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

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

Gingrich can talk about big expensive ideas because he never had to pay for anything with his own money. Always been on some teat, metaphorical or otherwise.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Let the Romney Gloatathon begin!

When you consider that about half the people voting here in Florida are retirees/winter residents, and about half of those are from Northeastern states,(Including NY, NJ and PA) with the rest from Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois, Mitt’s Florida victory becomes more comprehensible.

Also, Mitt’s appeal to women here is understandable when you realize that about half the women voting are over 60, and though definitely not conservatives, they have their generation’s aversion to Newt’s being a serial marrier. A lot of the younger ones find Mitt nice looking, and think he is “electable”.

The fact that 54% of the GOP did NOT want Mitt indicates the propaganda offensive while effective, still needs to be a bit more strident to push Mitt over the finish line.

Scriptor on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Mitt Romney Attacks Capitalism in campaign for Governor!
Just another example of the hypocrisy of Mitt Romney

In his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, the Romney campaign attacked the Democratic Lieutenant Governor candidate, venture capitalist Christopher Gabrieli, over the bankruptcy of a retailer that his venture capital firm had invested in:

… “Romney spokeswoman Shawn Feddeman said. “In this case, Chris Gabrieli took a Worcester institution and ran it into the ground.”

GOP attacks Gabrieli venture; Case of Maurice the Pants Man: Sutner, Shaun. Telegram & Gazette [Worcester, Mass] 22 Oct 2002: A1.

In his South Carolina Primary 2012 speech, Mitt Romney tried to hide behind the skirts of free enterprise in an attempt to prevent any examination of his business practices at Bain:

“When my opponents attack success and free enterprise, they’re not only attacking me, they’re attacking every person who dreams of a better future. He’s attacking you.”

In the same speech, Mitt Romney continued his attack on those who question his business record:

“And let me be clear. If Republican leaders want to join this President in demonizing success and disparaging conservative values, then they’re not going to be fit to be our nominee.”

By his own standard then, is Mitt Romney fit to be the nominee?

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

typical hotair posters….now hoping Santorum has a chance…lol

worse than serial daters and Palin drones….what have your comments accomplished….

NADA

nparga23 on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Romney actually wins?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Romney wins the White House?
Unlikely. But if he does, I’m sure he’ll do more to damage the GOP brand than even George W did. Romney won’t prevent fiscal collapse, but his being in the White House will ensure “conservatives” (even though Romney is anything but) get the blame.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 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.

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

the repub’s should be listening to Alinsky…the Tea Party realizes that. Of course that’s the difference between the TP and the GOP – the TP has balls.

DHChron on February 1, 2012 at 10:08 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 I’m understanding this correctly, you’re saying that one of the reasons he won FL, is because the voters of FL think he’s the one with the experience for the job.

From the CNN exit poll

Most Important Candidate Quality

Can Defeat Obama (45%) – Gingrich 33%, Romney 58%

True Conservative (14%) – Gingrich 44%, Romney 11%

Strong Moral Character (17%) – Gingrich 8%, Romney 46%

Right Experience (21%)Gingrich 45%, Romney 40%

Flora Duh on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 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

Nobody here is attacking him for being insensitive to the poor, at least not that I’ve seen.

The attacks are coming because he’s beginning to look like the most tone deaf politician in the past century. “I like being able to fire people.” “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” What in holy hell is he going to say next?

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

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

The 1964 election was an anomaly and I always find it frustrating that people overlook this point. Johnson would have only lost to Jesus, thus Goldwater was nominated. If Republicans really believed in their hearts that Johnson was beatable Goldwater may not of gotten the nomination. But because Johnson was a forgone conclusion establishment Republicans basically conceded the primary to the conservative wing of the party.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

It shows me all I need to see, that the Troll, formerly banned as simplesimon, due to his hateful rants about “Nascar Fans”, is on this thread pleading Mitt Romney’s case.

kingsjester on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

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

Wagthatdog on February 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM

So, it’s dejavu all over again, just like in 2008 when McCain used Palin. You see no irony in a liberal committing fraud by using a judas goat to lead conservatives to the slaughter? Rubio would destroy his political future by teaming up with Oromney. Why do the RINOS always think we conservatives are so fracking stupid? Well, maybe because we are.

they lie on February 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Not Yet. Not Yet. – Russell Crowe in a skirt

SarahW on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 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

I am accusing mitt of managing to blunder an easy middle class pandering message.
here is how he could have said it:
“we have to keep protecting our social safety net that is so important to many americans, but our main focus is on the middle class that was hit hardest by the economic decline cause by president obama failed policies”
see… easy! instead he sounded like he did not care about poor because the already have some stuff. as MM said, mitt looked like he was saying: “Let Them Eat Food Stamps;”.

he is just a talentless politician, and more blunders like this will come.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Apathy will be the legacy of Romney’s carpet bombing

FTA:

Mitt Romney had a strong win last night in Florida. There’s no way to spin it otherwise, just as there was no way to spin Newt’s South Carolina win otherwise.

But at what cost?

Kaffa on February 1, 2012 at 10:13 AM

The fact that 54% 70% of the GOP in a closed primary did NOT want Mitt Newt indicates the OWS propaganda offensive while effective, still needs to be a bit more strident to push Mitt Newt over the finish line in the states he managed to successfully get on the ballot.

Scriptor on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Fundamentally.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:14 AM

The 1964 election was an anomaly and I always find it frustrating that people overlook this point. Johnson would have only lost to Jesus, thus Goldwater was nominated. If Republicans really believed in their hearts that Johnson was beatable Goldwater may not of gotten the nomination. But because Johnson was a forgone conclusion establishment Republicans basically conceded the primary to the conservative wing of the party.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I guess 1968 was an anomaly too.
Nevermind what Nixon did in office. He was considered the “conservative” to Rockefeller’s RINO at the time…and the establishment wanted Rockefeller.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Nobody here is attacking him for being insensitive to the poor, at least not that I’ve seen.

The attacks are coming because he’s beginning to look like the most tone deaf politician in the past century. “I like being able to fire people.” “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” What in holy hell is he going to say next?

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

OK, yeah that is a good point. It certainly hurt him in Florida, with all the high foreclosures and whatnot.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 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

You are totally clueless as to how the constitution of the united states allocates power. Totally. Clueless.

The president doesn’t lead Congress …he leads the nation. Don’t conflate the two.

…if you want to be taken seriously (which, having noted, I doubt …and don’t take it badly, most here don’t), you need to read up.

…this time more directly, and very pointedly, as a civics lesson you’ve either forgotten, or never had.

Here’s something to get you started: Separation of Powers under the US Constitution. Specifically the section “Checks and Balances”.

davisbr on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Willard, Lord Romney outpolled Gingrich in Florida by 14.5%.
Gingrich outpolled Willard, Lord Romney in South Carolina by 12.5%

Do the math. This “resounding” victory was only marginally wider than Newt’s win 10 days before. By 2 lousy percentage points.

The Florida delegates will probably be proportional, but may be winner-take-all. If it’s proportional, then

Gingrich
SC 23
FL 16
total 39

Willard, Lord Romney

SC 2
FL 25
total 27

. . .and Gingrich gets 12 more delegates than Willard, Lord Romney does from the two Southern states.

Emperor Norton on February 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Not Yet. Not Yet. – Russell Crowe in a skirt

SarahW on February 1, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Made me smile.

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 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

Thanks for that link. I don’t see how anybody could vote for mitt after reading it.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 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

You’ll have to forgive me. I feel bad now for being so touchy.

Night Owl on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

By his own standard then, is Mitt Romney fit to be the nominee?

JonBGood on February 1, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Looks like they attacked the fact she wasn’t good at what she did, not her decision to be in that market.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I guess 1968 was an anomaly too.
Nevermind what Nixon did in office. He was considered the “conservative” to Rockefeller’s RINO at the time…and the establishment wanted Rockefeller.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Nixon was a CINO and he sure as hell was not a Goldwater conservative. I have no idea what the establishment wanted in 1968, but the establishment certainly does not always get its way either. Reagan is a case in point. But if the establishment were serious about the 1964 election (I don’t believe they were) there might have been a compromise candidate, not Goldwater or Rockefeller.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Romneycare will singlehandedly destroy the republican party and give obamasatan a second term. Yesterday, Florida turnout down 12%.

Count me as one NEVER EVER VOTING FOR THAT SOCIOLIST ROMNEYCARE!

Danielvito on February 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Quoting Byrne.

Every body, get in line.

Ev’rything is divided
Nothing is complete
Ev’rything looks impressive
Do not be deceived
You don’t have to wait for more instructions

Bmore on February 1, 2012 at 10:23 AM

I guess I’m gonna have to work on getting used to the idea of another 4 years of 0bama.

leon on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Nixon was a CINO and he sure as hell was not a Goldwater conservative. I have no idea what the establishment wanted in 1968, but the establishment certainly does not always get its way either. Reagan is a case in point. But if the establishment were serious about the 1964 election (I don’t believe they were) there might have been a compromise candidate, not Goldwater or Rockefeller.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I didn’t say Nixon was a Goldwater conservative (you’re the one who keeps going on about Goldwater). My point was that Nixon was considered “the conservative” in the race, and Rockefeller was the establishment’s “proper” and approved RINO – just like Romney.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I didn’t say Nixon was a Goldwater conservative (you’re the one who keeps going on about Goldwater). My point was that Nixon was considered “the conservative” in the race, and Rockefeller was the establishment’s “proper” and approved RINO – just like Romney.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I didn’t say Nixon was a Goldwater conservative (you’re the one who keeps going on about Goldwater). My point was that Nixon was considered “the conservative” in the race, and Rockefeller was the establishment’s “proper” and approved RINO – just like Romney.

DRayRaven on February 1, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I don’t believe 1964 is a valid data point because Johnson was unbeatable. I believe many in the Republican Party in 1964 just simply gave up on the presidential race, thus leaving the Republican nomination process entirely to those looking for a true alternative to big government Republicanism. I don’t believe Rockefeller not being nominated in 1964 really says anything about the Republican Party as a whole at the time since many in the Republican Party surrendered to Johnson.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Meant to quote:

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

for second quote.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Paddington on February 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Paddington, you should at least respond…

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I don’t know why we are supposed to care about Romney’s changing stance on abortion. I’m fanatically pro-choice. But if I had any intention of running for office in the GOP outside those few districts where a pro-choice Republican could win, my position on abortion would shift also. It would be the smart thing to do. If you want to be a political leader, your positions have to reflect the political reality you find yourself in. You may have to give on an issue or two to be able to have an influence on many other issues. Reasonable people compromise to achieve their goals. Reagan compromised to achieve his goals. I fail to understand how it makes sense to want politicians who don’t compromise as so many of our “true conservative” commenters seem to desire.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Thanks for that link. I don’t see how anybody could vote for mitt after reading it.

tinkerthinker on February 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM

i am surprised how HA still did not do a main article with the contents of the research document

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Gingrich can talk about big expensive ideas because he never had to pay for anything with his own money. Always been on some teat, metaphorical or otherwise.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You mean like writing best selling books…or being a history professor?
You seem to be a little confused with Mitt…didn’t he use other people’s money to leverage buyouts?
Just showing how foolish your weak description of someone who earns a living is…

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I fail to understand how it makes sense to want politicians who don’t compromise as so many of our “true conservative” commenters seem to desire.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Because you don’t understand the concept of having principles.
You just think it’s okay to change your position to obtain votes…but you don’t understand, running for office is like an “interview”, we want to know who we are hiring.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

typical hotair posters….now hoping Santorum has a chance…lol
worse than serial daters and Palin drones….what have your comments accomplished….
NADA
nparga23 on February 1, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Posters here accomplish the sharing of ideas with each other, relative to a common subject, which is ‘political conservatism’.

What are you accomplishing with your comments?

listens2glenn on February 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I don’t know why we are supposed to care about Romney’s changing stance on abortion. I’m fanatically pro-choice. But if I had any intention of running for office in the GOP outside those few districts where a pro-choice Republican could win, my position on abortion would shift also. It would be the smart thing to do. If you want to be a political leader, your positions have to reflect the political reality you find yourself in. You may have to give on an issue or two to be able to have an influence on many other issues. Reasonable people compromise to achieve their goals. Reagan compromised to achieve his goals. I fail to understand how it makes sense to want politicians who don’t compromise as so many of our “true conservative” commenters seem to desire.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

ah. wrong! if you pander and change your mind(in your case it would be a lie), voters will see you just like that, a flip floping liar panderer that will do anything to be elected without having any conviction of your own.
it be honest, i questioned myself about romney real motivations and beliefs. and to only thing i am sure of, is that mitt romney supports mitt romney.
coherence in politics should count and will count more and more with the internet giving us enough information to know just how much our politicians lie.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

In order for the other Republicans to catch up now, they will need a big stumble from Romney.

Think it’s not possible? Sounds like Romney was reading from a TOTUS this morning.

No, it’s not over. There are 207 days until the convention even convenes on Aug 27. From now until then, we’ve got 5 months of primaries/caucuses, 46 states and 2177 delegates still in play. Romney’s got a mere 67 of the 1144 delegates needed for nomination so that leaves 1077 still blowin’ in the wind. And it’s over? Wow, for a guy who’s got a lotta money, he sure can’t do the math–and yet he keeps counting those unhatched chickens.

Has anyone ever heard of the Aesop fable titled The Tortoise and the Hare? And if Romney thinks the nomination is his already, does he get it how he just dissed voters in 46 states?

stukinIL4now on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

a history professor

Yeah that line doesn’t cut it. I thought TruConservatives hated elite university dwellers?

History is kind of convenient, because everything has already been written down. Maybe if he was in the hard sciences there would be more respect. Liberal arts academic mush doesn’t impress.

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Paddington, you should at least respond…

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:33 AM

mittbots fear the “book of mittens“. its like light to roaches. ;)

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:48 AM

it be honest, i questioned myself about romney real motivations and beliefs. and to only thing i am sure of, is that mitt romney supports mitt romney.
coherence in politics should count and will count more and more with the internet giving us enough information to know just how much our politicians lie.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Shock. A candidate that believes in himself. I guess you would rather have a beta male run?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

It glosses over the big dig fiasco with the death of a woman…Bechtel was found guilty of negligence…and Bechtel has been, throughout the years, one of Mitts most ardent supporters.
He dallied around, but the courts finally forced him to fine Bechtel, he gave them the minimum fine, the very minimum…than the next year awarded them a huge multi-million dollar contract…and that is the rest of the story.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Shock. A candidate that believes in himself. I guess you would rather have a beta male run?

antisense on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

no, some ego is necessary if you run for president, but if ego is all you got, then i wont vote for the ego.
and to contrast, my candidate is ron paul, who do just the opposite. he is all about an coherent message even if sometimes its not popular.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM

It glosses over the big dig fiasco with the death of a woman…Bechtel was found guilty of negligence…and Bechtel has been, throughout the years, one of Mitts most ardent supporters.
He dallied around, but the courts finally forced him to fine Bechtel, he gave them the minimum fine, the very minimum…than the next year awarded them a huge multi-million dollar contract…and that is the rest of the story.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM

well, that what maccain researchers could discover in 2008. there should be some wiki were dirt on all candidates could be compiled. it would really help us voters.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Deja vu. They push the rino on us and then write articles like this to make us vote for the rino. Well, I’m going to support Romney as much as the Republicans supported Joe Miller, Christine O’Donnel, and Sharon Angle.

Hey, maybe we can support a write-in campaign like Murkowski did in Alaska. The republicans helped her with that one against Joe Miller.

Kaffa on February 1, 2012 at 11:05 AM

He doesn’t want the conservative base and is trying to win by building a coalition of center-left voters and party line Republicans. If he is able to win without the base, he will be able to completely ignore conservatives and raise taxes, increase spending, appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court, or enact whatever other leftist policies he’s interested in.

Make no mistake, the Republican Establishment wants no more Harriet Miers, no more opposition to amnesty, no more debt ceiling battles, and most importantly no more Tea Party.

Doomberg on February 1, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Bingo. He despises the Tea Party and his supporters are out making certain NO conservative would dream of voting for him (Romney).

A few short weeks ago, I thought I could vote for Romney. That was before I’d encountered the Mormon mafia. That was before I witnessed the unadulterated lies repeated endlessly by the Romney campaign and watched Mitt refuse interviews with the conservative press. This morning I heard C Tucker say that the Romney staff was the most arrogant he’d ever encountered.

Yesterday, they even took out after Mrs. Gingrich (perhaps this line of attack was what influenced Newt’s refusal to call Romney). They feel no restraint whatsoever. I’ve also since looked very closely at Romney’s record. I have absolutely no idea why he isn’t registered Democrat and I suspect there won’t be a haporth worth of difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party when Romney takes the helm.

If there really aren’t enough Americans who care enough to save this Republic, the choice in November will be either George Soros’s number one puppet or George Soros’s number two puppet. Perhaps there will be a miracle and Rick Santorum surges. Otherwise I’m going to concentrate on Tim Tebow’s favorite Biblical verse.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:12 AM

This could be renamed “The Trail of Tears” for the ABR crowd…

Bradky on February 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

it be honest, i questioned myself about romney real motivations and beliefs. and to only thing i am sure of, is that mitt romney supports mitt romney.
coherence in politics should count and will count more and more with the internet giving us enough information to know just how much our politicians lie.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You want to discover what makes Mitt run? Go to utlm.org and click on any heading in the index. Go to exmormon.org and discover Mitt’s guiding principles and beliefs.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Mormons really scare you don’t they?

Bradky on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Obviously a mistake, obviously team-Romney still has a little more polishing to do. Still, you have to take it out of context for it to sound bad, so as long as they decide on a better standard line for the next time they’re asked about the poor they should be fine.

WolvenOne on February 1, 2012 at 11:18 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.

Freud lives.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM

This could be renamed “The Trail of Tears” for the ABR crowd…

Bradky on February 1, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Yes. I feel very much like I felt the day after the election in 2008. My research and my instincts proved to be absolutely right then. I cry for my nation; for the millions who died for freedom; for the tyrany my child and his children must live under; for the loss of the Judao-Christian foundation…

It is a sad, sad day, and not because Newt Gingrich lost, but because money and lies and the bullies won.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Mormons really scare you don’t they?

Bradky on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Nope. Like Muslims and Scientologists, it’s important to know their tenants and their history to understand them.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:29 AM

He doesn’t want the conservative base and is trying to win by building a coalition of center-left voters and party line Republicans. If he is able to win without the base, he will be able to completely ignore conservatives and raise taxes, increase spending, appoint liberal judges to the Supreme Court, or enact whatever other leftist policies he’s interested in.

This is nonsense. He didn’t raise taxes in MA–so why would he do it if he gets the WH? His whole raison d’etre as a businessman and governor was to cut out wasteful spending–so why would he do it in the WH? And why would he nominate liberal judges if confirmation will be through a conservative GOP Senate? Some of you anti-Romney people sound desperate to prove you’re right when you’re clearly wrong.

You said he was a milquetoast who wasn’t tough enough. When he came out swinging in FL you said he was a thug who fought dirty. You complained about his superior organization and money–even though that’s what it’ll take to defeat Obama. Make up your minds. Do you want to take out Obama or not? Isn’t that priority number one, before everything else, before this or that policy? Then why all the griping? You should be glad we’ve got a candidate who’s tough, who’s articulate, who’s organized, who’s experienced, who’s smart, who’s presidential.

It’s not Romney’s fault Perry was inarticulate, Bachmann was inexperienced, Cain had women problems or Newt has tons of baggage and is a woefully bad campaigner. Romney was left as the only guy standing with the organization and skills for the job. That’s the bottom line. We should be glad we’ve got a winner and get behind him to finish the fight against Obama. He’s not a perfect conservative, but neither were the other guys. Besides, he’s on the far right compared to Obama.

writeblock on February 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Team Romney : Resistance is futile.

tommy71 on February 1, 2012 at 11:34 AM

You want to discover what makes Mitt run? Go to utlm.org and click on any heading in the index. Go to exmormon.org and discover Mitt’s guiding principles and beliefs.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

eh!
i like this part:

“Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go.” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409) [Whole sermon click here.]

– Joseph Smith: founder, prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

hehe.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 11:38 AM

You want to discover what makes Mitt run? Go to utlm.org and click on any heading in the index. Go to exmormon.org and discover Mitt’s guiding principles and beliefs.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 11:17 AM

i dont think mormonism is what makes mitt tick. i think its mostly money and ego.

in mitt own words:

Romney: “I thought becoming rich and famous would make me happy. Boy was I right.”

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Has Newt called Mitt to concede yet? And people wonder why he lost.

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 9:06 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

Yes, Ron Paul and Rick called Mitt after FL to congratulate him. Yes, Mitt called Newt after SC.

No, Newt did not call Mitt after FL. Mitt says that apparently Newt does not participate in that tradition (snort).

You stay classy, Newt.

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I don’t know why we are supposed to care about Romney’s changing stance on abortion. I’m fanatically pro-choice. But if I had any intention of running for office in the GOP outside those few districts where a pro-choice Republican could win, my position on abortion would shift also. It would be the smart thing to do. If you want to be a political leader, your positions have to reflect the political reality you find yourself in. You may have to give on an issue or two to be able to have an influence on many other issues. Reasonable people compromise to achieve their goals. Reagan compromised to achieve his goals. I fail to understand how it makes sense to want politicians who don’t compromise as so many of our “true conservative” commenters seem to desire.

thuja on February 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Only politicians from homogeneous states can avoid compromise. This is what makes red state primary voters so difficult to reason with. They don’t appreciate the difficulties facing a GOP candidate from a blue state who would be forced to compromise on some issues to stay viable politically. They expect the same consistency and adherence to conservative principles that are common in the more religiously homogeneous red states, particularly on social issues. They are less wary about fiscal issues, however–which is why they keep producing fiscally moderate candidates like Bush and Dole and McCain. Many red state voters are populists who couldn’t care less about big government programs or candidates with a fiscally moderate background. To them a “moderate” is apparently someone soft on the social issues like abortion or gun control. They readily perceive a Giuliani or a Christie, both strong fiscal conservatives, as moderates but don’t recognize that a Bush or a Huckabee, strong social conservatives, are also fiscally moderate.

writeblock on February 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

From Mitt, on the Today show, about Newt’s snub.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46218703/ns/today-today_people/

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Santorum giddy as school girl.

FlaMurph on February 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Only politicians from homogeneous states can avoid compromise. This is what makes red state primary voters so difficult to reason with. They don’t appreciate the difficulties facing a GOP candidate from a blue state who would be forced to compromise on some issues to stay viable politically

but was he compromising when he was in a blue state or is he compromising when he is running the republican presidential primary?

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Philly on February 1, 2012 at 11:59 AM

.
bada bing ?

FlaMurph on February 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM

well, that what maccain researchers could discover in 2008. there should be some wiki were dirt on all candidates could be compiled. it would really help us voters.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I think I got that from the Boston Herald…just a little googling..

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 12:01 PM

But because Johnson was a forgone conclusion establishment Republicans basically conceded the primary to the conservative wing of the party.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Are you kidding? The establishment conceded to Goldwater in 1964? You need to do some remedial reading in the history of electoral conservative politics. The ’64 nomination struggle was the most bitter internal party fight in modern American politics. A small cadre of insurgents, e.g. F. Clifton White, William Rusher, Roger Moore, John Ashbrook among others—-organized local, previously silent conservatives into a powerful grassroots movement to defeat the Eastern Elite wing of the Republican party. Get ye to a good library and pick up F. Clifton White’s book —it might save you from future embarrassment….

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

It’s not being a Mormon that makes him tick…if it was he would have never supported abortion like he did. It’s a great class of people that are loyal, and provide him with a great income and votes.
However, a side of Mormonism is the power, they are preparing to be a God of their own world, so being President might be a good resume builder for the “Council” to consider.

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 12:04 PM

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 10:53 AM

.
Just look at the last 50 years of dud presidents.(sans the Gipper)-
.
History proves that you should not expect much from the top dog in th WH !-Just don’t turn us all into commies !!!!

FlaMurph on February 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM

History proves that you should not expect much from the top dog in th WH !-Just don’t turn us all into commies !!!!

FlaMurph on February 1, 2012 at 12:05 PM

What was wrong with Eisenhower? Besides being hamstrung by a dem congress?

right2bright on February 1, 2012 at 12:08 PM

i dont think mormonism is what makes mitt tick. i think its mostly money and ego.

in mitt own words:

Romney: “I thought becoming rich and famous would make me happy. Boy was I right.”
nathor on February 1, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Keep reading. One and the same thing. BTW, they’re heeeere…they travel in herds.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Are you kidding? The establishment conceded to Goldwater in 1964? You need to do some remedial reading in the history of electoral conservative politics. The ’64 nomination struggle was the most bitter internal party fight in modern American politics. A small cadre of insurgents, e.g. F. Clifton White, William Rusher, Roger Moore, John Ashbrook among others—-organized local, previously silent conservatives into a powerful grassroots movement to defeat the Eastern Elite wing of the Republican party. Get ye to a good library and pick up F. Clifton White’s book —it might save you from future embarrassment….

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Doesn’t detract from what I said. If the 1964 race were actually in contention I don’t believe Goldwater would have gotten the nomination. The agitators benefited from a depressed Republican Party.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

They are less wary about fiscal issues, however–which is why they keep producing fiscally moderate candidates like Bush and Dole and McCain. Many red state voters are populists who couldn’t care less about big government programs or candidates with a fiscally moderate background. To them a “moderate” is apparently someone soft on the social issues like abortion or gun control. They readily perceive a Giuliani or a Christie, both strong fiscal conservatives, as moderates but don’t recognize that a Bush or a Huckabee, strong social conservatives, are also fiscally moderate.

writeblock on February 1, 2012 at 11:54 AM

This is the lamest thing I’ve read in a long time.

Look up the states that are in the best shape fiscally. It’s almost exclusively deep red states like ND, SD, WY, OK, etc. But you’re right all those rubes are concerned with is abortion.

And people wonder why Mittens can’t connect with conservatives….

angryed on February 1, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Doesn’t detract from what I said. If the 1964 race were actually in contention I don’t believe Goldwater would have gotten the nomination. The agitators benefited from a depressed Republican Party.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 12:17 PM

It makes your statement re: conceded nomination in ’64 absolutely nonsensical.

The liberal wing of the Republican party was riding high in 1964….Scranton, George Romney, Nelson Rockefellar, john Lindsay etc. were all the rage. The Eastern Elite of the Republican party was completely humiliated by the Goldwater movement. Rockefeller was poised to be the new face of the Republican party. The setback of 1964 was a body blow to these hopes. They conceded nothing in 1964. You can also “believe” that the earth is flat.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

It’s over.

captn2fat on February 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM

The fat lady is just smirking.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM

It’s over.

captn2fat on February 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM

You and the media/Romney azzes propagate the picture taken long before the speech.

Meh. The fat lady just smirks.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Keep reading. One and the same thing. BTW, they’re heeeere…they travel in herds.

Portia46 on February 1, 2012 at 12:10 PM

now you made this atheist curious… i was about to give Mormonism a pass as just another eccentric Christian sect.

i will research carefully and let you know.

nathor on February 1, 2012 at 12:30 PM

It makes your statement re: conceded nomination in ’64 absolutely nonsensical.

The liberal wing of the Republican party was riding high in 1964….Scranton, George Romney, Nelson Rockefellar, john Lindsay etc. were all the rage. The Eastern Elite of the Republican party was completely humiliated by the Goldwater movement. Rockefeller was poised to be the new face of the Republican party. The setback of 1964 was a body blow to these hopes. They conceded nothing in 1964. You can also “believe” that the earth is flat.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Again, this doesn’t detract from my point. Both cases are correct in my view. The struggle within the Republican Party was a direct result of typical establishment voters not particularly caring since Johnson was a forgone conclusion. Those wishing to move the Republican Party to the right gain a great deal of oxygen from this unique circumstance. The circumstance allowed for a debate about the future direction of the Republican Party with little concern for actually winning the presidency.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Nobody here is attacking him for being insensitive to the poor, at least not that I’ve seen.

The attacks are coming because he’s beginning to look like the most tone deaf politician in the past century. “I like being able to fire people.” “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” What in holy hell is he going to say next?

ElectricPhase on February 1, 2012 at 10:09 AM

One thing he won’t say is, “By the end of my second term, we will have a permanent base on the moon”. For which we can be devoutly thankful.

Calling Romney the most tone deaf pol is hilarious.

captn2fat on February 1, 2012 at 12:35 PM

It’s all over except Romney finally deciding that he’ll pass a bill that forces us to vote for him.

lorien1973 on February 1, 2012 at 12:35 PM

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.

That was the dumbest thing Gingrich could have done.

Look for Santorum to stay neutral or endorse Romney if he drops out.

scotash on February 1, 2012 at 12:46 PM

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 12:32 PM”Both cases are correct in my view.”

Absurd. Something cannot “Be” and “not be” at the same time.

Th Elite Eastern Establishment who dominated the party in 1964 were not about to “concede” to a nascent conservative movement in 1964. The future direction of the party was at stake. Your statement is not only ahistorical it is apolitical.

Richard Nixon understood the dynamic at work. He realized that the conservative movement was going to seize the initiative from the Eastern Elites. He began speaking throughout the country in 1964 to collect IOUS from Goldwaterite congressional candidates. He was able to use these in 1968.

Power is not conceded by one group.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Mitt Romney doesn’t step on toes. He steps on necks.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 12:53 PM

The fat lady is just smirking.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Yes. She ate a beet on Leno last night. Smirking indeed.

Key West Reader on February 1, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Vote Count in Florida

For Romney 771,000

Against Romney

georgealbert on February 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Vote Count in Florida

For Romney 771,000

Against Romney 869,000

Net Net Romney Lost Florida by 98,000 votes

georgealbert on February 1, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Absurd. Something cannot “Be” and “not be” at the same time.

Th Elite Eastern Establishment who dominated the party in 1964 were not about to “concede” to a nascent conservative movement in 1964. The future direction of the party was at stake. Your statement is not only ahistorical it is apolitical.

Richard Nixon understood the dynamic at work. He realized that the conservative movement was going to seize the initiative from the Eastern Elites. He began speaking throughout the country in 1964 to collect IOUS from Goldwaterite congressional candidates. He was able to use these in 1968.

Power is not conceded by one group.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM

You confuse party apparatchiks with voters. An apathetic voter base certainly creates opportunity where it did not exist before. And the Republican establishment (base if you prefer) was certainly depressed and uninterested in the race considering the circumstances of 1964.

Yes, those in power will fight to keep that power. But their resources and base of support were severely undermined by an apathetic voter base. And agitators, seeing potential, were able to rally support to their position.

What you posted and what I posted are not mutually exclusive.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Remember how the Repub numbnuts in florida voted overwhelmingly for RINO TRAITOR AMNESTY-JOHN mccain in the primary, because “he’s the ONLY one who can beat OBOZO”? Remember how the Repub numbnuts in florida elected and praised RINO TRAITOR Charlie Crist, the most despicable RINO/politician in history (and yes, that includes Arlan Specter)?

So, who could possibly be surprised that the Repub numbnuts in florida once again prove that they’re clueless morons who will vote for any RINO LOSER that comes along?

TeaPartyNation on February 1, 2012 at 1:40 PM

“And the Republican establishment (base if you prefer) was certainly depressed and uninterested in the race considering the circumstances of 1964.NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 1:22 PM”

Again you are speaking out of your posterior. The Republican Establishment was not “depressed” in 1964. They believed they were in the ascendancy. They were completely decimated by the rise of an effective conservative electoral movement.

The liberal Republican was projected by the media and the elites as the quintessential “modern” Republican. The conservative insurgency was a rising of the disenfranchised mass of the party.

The conservatives were not “agitators”. They effectively unmasked the east coast elites as a small cadre of establishment and corporate types who did not represent the rank and file of the party.

These are facts. Your revisionist hokum is amusing and ridiculous.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Mitt Romney can mix oil and vinegar – permanently.

csdeven on February 1, 2012 at 2:47 PM

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Whatever. Republicans were going to lose and they lost big. They knew in their hearts that a big loss was coming. A rising conservative wing took advantage of an establishment in disarray. Why that bothers you so much is beyond me. The conservative shift in the party was certainly a good thing. Who cares if it came at a moment of weakness for the establishment?

And anyone agitating for change within an organization is most certainly an agitator.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 2:58 PM

who cares? The historical record speaks for itself….everyone should care.

The liberal/east coast/corporate dominated Republican party was headed for the dustbin of history. Happily it was taken down by an effective group of conservative strategists who used democratic means to ignite the majority of conservatives who were disenfranchised within the party.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

who cares? The historical record speaks for itself….everyone should care.

The liberal/east coast/corporate dominated Republican party was headed for the dustbin of history. Happily it was taken down by an effective group of conservative strategists who used democratic means to ignite the majority of conservatives who were disenfranchised within the party.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

That is great, but to ignore the opportunity afforded by the timing of this shift serves no useful purpose. I doubt that it would have happened in 1964 if Kennedy were not assassinated. The conservative agitators took full advantage of a party establishment in disarray.

The same thing happened to the Democratic Party in 1968. The party itself was weak because of Johnson’s unpopular presidency with the base and the communist agitators were able to take advantage of that weakness and push the party to the far left.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 3:17 PM

“The conservative agitators took full advantage of a party establishment in disarray.”

Again your lack of historical knowledge hobbles you.

The insurgency within the Republican party, that culminated with Goldwater 64, began as early as 1959..

Initially it was an effort that was focused within “College Republicans”. With the election of JFK in 1960, the conservative insurgency went into high gear. Why? The conservative activists realized that Liberal Kennedy easterner vs a conservative westerner would empower conservatives within the Republican party. It was not dependent on Kennedy being assassinated.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Again, so what? I know damn well there was a conservative movement prior to 1964. The Kennedy assassination hastened its ascendancy, it did not create it. 1964 was the window. No Kennedy assassination and that window may have come later.

It is not an insult to the conservative movement to point out moments of opportunity.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 3:37 PM

So what?

You are wrong and have been shown to twist historical facts.

The Republican elites never “conceded” the party to the conservatives. The struggle was long term and bitter. The conservative base of voters within the Republican party was not being represented by the east coast,corporate, establishment. That lack of representation is what charged the conservative movement. It was not due to the concession of the elites and the Kennedy assassination.

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM

wraithby on February 1, 2012 at 3:49 PM

And the window for change was 1964 because of the Kennedy assassination. The Republican Party was weak and ripe for a take down by a rising movement. Without the events of 1963 and 1964 that take down would have most likely come later. You’re being silly and juvenile.

NotCoach on February 1, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4