It’s not over, but …

posted at 8:40 am on February 1, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Did Mitt Romney resuscitate his “inevitability” argument with his win last night?  The subtext of his victory speech seemed to make that claim, Reid Epstein argues at Politico:

Mitt Romney didn’t just claim victory Tuesday night — he sent a clear message to Newt Gingrich: The nomination is mine.

The former Massachusetts governor scored a decisive win in the Florida presidential primary — by a higher percentage than even in his New Hampshire stronghold. Celebrating the results, he looked past Gingrich and his other opponents but offered a clear appeal to the voters backing them in both the tone and substance of his speech.

Well, Team Romney might want to keep the fireworks boxed up a wee bit longer, as hubris is as bad a political aphrodisiac as desperation.  Romney has a grand total of 84 delegates now, putting him far into the lead but 1,060 delegates shy of a majority, too.  He’ll have to put more distance between himself and the rest of the pack for his opponents to concede the contest to him.

Still, the big win in Florida does put Romney in the driver’s seat, as I wrote for CNN late last night:

Is the primary over at this point? Gingrich would vociferously object to that notion, as would Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. It does begin to get more difficult from this point forward, though. Until now, the primary states have come one at a time. Starting next week, states start coming simultaneously, and organization will begin to make more of a difference than it has, even in Florida.

Romney’s campaign announced its fourth-quarter fundraising before South Carolina, and it was an eye-popping $24 million, with almost $20 million of it in the bank. Gingrich only raised $10 million, his team announced a few hours before the polls closed in Florida, with $1.2 million in debt still on the books. That kind of fiscal dominance will allow the Romney team to do a lot more in parallel primaries than Gingrich can. And that will make a big difference as seven states hold contests in the next four weeks, and then ten more hold theirs on the same day in five weeks.

In order for the other Republicans to catch up now, they will need a big stumble from Romney.  Their strategy going into the caucus-heavy month of February will be to score one or two wins as a way to change the narrative, not only in relation to Romney but in relation to each other.  Gingrich demanded that Santorum pull out of the race yesterday, and Santorum began running ads in Nevada and Colorado that targeted Gingrich rather than Romney.  Both of them want to be the consolidation candidate, and neither can while the other won’t quit — and that helps Romney, too, who has plenty of money to fight both simultaneously when needed.

Even if one of them dropped out, though, that wouldn’t mean that the entire non-Romney vote would coalesce behind the survivor.  This argument got expressed by my friend Kevin McCullough on Twitter thusly: “The REAL story in Florida: Votes 4Romney 765,834, against Romney 882,424!”  That, however, assumes that everyone’s second choice wouldn’t be Romney.  PPP’s final Florida poll showed that Romney came in second in the second-choice category at 18%, with Rick Santorum in first at 26% and Gingrich slightly behind Romney at 17%, and 31% saying “someone else/not sure.”  It also assumes Paul’s voters would flock to either Gingrich or Santorum, which seems laughably speculative at best.  If Santorum had dropped out, Gingrich wouldn’t have won Florida, and the reverse is even more true.

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

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

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Bishop
Probably don’t need a tunnel, run a whole bunch of pcv with a tap! It can help it age to.
;-)

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Rick Santorum appears to be the adult in the room after the slugfest between Gingrich and Romney.

With Romney, it’s no secret that the one group that despises Tea Party-minded conservatives almost as much as the left is the old-guard, establishment Republicans. Card carrying members include Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Conservatives sense there is a key ingredient missing with Romney. Sort of like a piece of cake you eat which tastes ok but you know it’s missing something – maybe sugar? Or a casserole that looks delicious but when you taste it you know it needs more salt.

With Gingrich, you get the sense that this guy could be a loose cannon. He makes sense most of the time but then throws out random thoughts like establishing a moon base during a time when it’s the farthest thing from people’s minds. Or accusing Romney of stealing kosher meals from senior’s at the Jewish nursing homes.

Or he harps on the government using Lean Six Sigma techniques in all its tactical and decision making efforts. If Lean Six Sigma is a good methodology, once the government gets through with it, it won’t even come close to the original. You can add it to the pile of other initiatives the government has failed at over the past 30 years – Management by Objectivie; Baldridge Theory; Quality Circles; etc.

Santorum appears to be the most consistent from the history I’ve read. One of the biggest complaints against him is his voting with the unions in his Pennsylvania district. I’m not sure why that would be a complaint because he was elected to represent the people of his district, not impose his own will when voting.

iamsaved on February 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I dunno Cap’n Ed, it might be a bit early to call it for Romney. Let’s see what happens now that the forces aligned against Romney getting the GOP nod realize that it just got real!

I think that Santorum will be coming to the fore a bit more, especially out west where the non-Romney voters realize that the Newt is another fan of big-government; you know, as long as he’s milking that duck :)

As always, my regards

RocketmanBob on February 1, 2012 at 9:20 AM

I’ll tell you what’s become annoying are all these pundits who keep taking this passive aggressive, bi polar approach to Romney’s victory, Newt’s decline, Santorum’s surge, etc. I must have read ten articles about how Romney “has this in the bag, he’s inevitable, no one can catch up” and then they go on to give fifteen reasons why he doesn’t, and why “mathmatically the others can catch up, they probably won’t, but they can”. Nearly every talking head last night gave a very detailed scenario of how Santorum and Gingrich could “go here and win this, and Gingrich is definitely going all the way to the convention, but he really can’t because he hasn’t got any money”.

I realize they have to have something to talk about, but I’ve yet to hear one that doesn’t speak in a circle.

BettyRuth on February 1, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Oh ya, woohoo first,or second or… whatever!

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Gingrich 32% + Santorum 13% equals 45%
(Note – Ron Paul 7%)

If either Newt or Santorum dropped out………the race would
be much closer than it appears on the surface. Liberal vs.
conservative.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM

The reason Santorum and Paul has 20% of the vote is because they like them. To assume they will jump to Newt if their guys aren’t in is stupid.

rich801 on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Again, I state the race is mostly liberal vs. conservative vs.
whacko nuts. Now you figure out who those players are.
A conservative would never vote for Romney in the primary.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Tingles and the of the msdnc will focus on the out of context verbiage ad nausem today

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

As will the late nights. All of us here know what he was saying and the point he was making, but that one 15 second soundbite will be repeated ad nauseum. You think MSDNC will give his clarification and further explanation any airtime?

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I believe that a great percentage of those who voted for Gingrich or Santorum would not vote for Romney. Again, it is
conservative vs. liberal.

Amjean on February 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM

I think a significant percentage of Santorum voters would go to Willard, although I’m not sure how much. I suspect a lot of them have problems with Newt’s adultery issues.

Face it: we have four of the worst candidates for President on our side we could possibly have. They all suck.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Romney says his focus is on the middle class, not the poor because there is a safety net for the poor. This is a gaffe according to those who support the twice divorced man who pledged his honor.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Gingrich is no longer what you could call a conservative by any strecth. Santorum is closest, but his very admirable positions on life and the sanctity of marriage are lampooned by the MSM to the point of distraction. He has been better on the stump recently, and in reality has been the better campaigner from a philosophical perspective, but he ignites no excitment across a broad coalition of voters. And he has his own non-conservative moments, especially with manufacturing policy.

Newts loss of women in Florida shows that he cannot win the general – no way possible. And his whining is becoming tiresome. He needs to drop and let Santorum go after Romney on substance so as to make sure Romney really understands where the conservatives are, he needs them to win. This also provides a much better transition to attacking Obama, who is the real enemy here.

In a month we will know where we are at.

Zomcon JEM on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

that poor people on welfare would not vote for him its a given, but middle class will see this remark as insensitive which will not contribute to his likability and it will energize the poor(read 8% unemployed) to vote for obama.
disaster!

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM

I am not fan of Mitt…but I disagree, the middle, the huge middle class is disenfranchised, and that is the “independents” the voters who he needs, and that Obama needs.
A case can be made that the middle class is supporting our nation’s debt, and the focus should be on them. They need to become stronger, employed, and not “beaten down” by the left.
If this opens a dialog, Mitt will be the winner in the dialog…at least among the voters he has a chance and needs.
You and I have to agree to disagree…in this instance, Mitt is taking the right course.
Obama divides the nation as the haves and have nots…why can’t Mitt do the same, and divide the nation in his favor.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

I love paying her food bill. I just do.

/

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

It’s funny this came up this morning.

Go check out an ATM machine in any inner city the last night of the month just before and after the clock strikes midnight. You won’t be happy when you see who’s cashing in their welfare chits to go buy whatever they buy at midnight when the grocery stores aren’t open.

Mitt’s right. The middle class is getting f’ed but he’s certainly not the right messenger.

CTSherman on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

And yet Gingrich is now fading fast
NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Mitt won by 14% after running for years, having the entire Establishment on his side, having outspent Newt by 4 to 1, having carpet-bombed the state with negative ads, and having the advantage of being unopposed while he campaigned in Florida for months.

Newt won the Panhandle and Northern Florida. Mitt won the snowbird counties (Northeastern transplants) by large margins.

Newt won S. Carolina by 12% after having been outspent by more than 2 to 1 by Mitt and having the news media weigh in with his ex-wife while the Establishment tried to whip voters into a frenzy with an attack on Newt’s mental health.

Turnout in Florida in 2012 was about 300,000 votes less than in 2008. Turnout in South Carolina in 2012 was larger by more than 150,000 voters.

Romney won with either similar or less turnout than in 2008. Newt won with substantially heavier turnout.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

Yeah, he’s buying his way to the top.

mozalf on February 1, 2012 at 8:57 AM

This is especially stinging in an election that is supposedly about government spending. Yes, I know the difference between private financing and government financing but what about the average voter. The amount of money involved in elections is staggering.

And, it doesn’t matter if “I like to fire people” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor” are taken out of context. They will be used over and over again until the context is lost anyway. These mistakes denote a sense of cluelessness.

Fallon on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

BREAKING: Mitt too conservative for Hot Gas readers.

Doesn’t empathize enough. Not deceptive enough.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

There is no consolation prize if he loses. This is what I do not understand…some of you are under the impression there is some moral victory to be gained if Obama wins, but there really isn’t.

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

We saw a Republican president spend like a drunken sailor and expand government with the blessings of a GOP congress who were earmarking and junketing all over the world, get their butts handed to them by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. After a Mitt or Newt administration, we’ll hear sobbing Republicans swearing never to stray from their principles again!

cartooner on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Reagan was a conservative whose time had to come…Mitt is a liberal whose time has come?
If Mitt had ideas that were revolutionary, that were fighting the status quo, than the comparison would be valid…but he isn’t, he is just another one of the long line of RINO’s.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

LOL@Right2bright. No matter how many times you and other anti-Romney-bot keep repeating it, he’s not NEARLY as liberal as you make him out to be.

I get that you and others don’t think he’s got the conservative credentials but I also get that one has to demonize their opponent and mischaracterize them into oblivion if one wants to win a primary.

One has to paint ones opponent into the ideological corner, and that’s all you and the other anti-Romney-bots can do. Keep calling him a RINO/liberal/etc…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Harriet Miers is a True Conservative? Snort. Her nomination was scuttled by conservatives, not establishment folks, because they saw her for what she was: an unqualified Bush crony.

KingGold on February 1, 2012 at 9:15 AM

You misunderstand. I’m saying the establishment don’t want the conservative base to be able to scuttle a Harriet Miers again. They would vastly prefer a Meirs or a Souter to a Thomas or an Alito.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

angrymike on February 1, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Plastic chemicals leeching into the very fluid of life, are you insane? A glass system maybe, you might be on to something.

Bishop on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

You misunderstand. I’m saying the establishment don’t want the conservative base to be able to scuttle a Harriet Miers again. They would vastly prefer a Meirs or a Souter to a Thomas or an Alito.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

*doesn’t, oops

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:26 AM

BREAKING: Mitt too conservative for Hot Gas readers.

Doesn’t empathize enough. Not deceptive enough.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Romneycare is the “fruit” of a Conservative?
Baloney!

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Go Romney!

ObamatheMessiah on February 1, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Romney isn’t for abortion. So why keep repeating that? He has changed his mind. Take him at his word. You Newt supporters take him at his word when he says he found religion and won’t cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Good point, I, on the other hand, never believed either one.

cartooner on February 1, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Florida is a closed primary with a broad cross section of the American public. A key thing to look at is that women voted for Romney by a considerable margin. In South Carolina it was open and women swung to Gingrich, which would lead me to believe that a large number of Democrats picked up Republican ballots and voted for the person they wanted Obama to face in the general. What self-respecting woman is going to swayed by the philandering Gingrich? The Democrat woman, who wants payback for Clinton and Obama’s reelection, and those that really believe Gingrich is a conservative and that Romney is not, and for whom conservatism is the touchstone of their voting judgement.

If you look at a map of upcoming primaries, the country looks much more like Florida than it does South Carolina. The likely outcome is a sizable Romney victory, especially if you factor in momentum and money.

http://www.fairvote.org/congressional-and-presidential-primaries-open-closed-semi-closed-and-top-two#.TylGCJjZHao

claudius on February 1, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Romney is for Romney. He believes in the Romney that everyone should believe in. Romney believes that in a perfect Romney everyone is Romney.

/

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Why is there a “/” there?

Fallon on February 1, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Flora, out of context is their middle name

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:29 AM

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 9:11 AM

:-)

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Face it: we have four of the worst candidates for President on our side we could possibly have. They all suck.DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:22 AM

What’s with the We. Are you voting for Romney if he’s the nominee? Jack Welch says Romney is the most qualified man ever to run for President. Those who claim Romney sucks should take a good look at themselves. He’s the only person who can possibly get us out of this fiscal mess.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

that poor people on welfare would not vote for him its a given, but middle class will see this remark as insensitive which will not contribute to his likability and it will energize the poor(read 8% unemployed) to vote for obama.
disaster!

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Wrongheaded. Many middle class people see handouts for people who don’t work, don’t value hard work (perhaps they could be janitors/, don’t try to learn, and are disgusted. If Newt had said this you would be eating it up.

You want our candidates sucking up to certified Obama voters?

An economy that revolves around failure will only end in failure.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Romney has garnered about 1,000,000 popular votes so far. The non-Romney candidates have garnered about 1,500,000 popular votes so far.

Viator on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Good God. “I don’t care about the very poor”?! Seriously?! Don’t give me any of that taken out of context bullcrap. I know what Mittens was trying to say and I agree that the middle class in this country is who’s being squeezed the most by Obama’s policies.

But you NEVER EVER EVER EVER utter a line like that when you’re running for President of the United States! Particularly when you’re a rich white Republican going up against a (half)black incumbent who’s entire electoral strategy will be centered around class warfare and the race card.

Doughboy on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I think Mitt has just gained my support in the primaries, and definitely added to my enthusiasm in the general election. He’s got all the charisma of a speed bump but he does understand the most important truth: the middle class elects presidents. Most of the “very poor” are already a part of Obama’s FSA (Free Sh|t Army), or won’t bother to vote because their TV is working.

Archivarix on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I will also tell you his comments play well with middle class working people who feel everything is structured to benefit lazy free-loaders.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

That’s rather harsh. I don’t think that everyone on Food Stamps right now is a free loader. Times have been tough for many middle-class families. Some good families have been on the unlucky side of this economy and have lost their jobs and are having a tough time finding a new job.

Our Church is meeting so many unmet needs of struggling middle-class families and lower income families. These families are embarrassed that they are even in a situation where they need assistance. Many of them waited until they couldn’t wait any longer. Many of them cry when they admit they need help.

I think that this statement by Romney is insensitive and shows a fundamental disconnect from what is happening in the real economy.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

+1000

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Face it: we have four of the worst candidates for President on our side we could possibly have. They all suck.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:22 AM

We said that in 2008. I was for Willard before I was against him. That he could lose to The Big Wheeze was astonishing. That he WILL lose to Obamalaise is a fact, Jack.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM

BREAKING: Mitt too conservative for Hot Gas readers.

Doesn’t empathize enough. Not deceptive enough.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Hah. That will leave a mark.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I am not fan of Mitt…but I disagree, the middle, the huge middle class is disenfranchised, and that is the “independents” the voters who he needs, and that Obama needs.
A case can be made that the middle class is supporting our nation’s debt, and the focus should be on them. They need to become stronger, employed, and not “beaten down” by the left.
If this opens a dialog, Mitt will be the winner in the dialog…at least among the voters he has a chance and needs.
You and I have to agree to disagree…in this instance, Mitt is taking the right course.
Obama divides the nation as the haves and have nots…why can’t Mitt do the same, and divide the nation in his favor.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

no dud, this was just a foot in mouth moment. mitt gave a sound bite that will make him look careless on the poor while at the same time he is defending the social programs:

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans … we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

he clearly takes the liberal view of social safety nets. he is all for them.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I will also tell you his comments play well with middle class working people who feel everything is structured to benefit lazy free-loaders.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:05 AM

That’s rather harsh. I don’t think that everyone on Food Stamps right now is a free loader. Times have been tough for many middle-class families. Some good families have been on the unlucky side of this economy and have lost their jobs and are having a tough time finding a new job.

Our Church is meeting so many unmet needs of struggling middle-class families and lower income families. These families are embarrassed that they are even in a situation where they need assistance. Many of them waited until they couldn’t wait any longer. Many of them cry when they admit they need help.

I think that this statement by Romney is insensitive and shows a fundamental disconnect from what is happening in the real economy.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

+1000
tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

OK. Yeah they still have pride. They won’t be helped by getting more food stamps. They will succeed and grow by getting stable work. Such an economy can only exist when resources are not directed to the bottom of the food chain.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

BREAKING: Mitt too conservative for Hot Gas readers.

Doesn’t empathize enough. Not deceptive enough.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Hah. That will leave a mark.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Explain, please, how Romneycare is the “fruit” of a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:24 AM

And yet…Newt has faded fast. The here and now is all that matters. Most of us would prefer someone other then Romney. But many of us have come to the conclusion that Romney is preferable to Newt. Do you support Newt’s populist, anti-conservative attacks on Romney?

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What’s with the We. Are you voting for Romney Obama if he’s the nominee? Jack Welch says Romney Obama is the most qualified man ever to run for President. Those who claim Romney Obama sucks should take a good look at themselves. He’s the only person who can possibly get us out of this fiscal mess.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

You know I luv ya, Basil but I just had to do it. It was the same turdburger they served to Billary in 2008….

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

The goal of people talking like this is to force the Republican Party to permit a conservative to rise to the top of the primary process, not to switch control of the presidency from liberal A to liberal B.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM

How are they not “permitting” a conservative from doing just that? There is nothing to stop the base from coalescing around Santorum or Gingrich, if that’s who they want, just as Perry and Cain took turns at the top before imploding. Trouble is, neither have made the case, and if they can’t beat a Massachusetts moderate in a Republican primary then how can you expect them to take on Obama?

changer1701 on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

One has to paint ones opponent into the ideological corner, and that’s all you and the other anti-Romney-bots can do. Keep calling him a RINO/liberal/etc…

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Do you call an Abortion supporter, a strict gun law advocate, a mandatory mandate, a TARP, a supporter of gov takeover of business…a conservative?
“That’s all we do” because that is his record as a government leader…no conservative appointments, no conservative credenitials as far as leading any conservative group….he stated, he was an independent, not a Republican…that’s his record.
So now we can only attack Mitt on other things besides his record?
We are not “painting him” we are using his words, his actions, his policies to define him.
If we are wrong about him supporting abortion, point it out, show us that the video was fake…show us where he stated he was an independent that the video was fake, where he supporter strict gun laws, was fake…where he thought Obama’s takeover of businesses was just like what he did at Bain, and therefore worthy, that was fake also?
This is him, not a “painting” but actually him…the fact that you think these facts are some “paint”, shows to me why he is leading, his supporters won’t face the facts.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

As far as I know none of them did.

Did mitt congratulate newt in SC?

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Romney was on Fox & Friends this morning. He said Santorum and Paul had called him, and he had called Gingrich when he won SC.

As a Gingrich supporter, I find not calling to congratulate Romney a rather pissy thing to do.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Explain, please, how Romneycare is the “fruit” of a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

I should ask you, you would know a fruit when you see it.

Ask Heritage Foundation.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I don’t give a crap who the nominee is as long as I have somebody to vote for to remove Obama out of office! Geesh people, get over it and focus. If you are a tea partier like myself you need to realize we affect change from the bottom up. We need to cultivate our candidates at the congressional and senate levels. Anyone who thinks a fully conservative tea party candidate is going to win the Presidential seat is just truly naive. Most of America is center, therefore a moderate is going to win this thing. I don’t understand how you don’t see that. Long term strategy, quit thinking short term.

gator70 on February 1, 2012 at 9:14 AM

+1

Thank you for speaking up. I was beginning to wonder if I was about the only one who thinks this way.

Support your favorite candidate for now, vote for the eventual nominee, GIVE MONEY TO CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES FOR THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

robm on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Good Morning! Interesting read about Charlie Black!

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I should ask you, you would know a fruit when you see it.

Ask Heritage Foundation.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Answer the question. Quit deflecting.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Explain, please, how Romneycare is the “fruit” of a Conservative.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Romneycare isn’t the fruit of a conservative. It’s the fruit of a 80+% Democratic, liberal legislature that was going to ramrod everything through the process regardless of the objections of a Republican Governor.

Romney saw the writing on the wall and every veto he wielded against the bill was overturned. He was basically forced to sign that bill, so rather than be an obstinate jackass going against the majority of his constituents wishes, he worked with them to try to shape it into something not so teethy.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I think Mitt has just gained my support in the primaries, and definitely added to my enthusiasm in the general election. He’s got all the charisma of a speed bump but he does understand the most important truth: the middle class elects presidents. Most of the “very poor” are already a part of Obama’s FSA (Free Sh|t Army), or won’t bother to vote because their TV is working.

Archivarix on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

no dude, mitt in the same interview defended the the programs that exist:

mitt:we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

mitt just lacked the political talent to say that his focus is on middle class without sounding careless about the poor in soundbites.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

And yet…Newt has faded fast. The here and now is all that matters. Most of us would prefer someone other then Romney. But many of us have come to the conclusion that Romney is preferable to Newt. Do you support Newt’s populist, anti-conservative attacks on Romney?

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

This is total dejavu’

Didn’t we all star in this play back in 2008 when the establishment gave us John My Friend McWheezer?

And for dessert the establishment gave us McFattyFat Mehgaloid-in-your-face-vote-for-romney-McCain?

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Good morning, JonB! Thanks!

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

My advice to Romney would be that he needs to figure out how to reach out to conservatives. The panhandle went for Newt which shows that Romney has a real problem on his right flank. If he is the inevitable nominee, the time to start mending fences is now.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 8:48 AM

If by his second run he has not yet figured that out there isn’t much that he can do ,it is not in him , he grew up as an elite with a perfect family he can not connect with general America.
And he is not conservative b/c he did not stand on his core values when pushed so he is being pushed down our throats and Obama and Dems know that and will use it in a such an effective way.

evergreenland on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Romney isn’t for abortion. So why keep repeating that? He has changed his mind. Take him at his word. You Newt supporters take him at his word when he says he found religion and won’t cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:12

AM

But do you Romney supporters take Newt at his word on that?

Night Owl on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

he clearly takes the liberal view of social safety nets. he is all for them.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

I agree, he is for the full status quo of Washington, I don’t have a problem showing that he is a liberal at heart.
I was merely stating that this is not a disaster as some want to make it…he has much, much worse in his background that will sink him.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I don’t think Mitt did so much better than Newt with his messaging, but Newt’s ugly attacks and his cockiness may have cost him. He just makes me cringe sometimes. I hope this helps Santorum.

scalleywag on February 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Do you support Newt’s populist, anti-conservative attacks on Romney?

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What anti-conservative attacks?

Do you support Mitt Romney’s half-truths, untruths and distortions on just about everything? ;-)

Mitt Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Which side should we believe he is on now?

I happen to think that Newt is an imperfect vehicle. However, he does have a long record of conservative achievement. Mitt does not.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM

What’s with the We. Are you voting for Romney if he’s the nominee? Jack Welch says Romney is the most qualified man ever to run for President. Those who claim Romney sucks should take a good look at themselves. He’s the only person who can possibly get us out of this fiscal mess.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Jack Welch can pound sand.
Romney won’t get us out of this fiscal mess. He has no serious plan to reform the tax code and no serious plan to reform Social Security or Medicare that doesn’t involve the continued involvement of big government. After all, the states and the people are rubes who can’t be trusted, as we learned from the Democrat-inspired talking points he used to attack Perry.

His 53 point plan? Get real. It doesn’t take a 53 point plan to cut spending and simplify the tax code.

Besides, who knows what in the hell Romney will believe in if he were to get elected and faced a little pushback from Democrats and a bad poll or two. He’s likely to rediscover himself as a born-again Keynsesian, just like his rebirth as a pro-lifer.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Romneycare isn’t the fruit of a conservative. It’s the fruit of a 80+% Democratic, liberal legislature that was going to ramrod everything through the process regardless of the objections of a Republican Governor.

Romney saw the writing on the wall and every veto he wielded against the bill was overturned. He was basically forced to sign that bill, so rather than be an obstinate jackass going against the majority of his constituents wishes, he worked with them to try to shape it into something not so teethy.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

Good point.

So, if Willard is faced with a Dem house and Dem Senate, we should assume that we’ll all be Dems because Willard saw the righting on the wall and he was forced to ‘sign that bill’ so rather than be an obstinate jackass going against the majority of his constituents wishes, he worked with them to try to shape it into something not so teethy.

……………

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

The fat lady ain’t singing, but she’ll be clearing her throat in four weeks if Romney doesn’t make a big mistake.

Let’s hope she keeps her voice, because she needs to be singing in November after the Romney victory then.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 9:40 AM

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

:-)

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

right2bright on February 1, 2012

He didn’t “embrace” abortion. But I’m sure you guys here have all the facts and they have been repeated countless times. He has been praised by people in the pro-life movement. You could look it up. My point was why do people on these threads keep repeating the same things over and over, when half the time they are wrong?

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

he stated he was an independent, not a Republican…that’s his record.

He said he was an independent in the Reagan years, but he also said that as he’s gotten older, he’s found a lot of what Reagan did to be the right choice and has changed his thinking on things.

Was Romney ever really AGAINST Reagan?

FYI, in the black and white pic at the beginning of that video showing Reagan with some other folks, guess who those two other people are? Romney’s parents if I’m not mistaken.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

are you a stinkin’ lib? Do free market policies piss you off? Have you ever wondered, “how can I vote democrat but tell my friends I’m a conservative?” Well, for a limited time only you can Buy Mittens! Yes, for the low price of America’s future (plus S&H) you can own your very own democrat lite! All the lib taste, with only half the lib calories. Order now!

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM

He didn’t “embrace” abortion. But I’m sure you guys here have all the facts and they have been repeated countless times. He has been praised by people in the pro-life movement. You could look it up. My point was why do people on these threads keep repeating the same things over and over, when half the time they are wrong?

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

praised for what, for changing his mind? he is a fake on this issue:

Abortion
 Romney says he changed his mind on abortion meeting with Harvard stem cell researcher – Romney claims
the doctor said scientists “kill” embryos after 14 days, but doctor later said Romney “mischaracterized my
position.”
 Months after his “conversion,” Romney stated his commitment to upholding Massachusetts’ abortion laws and
appointed pro-choice judge to state district court.
 In October 2005, Romney signed bill expanding family planning services, including abortion counseling and
morning-after pill.
 In December 2005, Romney “abruptly ordered his administration to reverse course … and require Catholic
hospitals to provide emergency contraception medication to rape victims.”
 Romney health insurance plan expanded access to abortion, required Planned Parenthood representative on
state panel.
 Romney endorsed legalization of abortion pill RU-486 access during his 1994 Senate race and backed
federal funding of abortion, saying “I think it’s important that people see me not as a pro-life candidate.”
 In 1994 and 2002, Romney confirmed his support for Roe v. Wade decision and forcefully positioned himself
as pro-choice in 1994 Senate race, saying “you will not see me wavering on that.”
 Romney has refused to comment on bill pending in South Carolina legislature requiring that abortion doctors
offer pregnant women option of viewing ultrasound.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Support your favorite candidate for now, vote for the eventual nominee, GIVE MONEY TO CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATES FOR THE HOUSE AND SENATE.

robm on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Exactly! The next President isn’t going to be the Messiah anymore than the current President is. If you want a smaller government, the budgets for that smaller government have to come out of the House and Senate.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Night Owl on February 1, 2012

I take him at his word that he has found his church home, and I don’t think he will cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Answer the question. Quit deflecting.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

What conservative things have the other candidates signed into law as governor? Oh, right.

I don’t think RomneyCare is a fruit; more like a vegetable if anything else. He apparently vetoed a lot of sections which were harsher on employers. Romney is more pragmatic about governance and will get things done and meet needs. He did something for his state and it worked. I believe the Federalist Papers referenced states as laboratories. Don’t see an issue with it. The entire country though is too large for such a program to work.

It also did a lot for the poor. You bleeding hearts must be happy then, eh?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

are you a stinkin’ lib? Do free market policies piss you off? Have you ever wondered, “how can I vote democrat but tell my friends I’m a conservative?” Well, for a limited time only you can Buy Mittens! Yes, for the low price of America’s future (plus S&H) you can own your very own democrat lite! All the lib taste, with only half the lib calories. Order now!

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 9:43 AM

LOL! You’re bad! ;-)

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Romney was on Fox & Friends this morning. He said Santorum and Paul had called him, and he had called Gingrich when he won SC.

As a Gingrich supporter, I find not calling to congratulate Romney a rather pissy thing to do.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Ok, thanks, I didn’t know, ok maybe it was rude of Newt but understandable given the ads. I hope Newt will regroup and come out fighting. I don’t think it’s over, Newt still leads nationally.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

He didn’t “embrace” abortion. But I’m sure you guys here have all the facts and they have been repeated countless times. He has been praised by people in the pro-life movement. You could look it up. My point was why do people on these threads keep repeating the same things over and over, when half the time they are wrong?

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Why did Romney tell NARAL pro-choicers needed someone like him in the White House who could moderate the GOP’s “extreme” views (LINK)?

Take your lies about Romney never having been pro-choice and peddle them somewhere else.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

As a Gingrich supporter, I find not calling to congratulate Romney a rather pissy thing to do.

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Romney with his nastiness brought this process to a lower level of dirty politics, I wish Newt had called him.

v

evergreenland on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Romney saw the writing on the wall and every veto he wielded against the bill was overturned. He was basically forced to sign that bill, so rather than be an obstinate jackass going against the majority of his constituents wishes, he worked with them to try to shape it into something not so teethy.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM

That is not quite accurate:
Of the hundreds of provisions, he only vetoed 8, such as dental care, and seniors not eligible for Medicaid and disabled legal immigrants…they were minor and a “bone” to the Republicans watching, but of no consequence. 8 out of hundreds of provisions…hardly a “veto machine”. The “not so teethy” was everything that the liberals wanted…some “leader”.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Romney has a grand total of 84 delegates now, putting him far into the lead but 1,060 delegates shy of a majority, too.

So, Oromney has 0.079% (that’s less than one percent for you public schoolers) of the delegates. And now he and the establishment are yelling that he’s the nominee and it’s over. Maybe they are all graduates of our failed federally dumbed down public education system as well. Either that, or they never wanted the peasants to choose the nominee in the first place.

If all the “conservative” idiot candidates had looked around the stage when the debates included all the candidates, they would have seen that there was one liberal candidate whom the ruling class establishment has annointed as next in line and all would have focused on taking him out instead of attacking each other and letting him go untouched. Rick Perry was the single candidate that was trying to take Mitt out, while the rest of the doofuses were attacking him. Bachman should have been attacking Mitt over his liberal policies and being the architec of Obama care as well as his flip flops on abortion and a myriad of other issues instead of talking about Gardisil. Conservative candidates and conservatives aimed their fire on Perry on in state tuition for immigrants and Gardisil, while Mitt smiled his possum eatin’ grin at how stupid they were. The Bush campaign did an excellent job of painting Kerry as a flip flopper, and it hurt him. Oromney is the King of flip floppers compared to Kerry. Ron Paul should also have been the focus of the conservative’s attacks. He would have been an easy nut case to make. Instead they pretty much ignored him on stage.

During the campaign and the debates the conservative candidates should have relentlessly attacked Mitt and forced him out or forced him to go balistically negative, which would have exposed him as being desperate. It would have also forced the establishment to rally around their next in line candidate much earlier than they wanted, thus exposing them to the conservatives as being the anti conservatives they really are.

Now, we conservatives are stuck with Oromney as the front runner because the candidates we could have rallied behind were too stupid and too focused on their beating up on each other to recognize the real threat to them. They were all experienced politicians and knew the establishment would do whatever was necessary to annoint Mitt. If they could not see that, they do not deserve to be POTUS. So, we conservatives can place a lot of blame on our candidates for giving Mitt the nomination if it happens. The primary is not the time to take on Obama. He’s not running in the Pub. primary. In order to defeat Obama, the primary candidate has to first defeat the Republican primary candidates. The only one who gets it, is unfortunately, Mitt.

they lie on February 1, 2012 at 9:47 AM

What anti-conservative attacks?

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Seriously? His populist tripe concerning Romney’s employment at at Bain? His populist tripe concerning immigration? The robo-calls about government funded kosher food? Not too long ago I put Gingrich ahead of Romney, but when a twit forces me to defend Romney he lost me. And we haven’t even discussed is petulant nature either.

As far as conservatism is concerned, Gingrich is no more or less conservative then Romney. But Gingrich is a lot like Obama in that he believes he will have the authority to cram down our throats anything he thinks is the “right” thing to do.

Vote for Gingrich, but don’t try and sell me a sack of sh!t.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Comforting to know that the next Republican candidate for POTUS has been decided by a bunch of retirees, many of whom couldn’t figure out how to punch a ballot correctly in 2004.

Cleombrotus on February 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Take your lies about Romney never having been pro-choice and peddle them somewhere else.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Is this really going to be an issue for the 2012 campaign? With a bad economy, unemployment over 10% (not counting those who have given up looking), out-of-control government spending, etc….

Who is going to give a flying fig about Romney’s views on abortion? If the GOP decides to run on any social issue and not on healing the damage caused by the jug-eared coward, then they deserve to lose.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Take your lies about Romney never having been pro-choice and peddle them somewhere else.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Wait! Remember I said he had changed his mind, not that he had never been pro-choice. I don’t lie, really. I signed up for this site because I had been reading it for several years. It was a coincidence that the opening happened during the primary. I didn’t come on here to peddle lies about Mitt Romney. I am not that invested in the whole thing, but I support him.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I agree, he is for the full status quo of Washington, I don’t have a problem showing that he is a liberal at heart.
I was merely stating that this is not a disaster as some want to make it…he has much, much worse in his background that will sink him.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 9:38 AM

agree. this was just a soundbite freely given to the dems that can be clarified. his real problems are much worse

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:52 AM

The true conservatives sat out waiting on ’16. That is the 5-ton elephant in the room, unremarked upon. Consideration of that fact would put the true conservative™ meme out of order. Ergo, it shall not be discussed.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Comforting to know that the next Republican candidate for POTUS has been decided by a bunch of retirees, many of whom couldn’t figure out how to punch a ballot correctly in 2004.

Cleombrotus on February 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I’m pretty sure you mean 2000 when a bunch of people were unable to push a stick through a piece of paper.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 9:53 AM

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

thank you Jon :) as you can tell I love me some Mittens. Believe, folks, Believe!

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 9:54 AM

@michellemalkin: Just posted: BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum http://t.co/yLOqgMEB

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Is this really going to be an issue for the 2012 campaign? With a bad economy, unemployment over 10% (not counting those who have given up looking), out-of-control government spending, etc….

Who is going to give a flying fig about Romney’s views on abortion? If the GOP decides to run on any social issue and not on healing the damage caused by the jug-eared coward, then they deserve to lose.

Happy Nomad on February 1, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Probably not, although I’m sure the MSM will bring it up.
I’m not really pro-life myself…BUT what this shows is a troubling lack of principles on Romney’s part. Be pro-life or pro-choice, but don’t have a convenient change of heart when you’re appealing to a different electorate and expect me to believe you’re sincere. It’s insulting. Apparently, Mittbots (and many Republicans who would willingly vote for this turd) don’t mind being insulted.

And this isn’t the only issue Mitt has done this with, either. His rep as a flip-flopper is well earned. Romney’s only principle involves himself moving up to higher political office. That is all that’s important to him, so he can’t be bothered with believing in anything else.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 9:37 AM

And I didn’t like McCain either and did not vote for him in the primary. I won’t be voting for Romney either. I am not making the point we need to all surrender to the Romney campaign. I am making the point that Gingrich is awful.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

I take him at his word that he has found his church home, and I don’t think he will cheat again.

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:45 AM

OK. I don’t get this line of thinking. Say anything about “finding religion” and then everyone believes you at your word. Why?

Say something about wanting to repeal a law, or carrying out campaign promises and you aren’t afforded the same luxury.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Vote for Gingrich, but don’t try and sell me a sack of sh!t.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 9:49 AM

too bad :( I got sacks o’ sh!t half price.

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM

You guys should be pissed at Perry for being a quitter. Oh wait.

kunegetikos on February 1, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Romney’s parents if I’m not mistaken.

SauerKraut537 on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

You can’t be making the argument that George Romney was a conservative just because he was in a photo with Regan. Tell me it ain’t so. George Romney was a liberal RINO before RINO acronym was even coined. He is also photographed with Alinsky and said that Republicans should be listening to Alinsky.

“Romney’s dad was a big leader of the RINO (Republican in name only) wing of the Republican Party and hated Goldwater,” Baldwin explained. “George actually walked out of the 1964 GOP convention in protest of Goldwater’s views. He was an admirer of Alinsky.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/romneys-connection-to-saul-alinsky/

they lie on February 1, 2012 at 9:58 AM

He’s the only person who can possibly get us out of this fiscal mess.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

If this was an attempt at humour using irony, it would have been perfect.

Unfortunately, it’s rather obvious it was just distraction based upon ignorance.

First …no one person, especially the POTUS, can “get us out of this mess”. He’s the civilian CIC (commander-in-chief), and most of his executive powers (managing the various departments, and the military) are structured in that fashion.

Next. This is a constitutional Republic, not a business. The presidency is not analagous to a CEO in a corporation; the constitution doesn’t give the presidency the tools that a CEO needs and expects to have to run a business. The president doesn’t dictate to the Congress: the only tool he has is the veto. (His budget is guidelines: he can’t force Congress to fund it.)

Finally. Only Congress has the power to “get us out of this mess”. That’s what the constitution mandates. And Congress is where the problem is going to have to be solved. (Granted, they’ll need to work with the president.)

And Congress will either solve it, or we will no longer be a functioning constitutional Republic.

davisbr on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Mitt Romney has been on both sides of just about every issue. Which side should we believe he is on now?

I happen to think that Newt is an imperfect vehicle. However, he does have a long record of conservative achievement. Mitt does not.

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Gingrich has been even more of a flip flopper than Romney. Whatever Freddie Mac achieved in the 1990′s has long since been undone by his conduct in the 21st century. Romney is a small government, balanced budgets, free enterprise, capitalist. Gingrich is for unaffordable mega projects. He lacks discipline and executive ability, something Romney has in spades. Conservatives looking back 17 years may vote for Newt but conservatives looking ahead are voting for Romney.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Good God. “I don’t care about the very poor”?! Seriously?! Don’t give me any of that taken out of context bullcrap. I know what Mittens was trying to say and I agree that the middle class in this country is who’s being squeezed the most by Obama’s policies.

But you NEVER EVER EVER EVER utter a line like that when you’re running for President of the United States! Particularly when you’re a rich white Republican going up against a (half)black incumbent who’s entire electoral strategy will be centered around class warfare and the race card.

Doughboy on February 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM

I think Mitt has just gained my support in the primaries, and definitely added to my enthusiasm in the general election. He’s got all the charisma of a speed bump but he does understand the most important truth: the middle class elects presidents. Most of the “very poor” are already a part of Obama’s FSA (Free Sh|t Army), or won’t bother to vote because their TV is working.

Archivarix on February 1, 2012 at 9:30 AM

I agree with both of you. This is very disorienting.

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans … we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

he clearly takes the liberal view of social safety nets. he is all for them.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Oh.

Hmmm. Maybe kunegetikos can tell us more about how Romney is too conservative for Hot Gas.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Romney with his nastiness brought this process to a lower level of dirty politics, I wish Newt had called him.

v

evergreenland on February 1, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Your guy couldn’t stand up to criticism and didn’t know how to run a media campaign. That is no one else’s fault but his own.

If he can’t stand that, there is no way he can face $125 billion in attack ads from Obama.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

@michellemalkin: Just posted: BlunderMitt: Let Them Eat Food Stamps; Plus: PPP results point to Santorum http://t.co/yLOqgMEB

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 9:56 AM

me like that one! “Let Them Eat Food Stamps” really translates mitt’s message.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

I like Santy but I think we may need to do accept Romney might be the guy and hold him to exactly what he says he is going to do from repealling Obamacare to creating jobs.

If we don’t get those results he’ll hear about it.

We can also hope he gets Rubio to bring in conservatives.

Wagthatdog on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM

George Romney was a liberal RINO before RINO acronym was even coined. He is also photographed with Alinsky and said that Republicans should be listening to Alinsky.

The term “Rockefeller Republican” changed to “RINO”(Republican-In-Name-Only). I predict RINO will eventually give way to “Romney Republican,” a term that will be spoken with as much contempt as “Rockefeller Republican” and “RINO” ever were.

The diff between Republicans then and now? Republicans back then were never stupid enough to nominate Rockefeller for President.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Finally. Only Congress has the power to “get us out of this mess”. That’s what the constitution mandates. And Congress is where the problem is going to have to be solved. (Granted, they’ll need to work with the president.)

And Congress will either solve it, or we will no longer be a functioning constitutional Republic.

davisbr on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Congress can’t do anything without leadership from the White House. Romney is a phenomenal executive who will lead Congress.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Oh.

Hmmm. Maybe kunegetikos can tell us more about how Romney is too conservative for Hot Gas.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

If you are attacking him as being insensitive to the poor, then you can naturally expect the responses in this thread. They have had TOO MUCH done for them, not too little.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

And my vote will be for naught if she starts singing soon

We need to fix the primary system dang it

cmsinaz on February 1, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Not only that, be we should take over the GOP. They do not have our best interest at heart. Like Rush said yesterday, they only want our vote on election day. I just hope the electorate as a whole doesn’t prove they are as gullible as the democrats.

razorbackchick on February 1, 2012 at 10:03 AM

The diff between Republicans then and now? Republicans back then were never stupid enough to nominate Rockefeller for President. Romney actually wins?

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:02 AM

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

If he can’t stand that, there is no way he can face $125 billion in attack ads from Obama.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM

wow, it’s 125 billion now? the Bamster must really be selling those three dollar dinner tickets fast.

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Gingrich has been even more of a flip flopper than Romney. Whatever Freddie Mac achieved in the 1990′s has long since been undone by his conduct in the 21st century. Romney is a small government, balanced budgets, free enterprise, capitalist. Gingrich is for unaffordable mega projects. He lacks discipline and executive ability, something Romney has in spades. Conservatives looking back 17 years may vote for Newt but conservatives looking ahead are voting for Romney.

Basilsbest on February 1, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I must had a brain seizure, because I don’t recall mentioning Newt or saying he would make a good nominee.

But I will say everying you assert about Romney is the opposite of the truth (hey, how’s that for finding a polite alternative to “lie?”). Romney is a big government, budget busting, statist, and crony-capitalist…as only the architect of Obamacare could be.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4