hanger” argument?

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM

The second Mittbot today to say that. And this after 3 years of pointing to national polls to show us how electable Romney is.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:53 PM

National polls make sense for national elections. We don’t have national primaries, but we do have national general elections.

Therefore national polls of the Republican primary have little relevance, while the national polls comparing the Republican candidates to Obama have great relevance.

Do you understand now?

If you still don’t, wait until next Thursday, a few days after the Florida primary to see the national polls for the Republican primary change drastically.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM

obviously you do not read carefully.Republican governor WITH REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE.

Obviously not the case in mass.(or maybe not obvious to people who don’t live here)

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Oh, so you’re saying that even then, despite his many, many public proclamations to the contrary, Mitt secretly wanted to introduce legislation restricting abortion, but he couldn’t because he had to deal with a Democrat-controlled state legislature? So your point is that he was lying then, not lying now about being pro-life? And again, what did the liberal daughters have to do with any of this?

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Let me get this straight. the NATIONAL poll that shows NEWT ahead is valid-

gerrym51 on January 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Did I say that? I’m not the one that’s been living and dying by poll after poll here. The Mittbots are. Now when this or that poll shows their Mr Electability sinking, suddenly they’re “meaningless”.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Let me say this to the GOP elite, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination you better hope he wins the general election against Obama. If he does not you will have a revolution on your hands and GOP will go the way of Whig party with a new party taking its place. You cannot continue to pick people who do not represent the values and beliefs of the rank and file of your party. The only argument you have had is that Romney is more electable against Obama. If that is true, he better win…

At some point people who keep picking losers have to pay the political price. America does not like losers and does not tolerate them for long. That includes political parties.

William Eaton on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

National polls make sense for national elections. We don’t have national primaries, but we do have national general elections.

Therefore national polls of the Republican primary have little relevance, while the national polls comparing the Republican candidates to Obama have great relevance.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Oh, come off it. Romney is trailing Gingrich nationally among a wide swath of voters. Those same sorts of polls have been paraded around by Mittbots for years now to “prove” that Romney is electable. Get it now?

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM

^ I might also add the ABC/WaPo poll that showed Romney’s negatives on the rise, especially among independents. Now those sorts of polls when applied to Palin were supposed to be etched in stone. Romney’s becoming unelectable.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:06 PM

ROFLMAO…you can’t see a better contortionist act in a circus. Why don’t we nominate an abortion doctor so the Democrats can’t use the “Republicans want women to go back to the coat hanger” argument?

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Obamacare is timed to go in effect next year. The Democrats are itching to “reintroduce” Obamacare to Americans. They are itching to paint the Republicans as uncaring “let them die!” types. With Romney, the only thing they can say is “he was our blueprint.” And Romney can then go on to say why Obamacare is worse law than Romneycare. The point is, it makes Obamacare look stale, old, and not particularly groundbreaking. So much for Obama’s signature Health Care Reform.

I don’t want 2012 election to hinge on one issue. This is a dangerous strategy when a large minority is in favor of Obamacare. It’s galvanizing for both sides, do you not understand? I want 2012 to focus on the economy and general trajectory of the nation. Obama will lose and lose badly on that.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:06 PM

“I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign.” -Tom Brokaw

Now that there is some funny shit…..

TheGarbone on January 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Political Lying should now have “to brokaw” as a synonym.

profitsbeard on January 28, 2012 at 6:07 PM

At some point people who keep picking losers have to pay the political price. America does not like losers and does not tolerate them for long. That includes political parties.

William Eaton on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Losers????!!! But, but….Romney has been endorsed by Bob Dole, John McCain and even G.H.W. Bush! Oh, wait…

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Oh, come off it. Romney is trailing Gingrich nationally among a wide swath of voters. Those same sorts of polls have been paraded around by Mittbots for years now to “prove” that Romney is electable. Get it now?

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Electability is measured with respect to beating Obama.

Romney trounces Newt on that, therefore Romney is more electable.

Get it now?

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Devastating ad. Not sure what NBC’s objection is…news reports are included in ads all the time. Romney ought to tell them to pound sand.

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

They are itching to paint the Republicans as uncaring “let them die!” types.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:06 PM

They’ve been doing that for years now. It hasn’t made ObamaCare any more popular. What a bassackwards strategy. It’s more like a rationalization to try to take away Romney’s biggest liability. Won’t work.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Well isn’t that conveniently inconsistent. “We need Newt because he’s a fighter, a get-in-their-faces fighter,” so now Romney’s fighting and now the story becomes, “Oh, it doesn’t matter if Mitt’s a fighter. The media won’t play along with him anyway.”

Come on. Give me a break. Mitt’s showing some stones here, the kind of stones he’ll need to beat Obama. Admit it.

Rational Thought on January 28, 2012 at 2:16 PM

No not really inconsistent at all. Romney’s attacks will fail because they are all lies, the media will not spread the lies for him like they are now. So, it does not matter if he fights, he has to fight in a way that differentiates him from Obama and he cannot do it, he is Obama. I never said I would support a fighting Romney, it is pointless to do so, as his fight is worthless when it comes to attacking progressives.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Electability is measured with respect to beating Obama.

Romney trounces Newt on that, therefore Romney is more electable.

Get it now?

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Romney doesn’t “trounce” anyone anymore. Get it now?

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Let me say this to the GOP elite, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination you better hope he wins the general election against Obama. If he does not you will have a revolution on your hands and GOP will go the way of Whig party with a new party taking its place. You cannot continue to pick people who do not represent the values and beliefs of the rank and file of your party. The only argument you have had is that Romney is more electable against Obama. If that is true, he better win…

At some point people who keep picking losers have to pay the political price. America does not like losers and does not tolerate them for long. That includes political parties.

William Eaton on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

+1

I am merely watching the train-wreck as it happens. It’s both exciting and tragic.

And for those of you talking about Obamacare vs. MittCare. It won’t be an issue in 2012. Why? The Supreme Court will decide it.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:13 PM

They’ve been doing that for years now. It hasn’t made ObamaCare any more popular. What a bassackwards strategy. It’s more like a rationalization to try to take away Romney’s biggest liability. Won’t work.

ddrintn on January 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

A presidential campaign presents new opportunities. Obama is a good campaigner.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: by Robert Hardaway, a law professor who understands the mentality of Hot Airheads.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I guess the HotAir readership is pretty much in line with the rest of the GOP then. And maybe we feel that a Romney victory, assuming its even possible, would be a Phyrric one at best.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Electability is measured with respect to beating Obama.

Romney trounces Newt on that, therefore Romney is more electable.

Get it now?

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Newt and Mitt will both lose to Obama. Period.

Part of me wants Mitt to win to watch the GOP go down in flames.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Newt’s past is littered with targets for his political opponents to attack and they are making the best of it.

Hard to attack Romney as a flip-flopper when Newt supported global warming and sat on a sofa with Nancy.

Hard to attack Romney as a liberal when Mitt went on tour with Al Sharpton.

Hard to attack RomneyCare when Newt supported an individual mandate years ago.

Hard to attack Bain when pulling down $25,000 a month for teaching history to Freddie and Fannie.

And as to the ethics complaints and IRS matters? Probably nothing there of substance, but Newt’s opponents know most voters have dumbed down from “presumption of innocence” to “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

Newt was not prepared for all this, nor, do I think, could he have been. His past is his albatross and it is chained to him.

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

A presidential campaign presents new opportunities. Obama is a good campaigner.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Uh, no dude. Obama is THE campaigner. Which is why Romney will lose.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM

During that last debate when Mitt was describing MittCare, did anyone else think “Wow – The Obama campaign just made that into an ad?” He essentially described ObamaCare.

What are the differences other than state vs. federal (which is huge) between the two programs?

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Let me say this to the GOP elite, if Mitt Romney wins the nomination you better hope he wins the general election against Obama. If he does not you will have a revolution on your hands and GOP will go the way of Whig party with a new party taking its place. You cannot continue to pick people who do not represent the values and beliefs of the rank and file of your party. The only argument you have had is that Romney is more electable against Obama. If that is true, he better win…

At some point people who keep picking losers have to pay the political price. America does not like losers and does not tolerate them for long. That includes political parties.

William Eaton on January 28, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Explain to me, exactly, how the elites are “picking people”. Did they determine who ran? Did they make Perry forget the departments he was going to cut, or cause Cain to sexually harass several coworkers? Were they in the voting booths in IA, NH, and SC directing people how to vote?

It’s a weak field, but these were the folks that opted to run and this is what we have to work with. As far as who represents the values and beliefs of the party, I can certainly argue that it would not be Gingrich. (The party of family values choosing an adulterer? Really?) But, those values and beliefs won’t go anywhere if the guy or gal you choose doesn’t have a great chance of winning. There are no moral victories here…you either want to govern, or you don’t. The strongest candidate to do that is Romney.

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Basilsbest

You’re citing Hardaway, a graduate of ultra-liberal NYU law school and a law professor at ultra-liberal Denver University as a credible source? He went to ultra-liberal Amherst as an undergrad, btw.

I think I’ll stick with noted theologian, the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Part of me wants Mitt to win to watch the GOP go down in flames.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

If Mitt loses, then I’ll take my lumps and forfeit all opinion on politics. And I will support whatever comes out of the ashes, even if it’s Sarah Palin herself.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

No not really inconsistent at all. Romney’s attacks will fail because they are all lies, the media will not spread the lies for him like they are now. So, it does not matter if he fights, he has to fight in a way that differentiates him from Obama and he cannot do it, he is Obama. I never said I would support a fighting Romney, it is pointless to do so, as his fight is worthless when it comes to attacking progressives. astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Suggesting that Romney needs to tell lies to effectively eviscerate Obama is stupid. Plain stupid. Grasping at straws stupid. But, not surprisingly stupid, considering the source.

He is Obama. Yes they’re the same, other than the fact one’s a hard working capitalist and a brilliant problem solver and the other’s a lazy socialist who can’t be bothered with the details of anything.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:22 PM

During that last debate when Mitt was describing MittCare, did anyone else think “Wow – The Obama campaign just made that into an ad?” He essentially described ObamaCare.

What are the differences other than state vs. federal (which is huge) between the two programs?

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Alexrod seemed to. He tweeted afterwards that Mitt just offered the best defense of Obamacare that he had ever heard.

Kataklysmic on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Suggesting that Romney needs to tell lies to effectively eviscerate Obama is stupid. Plain stupid. Grasping at straws stupid. But, not surprisingly stupid, considering the source.

He is Obama. Yes they’re the same, other than the fact one’s a hard working capitalist and a brilliant problem solver and the other’s a lazy socialist who can’t be bothered with the details of anything.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Been explained, has never been refuted. Romney cannot attack Obama on his worst offenses as President, as he accomplished the exact same things as a Governor.

astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

changer1701

“They” all learned witchcraft and voo-doo at the super-secret “Skull and Bones” at Yale and get monthly updates from the Rothschilds and the Bilderberger Group.

Notice how lately you have awakened in the middle of the night and found yourself saying “Vote for Romney” over and over?

I don’t think I need to say any more.

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Part of me wants Mitt to win to watch the GOP go down in flames.Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Is that the narcissistic part of you? Or the plain stupid part?

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Uh, no dude. Obama is THE campaigner. Which is why Romney will lose.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM

That’s a pretty sweeping statement, especially since you somehow seem to believe that the Supreme Court will “decide the issue” of Obamacare (when in fact the only thing they are reviewing is the individual mandate.)

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM

If Mitt loses, then I’ll take my lumps and forfeit all opinion on politics. And I will support whatever comes out of the ashes, even if it’s Sarah Palin herself.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I am saying that the SC decision will rule ObamaCare null and void, either way the decision falls. Either it’s ruled over-reaching or it is made the law. Mitt is not the candidate to run against Obama. That is all I’m saying. I will vote ABO, but I walk into it knowing that our candidate, whoever it may be, will lose. Which is why I am totally ok with Newt being the candidate. ANY of them will lose to Obama. The ONLY good thing going for the Republican Party is that the Dems have NO ONE to run for President in the future.

Mitt will not having people in states like OH, WI, IN and so on that will go and campaign for him. You will get a voting public that will vote for him, but you won’t get people that are excited about it. That will not help Republicans. Your campaign strategy cannot be “Our guy isn’t the incumbent.” That’s not a strategy in any political campaign.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM

“They” all learned witchcraft and voo-doo at the super-secret “Skull and Bones” at Yale and get monthly updates from the Rothschilds and the Bilderberger Group.

Notice how lately you have awakened in the middle of the night and found yourself saying “Vote for Romney” over and over?

I don’t think I need to say any more.

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Heh. So instead of a monster, that was the “Establishment” under my bed? Who’d a thunk it..

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Mitt will not having people in states like OH, WI, IN and so on that will go and campaign for him. You will get a voting public that will vote for him, but you won’t get people that are excited about it. That will not help Republicans. Your campaign strategy cannot be “Our guy isn’t the incumbent.” That’s not a strategy in any political campaign.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM

According to Larry Sabato, it is Newt that puts more states at risk, not Romney- http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

HaHaHaHaHaHa!

Tom Brokaw?

“I don’t want my role as a lying POS liberal and Obama fellator compromised by any political campaign.”

This is rich slapstick comedy coming from a lapdog news reader.

Gawd, I detest our “betters” in the government-controlled media.

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Is that the narcissistic part of you? Or the plain stupid part?

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Watch it happen. The ONLY way that politics will be exciting is if there are local elections that matter. In the state of WI, it will be a mix because you are facing all of the union anger.

That’s a pretty sweeping statement, especially since you somehow seem to believe that the Supreme Court will “decide the issue” of Obamacare (when in fact the only thing they are reviewing is the individual mandate.)

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I think the SC decision is more important for 2012 than any other issue. The SC decision will make or break the campaign – on optics alone.

As someone interested in the legal profession, I don’t know how the individual mandate holds. I want to know how even the liberal judges vote. Courts, especially the SC, don’t like to enact (from my understanding) laws that set such a precedence and the case is a strong one that if you have everyone pool into the system, that’s an overreach. I don’t know how it holds It will effect so many future laws that I don’t understand, in all sincerity, how even liberal justices would on merit allow it to stand.

If SC says the individual mandate stands, essentially any law could be created mandating everyone to do X. It doesn’t matter what X activity is. That’s my position on it at least.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I am saying that the SC decision will rule ObamaCare null and void, either way the decision falls. Either it’s ruled over-reaching or it is made the law. Mitt is not the candidate to run against Obama. That is all I’m saying. I will vote ABO, but I walk into it knowing that our candidate, whoever it may be, will lose. Which is why I am totally ok with Newt being the candidate. ANY of them will lose to Obama. The ONLY good thing going for the Republican Party is that the Dems have NO ONE to run for President in the future.

Mitt will not having people in states like OH, WI, IN and so on that will go and campaign for him. You will get a voting public that will vote for him, but you won’t get people that are excited about it. That will not help Republicans. Your campaign strategy cannot be “Our guy isn’t the incumbent.” That’s not a strategy in any political campaign.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM

What? So you think that a SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate will somehow settle public opinion on government-run healthcare once and for all? You mean like Roe v. Wade settled abortion once and for all? It’s not exactly going to be that simple. And if Mitt is the nominee, the Republicans will vote for him, albeit grudgingly, just like we voted for McCain in 2008.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

changer1701

“They” are ingenious devils.

If you’re married, better hire a PI to tail the spouse. He/She is probably collaborating with “them.” Same applies to boy friend/girl friend.”

Horace on January 28, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Been explained, has never been refuted. Romney cannot attack Obama on his worst offenses as President, as he accomplished the exact same things as a Governor. astonerii on January 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Exact same things, other than the fact he didn’t increase the debt by 50%; he didn’t impose a healthcare system that the majority didn’t want; he didn’t substantially increase the rate of unemployment; he didn’t stomp on the legal rights of bondholders; he didn’t preside over a moribund economy and make it worse; and he had to deal with with an 85% opposition legislature.

You are incapable of being rational, let alone fair minded, when it comes to Romney. You are so completely unhinged about Romney that you’ve said you’ll vote for Obama.

Basilsbest on January 28, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Romney and his campaign know this ad is bogus. My biggest question is:” why are the GOP insiders out after Newt?” They’re not out after anyone they disagree with, but they are after Newt. If you really want to know why, look at the spending, when Newt was the Speaker, and then look at what happened afterwards.

The Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 1000 days, what are they hiding? If they are hiding things, and I believe it’s all about spending for Obamacare, the Republicans, in the Senate, are complicit in it. When is our illustrious free press going to start asking some questions?

bflat879 on January 28, 2012 at 6:38 PM

According to Larry Sabato, it is Newt that puts more states at risk, not Romney- http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

changer1701 on January 28, 2012 at 6:31 PM

I don’t disagree. Any Republican candidate will lose though. Our candidates are THAT dismal. At least Newt is offering up any sort of new idea, even if they aren’t good ones. Mitt gives stock answers.

That’s why people like Ron Paul and folks like Palin. They weren’t giving boilerplate answers. They were explaining how they would go after the actual problem. And that’s why people liked Rick Perry too despite his faults.

The reason why Palin wanted Newt to win in SC (other than stuffing it to Mitt) was because if you stop campaigning now, activists don’t stay engaged. If you continue the process, you continue this engagement. Mitt is lame though. Instead of presenting his ideas, he needs to attack Newt. That’s called punching down.

Both of them should be punching up at Obama. That’s why Palin has been so GRRRRR lately. I commend her for it because the GOP is walking on its last leg. I sincerely believe that too.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:39 PM

I think the SC decision is more important for 2012 than any other issue. The SC decision will make or break the campaign – on optics alone.

As someone interested in the legal profession, I don’t know how the individual mandate holds. I want to know how even the liberal judges vote. Courts, especially the SC, don’t like to enact (from my understanding) laws that set such a precedence and the case is a strong one that if you have everyone pool into the system, that’s an overreach. I don’t know how it holds It will effect so many future laws that I don’t understand, in all sincerity, how even liberal justices would on merit allow it to stand.

If SC says the individual mandate stands, essentially any law could be created mandating everyone to do X. It doesn’t matter what X activity is. That’s my position on it at least.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

The economy and unemployment are going to be the two deciding factors in this race. And as someone who’s already finished law school, I can tell you that the SCOTUS has no problem in adjudicating a case or setting precedent where they feel it’s appropriate.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:42 PM

I am saying that the SC decision will rule ObamaCare null and void, either way the decision falls. Either it’s ruled over-reaching or it is made the law. Mitt is not the candidate to run against Obama. That is all I’m saying. I will vote ABO, but I walk into it knowing that our candidate, whoever it may be, will lose. Which is why I am totally ok with Newt being the candidate. ANY of them will lose to Obama. The ONLY good thing going for the Republican Party is that the Dems have NO ONE to run for President in the future.

Mitt will not having people in states like OH, WI, IN and so on that will go and campaign for him. You will get a voting public that will vote for him, but you won’t get people that are excited about it.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Is your nickname Eeyore?

Romney is much stronger in places like Indiana and Michigan than Newt. Newt’s only stronghold is the South, and you know what, that does jack sh!t for us in winning the presidency.

haner on January 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM

What? So you think that a SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate will somehow settle public opinion on government-run healthcare once and for all? You mean like Roe v. Wade settled abortion once and for all? It’s not exactly going to be that simple. And if Mitt is the nominee, the Republicans will vote for him, albeit grudgingly, just like we voted for McCain in 2008.

cynccook on January 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Yes. SCOTUS will settle this issue. I’ve always believed that. It’s why I put so much importance on the ruling. It doesn’t just effect THIS issue. It will effect all future precedence. I sincerely believe that.

Mitt and Obama have the same stance on health care – one as a state issue, one as the federal. From my understanding, without doing any research (so if there is differing opinion please feel free to state it), Roe V. Wade won’t effect as many future laws that this SC decision will. As I said, from a legal standpoint, I am really interested in this decision. I’ll be going to law school somewhere (unknown yet) in the Fall and from my limited exposure to it, this law will have HUGE ramifications on future precedence and the length that future law can be stretched.

That’s why the car insurance analogy is such a strong one.

I didn’t vote for McCain. I voted for Palin. I still would’ve voted, but that’s only because I always vote. You are not going to have the same numbers coming out in large droves. This will be a numbers game. The help will be that kids my age and younger may be disillusioned from the Obama mystique. But he’s still a personable guy and this will be hard to beat. I mean look at how popular he still is and the economy is horrible. You run Mr. Milquetoast or Mr. Drama and it’s going to be bad.

All I can say is that the SC decision matters A LOT to me legally. And I can’t see how even liberal justices would vote for a future precedence setting law.

Midwestprincesse on January 28, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7