Romney: Yes, my “couple of Cadillacs” and NASCAR comments have hurt me

posted at 12:45 pm on February 28, 2012 by Tina Korbe

For all his polish and purported “perfection,” Mitt Romney has sounded more than his fair share of “off” notes — most of them to do with his wealth. A few days ago, for example, he casually mentioned that his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs.” Yesterday, he earnestly commented that he rarely watches NASCAR himself, but he does have a couple of “great friends who are NASCAR team owners.”

As Michael Gerson writes in The Washington Post, Romney may yet be able to turn these out-of-touch moments into an advantage of sorts. Allahpundit also has a positive perspective on Romney’s “populist blind spots”: The candidate’s awkward efforts to connect with his would-be constituents can be almost endearing.

Romney himself, however, acknowledged at a press conference this morning that these unscripted, authentic declarations haven’t helped his presidential campaign.

When pressed by reporters, Romney acknowledged he had hurt his campaign with a series of comments in which he seemed to casually flaunt his wealth. Over the past several days, Romney mentioned his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs” and told an Associated Press reporter he has friends who are NASCAR team owners.

A reporter asked if these remarks had hurt him.

“Yes,” Romney said. “Next question.”

It’s not the first time Romney has admitted his rhetorical mistakes. Alongside his damaging comments, he’s also said “I can’t be perfect” and “I am who I am.” In a way, his mistakes and subsequent expressions of self-acceptance humanize him — but whether that will make a difference for him electorally speaking remains to be seen.

As Political Ticker points out, the subdued tone of today’s conference was a turnaround from Romney’s final Michigan rally last night, at which he confidently declared he was going to win Michigan — and the rest of the country.

Romney’s quiet attitude this morning might have stemmed as much from the negative turn the primaries have taken as from any error he himself has made, though. Specifically, Romney was stirred up this morning at efforts to turn out Democrats to vote against him. A Democratic strategist started the trend, but Rick Santorum’s campaign has followed suit. A Santorum robocall to Democrats encourages members of the opposition party to go to the polls to vote against Romney.

This isn’t a “dirty trick of a desperate campaign,” as Romney characterized it. It’s actually pretty standard — but it’s still easy to see why Romney would be discouraged by it this morning. This quote captures it:

“I think the hardest thing about predicting what’s going to happen today is whether Senator Santorum’s effort to call Democrat households and tell them to come out and vote against Mitt Romney is going to be successful or not,” Romney told reporters at his campaign headquarters in Livonia during his first press conference in almost three weeks. “I think Republicans have to recognize there’s a real effort to kidnap our primary process.”

It is discouraging to think of all the factors that could influence the outcome of tonight’s primaries — factors that might or might not be present in the general. It’s difficult to gauge the enthusiasm of the base or the viability of a candidate in an open primary.

Whatever happens tonight, the primary process is far from over — and both the frontrunners have plenty of time to spout thoughtless comments or to turn around the mistakes they’ve made.


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

I’m not so worried about Romney being out of touch with the common man because Santorum is the smug, sanctimonious d*ckhead from up the street you’d like to punch in the face. You know the one…the guy who’s so dumb he actually thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and doesn’t mind telling you about it.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I want to ask: Will Santorum apologize for any damage done to him with this last-ditch strategy should Romney end up the nominee?

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 1:25 PM

quit being such a big baby . . .man up! Romney can’t man up because he doesn’t know what that means!

Go Rick Go!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

…the guy who’s so dumb he actually thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and doesn’t mind telling you about it.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Like some (not you) posters at HA?

freedomfirst on February 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

I’m not so worried about Romney being out of touch with the common man because Santorum is the smug, sanctimonious d*ckhead from up the street you’d like to punch in the face. You know the one…the guy who’s so dumb he actually thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and doesn’t mind telling you about it.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Romney has a much better’PUNCH ME’ face or ‘KICK ME’ demeanor than Santorum.

Go Rick Go!

Rick has principles . . . Mittens doesn’t.

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

The King of dirty ads and dirty tricks needs to shut his pie hole and take his medicine like a man (Mittens, that is)!

Go Rick go!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I thought Santorum’s point in the robocalls was that Mitt was a flip flopper regarding bailouts, not necessarily the position on autobailouts, but rather the inconsistency.

freedomfirst on February 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Rick has principles . . . Mittens doesn’t.

Willard does have prinicples. And if you don’t like them, he has others.

Emperor Norton on February 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Santorum also opposed the auto bailouts but now he’s calling it a “slap in the face to every Michigan worker and we’re not going to let Romney get away with it”? How would you characterize that? How about demonizing Wall Street? I know we have a precedent this time with Newt and Perry pulling this stunt. Who knew this would now be categorized as “pretty standard”.

Meanwhile, can you cite another example where a Republican said, “This call is supported by hard-working Democratic men and women”? What with this being “pretty standard” and all…

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Criticizing Romney for opposing the auto bailout when he did, as well, is really the most egregious part about all this to me. That takes some chutzpah. Santorum is happy to play the stalwart conservative warrior to the base (except when he takes one for the team, hehe), but apparently has no problem throwing his own position on an issue under the bus in order to pander.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

At least KID ROCK gives the Rominator credit FOR NOT driving a Lexus- BMW- Mercedes……..like your average trendy riche does …… the “true” OWS conservatives are acting more and more like liberals as each day passes.

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The people it hurts him with are either jealous of him and don’t want to vote for him anyway, or just dislike him because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.. told them to dislike him.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Rick has principles . . . Mittens doesn’t.

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Rick has principles until it’s an election year, and then they went out the window and he voted for every pork-laden spending bill he could sign up for.

And, of course, the principles he does have are ones I don’t like…such as his affinity for Big Labor and his opposition to limited government, exemplified by his committment to oppose small L libertarianism in the GOP.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

I’m not so worried about Romney being out of touch with the common man because Santorum Obama is the smug, sanctimonious d*ckhead from up the street you’d like to punch in the face. You know the one…the guy who’s so dumb he actually thinks he’s smarter than everyone else and doesn’t mind telling you about it.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

There now the anger makes more sense.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Rick is Obama’s favorite candidate.

As easy to beat as a dollar store bathmat.

profitsbeard on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Th

is has fostered the notion that he isn’t conservative (which I believe, given his past comments bascially repudiating conservatism).

Bitter Clinger on February 28, 2012 at 1:23 PM

This is one of those cases where you have to define conservative clearly. I think when it comes to fiscal matters, you may have a case to make that Romney is a severe conservative. But when it comes to social matters (including Romneycare), Romney is not conservative in the least. It is why the establishment is pushing him as electable and Santorum as poison.

IMO, the mistake Romney made wasn’t running a general election campaign in the primaries nor was it the way he comes off as aloof. The problem Romney has is the way he defends Romneycare and the rest of his record as governor. Instead of saying that it looked like a good idea that hasn’t turned out as it was supposed to, he defends it with long tortured discussions of “states’ rights” and the fact that Mass. is very liberal.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Didn’t Romney insult the “base” this morning when he said it’s easy to get them all riled up with incendiary remarks? His disgust with us is out there in the public for all to see. Rush is covering it quite well this morning. I will never vote for this POS.

silvernana on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

There now the anger makes more sense.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Actually, it applies to both. I don’t want Obama OR Santorum as my president. I’m really hoping the GOP doesn’t earn its label as the Stupid Party by nominating this doofus.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

The people it hurts him with are either jealous of him and don’t want to vote for him anyway, or just dislike him because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.. told them to dislike him.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Neither Limbaugh or Hannity have taken sides in the primary. Hannity in particular has had all the candidates on multiple times. You are a filthy liar.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Exactly. Why can’t Romney admit that Romneycare was a disaster and that implementing it (Obamacare) on a National level would be ruinous for the Country.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Actually, it applies to both. I don’t want Obama OR Santorum as my president. I’m really hoping the GOP doesn’t earn its label as the Stupid Party by nominating this doofus.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I have to say that I prefer Santorum over Romney, but I would vote for either over Obama.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Rick has principles . . . Mittens doesn’t.

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

So, principaled in fact that Rick won’t cop to his former position on the auto bailout when he’s courting democrats. Maybe he “flip-flopped” when he got to MI?

gaius on February 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

This whole idea of invevitability and perfection and “myths of electability” were never actually put forward by Romney. They simply used that to make people resent him in the same way TruCons have to resent people that go to college now, apparently.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Ridiculous. Faux News, WSJ, Nat’l Review, American Spectator, and virtually all MFM, declared Romney inevitable, etc and have shilled for him non-stop. Romney and Romney’s supporters have always made electability their first (and for some, only) argument. Now that the electability facade is gone, he’s got nothing left.

james23 on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Only this nagging problem of his that he’s a douchbag, and even the establishment backed candidate can’t conceal his douchbaggery for long.

And what’s he paying you? You seem to respond to every anti-Mitt post. Or are you a paid stalker/stooge? Angry much? y u mad?

bloghooligan on February 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Yep, the money is just rolling in from the campaign for blog commenting…that’s how us ‘Mittbots’ roll. /

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Exactly. Why can’t Romney admit that Romneycare was a disaster and that implementing it (Obamacare) on a National level would be ruinous for the Country.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Because he doesn’t believe that it is. He’s proud of Romneycare and he isn’t opposed to Obamacare either…he just needs to say that he opposes Obamacare to the base because It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Neither Limbaugh or Hannity have taken sides in the primary. Hannity in particular has had all the candidates on multiple times. You are a filthy liar.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

They might not have actually come out and said I want Santorum to win, but they have been anti-Romney since day 1 in this election. And, with their emphasis on anybody but Romney, you can put 2 and 2 together and figure out who they support (or is that something only college folks can do, and apparently that is now looked down on by Sanotum supporters)…

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

IMO, the mistake Romney made wasn’t running a general election campaign in the primaries nor was it the way he comes off as aloof. The problem Romney has is the way he defends Romneycare and the rest of his record as governor. Instead of saying that it looked like a good idea that hasn’t turned out as it was supposed to, he defends it with long tortured discussions of “states’ rights” and the fact that Mass. is very liberal.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You are very right about the RomneyCare comments. I have even made similar comments before and should have included that as an additional reason that he is not resonating with the base. But he has made comments, such as “I’m not a Reagan Republican” and so forth. He doesn’t endear himself with that past plus RomneyCare (especially his continued defense of it).

Bitter Clinger on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

silvernana on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

.
and we know Rush never gets riled up……..

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The conservative pundits hate Romney because they were not consulted, courted, or served by Romney or his backers. They went to great lows this primary – attacking wealth, banks, and Capitalism. They appealed to jealousy, entitlement, and resentment to pit blue collar workers against Romney. When any of his opponents’ problems became known, they defended them, but only mildly protected Romney early on. Now that the field has narrowed to one challenger they have given up all pretense.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

What “conservative pundits” hate Romney? With the exception of some talk radio hosts like Limbaugh and a few blogs on the internet, Romney has the support of the entire conservative media! How many more advantages does Romney need before you’re satisfied?

Doomberg on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Because he doesn’t believe that it is. He’s proud of Romneycare and he isn’t opposed to Obamacare either…he just needs to say that he opposes Obamacare to the base because It’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments.

sharrukin on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

I know as the peon that I am that I am easily excitable. I don’t need Romney to tell me. The primary isn’t over. I’m still hoping for a miracle.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Mittens=More of the same
Newt=More of the same
Santorum= More of the same
Paul=Game changer

Stop listening to talk radio, its poisioning your mind

dom89031 on February 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

silvernana on February 28, 2012 at 1:34 PM

.

and we know Rush never gets riled up……..

FlaMurph on February 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Your comment makes no sense. Mitt said what he said, and Rush has nothing to do with it.

silvernana on February 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

The closest bet in modern times would be Truman who when he left office got into his own car and drove back home. (I’m pretty sure the car was not a Cadillac.)

Annar on February 28, 2012 at 1:24 PM

It was a Chrysler

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/news/cars.htm

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Poisoning…sorry cell phone keypad

dom89031 on February 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The people it hurts him with are either jealous of him and don’t want to vote for him anyway, or just dislike him because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.. told them to dislike him.

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

“Moderate” Republican or Democrat? I just can’t tell. This sounds like something I’d read on Kos.

Doomberg on February 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Now that the electability facade is gone, he’s got nothing left.

james23 on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Indeed. Now the Romney supporters only argument is that Romney isn’t a (oh, horror) Social Conservative. Can’t have those running around.

Bitter Clinger on February 28, 2012 at 1:45 PM

This isn’t a “dirty trick of a desperate campaign,” as Romney characterized it. It’s actually pretty standard…

I wouldn’t call it any more of a “dirty trick of a desperate campaign,” than when the Romney campaign took a snippet of Rick Santorum endorsing Romney on the Laura Ingraham Show in 2008 and used it in robocalls to SC primary voters in January 2012.

As the saying goes, “Politics ain’t beanbag”.

Flora Duh on February 28, 2012 at 1:46 PM

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 1:41 PM

You’re either blinded by your your own bias or intentionally trying to mislead others. The fact of the matter that Limbaugh or Hannity didn’t join those who were on the Romney “only electable candidate” bandwagon never left the message that they took sides.

This is supposed to be a primary where you hear from more than one candidate. Grow up and honor the process instead of telling everybody to shut up and support your (very unelectable and unlikable) guy.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Paul=Game changer

Stop listening to talk radio, its poisioning your mind

dom89031 on February 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Game changer indeed. It is the one way that virtually assures a second Obama term with landslide proportions of Reagan/Bush 84. The GOP base will never get behind a racist homophobe isolationist who hates the military and is clueless on national security.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Sure, I point out these same observations yesterday and am attacked by the same Rmoney supporters who always attack any criticism of Rmoney. Where are you all now? Why aren’t you on this thread? The bigoted gilled one, anywhere, comment? Any of you, why the absence?

Bmore on February 28, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Romney: Yes, my “couple of Cadillacs” and NASCAR comments have hurt me

I truly don’t understand why this type of honesty would turn people off. Don’t we all b!tch about the distortions and twists and spins on the truth that we get from our leaders, not to mention the outright omissions and lies. So what the heck is the problem?

lynncgb on February 28, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Americans have not had a Aristocracy of their own since 1782. They did the best they could using the elite lawyers as a substitute.

Then after the Civil War, they turned to the mega rich Industialists.
Being a Rockefeller Republican had a meaning.
But after the Depression and WWII we became an Aroused Democracy and refused an aristocracy outside Academia’s small claims.

The rebellion of the common man got us Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon and Reagan. Then several GOP aristocrats re-surfaced as RINOs such as the Bush clan.

We are back to brass tacks again in a fight with Royalty on the Dem side in reigning Obama, the King of the Marxist Slush Funders.

Do we have to select a Mormon/Massachusetts/ Auto Industry/ Venture Capital Royalty to oppose King Obama? Many say we have no choice.

But the difficult Catholic boy’s existence says that the old aroused Democracy of common man GOP with Blue collar dems still is a viable choice.

Poor Mitt just can’t get no respect!

jimw on February 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Obama is a one percenter now but he sure wasn’t when he was living in the inner cities of Chicago..

One percenters don’t usually stay at the south side of Chicago

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Nice logic. He also probably wasn’t in the 1% when he was at Harvard either, or as an infant.

Now he sends his wife on 4 million dollar vacations- just like you and me.

Chuck Schick on February 28, 2012 at 2:08 PM

For the life of me, why do we have open primary’s?

Bmore on February 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM

It’s OK Mittens I am sure all is forgiven in Michican since the trees are all the right height and they have lots of ponds they now know you love.

Now Arizona? Just what the HELL is in the water down there or are you so overrun with south of the border socialists that only libs can win.

ConcealedKerry on February 28, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Americans have not had a Aristocracy of their own since 1782.
jimw on February 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Actually, that’s not true.

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Exactly. Why can’t Romney admit that Romneycare was a disaster and that implementing it (Obamacare) on a National level would be ruinous for the Country.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Awesome!!!!

This can’t be repeated enough times . . .THIS is the main reason that I cannont bring myself to vote for Romney . . . it turns my stomach that the Republican Party is trying to foist this Democrat onto the American people. It is turly and utterly despicable!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Myth of electability. I ask yet again, what candidate DOESN’T run on being electable? Vote for me, because I can’t get elected?

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Exactly. Why can’t Romney admit that Romneycare was a disaster and that implementing it (Obamacare) on a National level would be ruinous for the Country.

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM
Awesome!!!!

This can’t be repeated enough times . . .THIS is the main reason that I cannont bring myself to vote for Romney . . . it turns my stomach that the Republican Party is trying to foist this Democrat onto the American people. It is truly and utterly despicable!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 2:25 PM

Romney: Yes, my “couple of Cadillacs” and NASCAR comments have hurt me
I truly don’t understand why this type of honesty would turn people off. Don’t we all b!tch about the distortions and twists and spins on the truth that we get from our leaders, not to mention the outright omissions and lies. So what the heck is the problem?

lynncgb on February 28, 2012 at 2:03 PM

As has been the case for many, many years . . .. MITT ROMNEY is the problem. . . let’s get rid of him NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

I thought Santorum’s point in the robocalls was that Mitt was a flip flopper regarding bailouts, not necessarily the position on autobailouts, but rather the inconsistency.

freedomfirst on February 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Right on…Santorum is not calling out that Romney was against the auto bailout as much as that he was for bailouts that benefited his friends, his cronies. Essentially, if Romney is for one why not for all….because he is a spineless man that only supports his buds.

PuritanD71 on February 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

dmn1972 on February 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

+ One Trillion.

Cindy Munford on February 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM

And, of course, the principles he does have are ones I don’t like…such as his affinity for Big Labor and his opposition to limited government, exemplified by his committment to oppose small L libertarianism in the GOP.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

yadda, yadda, yadda….and Mitt is such the small governemnt, tax cutting, spending reducing man. By the way, Santorum has clarified his countrywide RTW vote. Since when was he against limited government. Don’t tell me earmarks since all the candidates love them and accepted them in one form or another and yes MA accepted fed dollars big time to help fund……Romneycare.

Why would you want a guy who continues to defend a top-down government run healthcare system that is miserably failing in MA anyways?

PuritanD71 on February 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM

You’re either blinded by your your own bias or intentionally trying to mislead others. The fact of the matter that Limbaugh or Hannity didn’t join those who were on the Romney “only electable candidate” bandwagon never left the message that they took sides.

This is supposed to be a primary where you hear from more than one candidate. Grow up and honor the process instead of telling everybody to shut up and support your (very unelectable and unlikable) guy.

Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The funny thing is that I can make a better argument for Santorum than you can. So, I am not blinded by anyone. I would gladly support Santorum…as a candidate for the United States Senate.

So, spare me this blind support crap. And I dont even love Romney.

However, make no mistake, the conservative media is 100% against Romney, even if they dont spell it out for you (since apparently you need that to happen to realize it).

And again, I have never told anyone to shut up. However, I have pointed out that one guy is unelectable and the other is not. You are just confused about which one is which. Telling people that their vote is a vote for Obama is not the same as telling someone not to vote for a candidate whose vote is like voting for Obama.

If you need me to tone down the logic, let me know..

milcus on February 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

What a dumb “controversy”. Was it a true statement? Then, so what?

People get up in such a dander about the most pointless crap.

I am already faux-outraged out for this election…

Can we focus on the Congress? While our President is important, he’s not a king. He’s not a dictator. The only reason our Presidents ever act that way is because in recent history; we’ve allowed them too. We elect them, and we’re supposed to keep them in check.

simon on February 28, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Al Gore still won the popular vote in 2000

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Not in his own Home State.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 2:39 PM

he’s also said “I can’t be perfect” and “I am who I am.”

Maybe Mitt should try ‘splaining himself in Popeye’s voice:

I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam.
:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

FLIPPPPPPP FLOPPPPPPPP

Or is he not pandering and being a bad politician this time?

I’m not good at keeping track of the inane anti-Romney talking points of the day.

Kriggly on February 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I want to like Romney, but he doesn’t sound like the guy who runs a well-oiled election machine that will be invincible against Obama. Of course none of the other guys do either, but I thought that was supposed to be the Romney advantage. I don’t think this is like Bush I not knowing the price of milk being blown out by the media, these are statements to me that I think show Romney is really out of touch.

redeye on February 28, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Rick has principles . . . Mittens doesn’t.

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Heh. Funny, but we were just discussing his flexibility on that.

a capella on February 28, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Does this guy not know when to shut his mouth? Are his advisors as retarded as he is?

I think people are really tired of hearing how priviledged his life has been. Regardless of whether he made himself into something of a businessman, he was destined to be rich regardless by virtue of family wealth. Even I cringed when I heard that he said he didn’t follow NASCAR, but has several friends who own teams.

Damn!

stacman on February 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Obama is a one percenter now but he sure wasn’t when he was living in the inner cities of Chicago..

One percenters don’t usually stay at the south side of Chicago

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

lol, how many “inner cities” does Chicago have, Rocket Scientist?

Sad to say, you’re Lying, as usual.

Hyde Park is the only place Barack Obama has lived as an adult. He first moved there in 1984, when he came to Chicago as a community organizer, and he returned after graduating from Harvard Law School. Here he courted his future wife, who grew up in the nearby neighborhood of South Shore, and here his children were born and now attend (private) school. Here, too, is the mansion he bought in 2005, with the proceeds from his two bestselling books in which he speaks fondly of the life he has built here.

Hyde Park isn’t a town but, with a population of roughly 35,000, depending on who’s counting and how, it is pretty small: 15 city blocks from north to south, another 15 or so from Washington Park on the west to its eastern boundary at the shore of Lake Michigan. Its sense of urban intimacy is reinforced by its isolation. It is the most racially integrated neighborhood in the nation’s most racially segregated city. On three sides it is closed in by some of the most hellish slums in the country, miles of littered streets, acres of abandoned lots, block after block of shuttered storefronts and empty apartment buildings left over from the 19th century. These terminate abruptly at the edge of Hyde Park and give way to shade trees and lawns and stately brick mansions and huge, tidied-up apartment houses. Surrounded, Hyde Park is different from any neighborhood in Chicago–different from anywhere in America, for that matter.

The snow and the cold keep the street people away. It drives everyone inside. You don’t have all the students who dropped out of school or graduated and refused to leave. If they stay, they do something. If not, they get out of town. It’s too cold just to hang around.”

This contributes to the neighborhood’s relatively low crime rate

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 2:53 PM

At least he’s not attacking higher education, separation of church and state and contraception

rubberneck on February 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Santorum/micheal Moore 2012

Rusty Allen on February 28, 2012 at 12:49 PM

That’s fitting. They are birds of a feather when it comes to big labor.

rubberneck on February 28, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Paul=Game changer LOSER

Stop listening to talk radio, its poisioning your mind

dom89031 on February 28, 2012 at 1:44 PM

It was too glaring a mistake not to correct.

HotAirian on February 28, 2012 at 2:56 PM

but apparently has no problem throwing his own position on an issue under the bus in order to pander.

changer1701 on February 28, 2012 at 1:32 PM

He’s taking one for the Anybody But Romney team.

rhombus on February 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

This whole idea of invevitability and perfection and “myths of electability” were never actually put forward by Romney. They simply used that to make people resent him in the same way TruCons have to resent people that go to college now, apparently.

antisense on February 28, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Ridiculous. Faux News, WSJ, Nat’l Review, American Spectator, and virtually all MFM, declared Romney inevitable, etc and have shilled for him non-stop. Romney and Romney’s supporters have always made electability their first (and for some, only) argument. Now that the electability facade is gone, he’s got nothing left.

james23 on February 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM

To say nothing of the Mittfilth whine-vomiting constantly here about said “electability,” to the point that little Ricky Torquemada started looking good by comparison.

ebrown2 on February 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I thought Santorum’s point in the robocalls was that Mitt was a flip flopper regarding bailouts, not necessarily the position on autobailouts, but rather the inconsistency.

freedomfirst on February 28, 2012 at 1:31 PM

That’s the spin. But that’s not what the call says. Plus, Santorum did not oppose TARP. He bravely took no position. Of course, I guess that was because he was a “journalist” for Fox.

Priscilla on February 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Does this guy not know when to shut his mouth? Are his advisors as retarded as he is?

I think people are really tired of hearing how priviledged his life has been. Regardless of whether he made himself into something of a businessman, he was destined to be rich regardless by virtue of family wealth. Even I cringed when I heard that he said he didn’t follow NASCAR, but has several friends who own teams.

Damn!

stacman on February 28, 2012 at 2:51 PM

His problem is not that he’s rich, it’s that he’s never faced anything that couldn’t be solved by beating it to death with a fat wallet. Bush Sr. and W., love them or hate them, never had the delusion that you could succeed in a high-dollar public office with that attitude.

ebrown2 on February 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Right on…Santorum is not calling out that Romney was against the auto bailout as much as that he was for bailouts that benefited his friends, his cronies. Essentially, if Romney is for one why not for all….because he is a spineless man that only supports his buds.
PuritanD71 on February 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Do you know of any banks which have gone through a bankruptcy process (which is what Romney endorsed)? Like, say, the airlines? I’ll answer that for you: The answer is NO. It’s never happened because there is no provision in law for it to happen. Therefore the comparison is an epic failure (unless of course you’re pandering to the ignorant as Santorum is).

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Obama is a one percenter now but he sure wasn’t when he was living in the inner cities of Chicago..

One percenters don’t usually stay at the south side of Chicago

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Meh. Practically my whole extended family lives on the South Side of Chicago. Most just a few scant blocks from the “Obama Mansion”, and the “Calypso Louie Compound” of gated/guarded look-alike mansions. My peeps are only 5-percenters.

Do you ever look anything up before you post? Or is agitation/disruption your true goal?

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Go Rick Go!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 1:27 PM

RINO ^

rubberneck on February 28, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Romney: Yes, my “couple of Cadillacs” and NASCAR comments have hurt me

Really? I thought it showed he had a sense of humor. Imagine that he didn’t come off robotic I thought it was amusing.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Therefore the comparison is an epic failure (unless of course you’re pandering to the ignorant as Santorum is).

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Speaking of ignorance…..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/28/pruden-the-ignorance-of-rick-santorum/

a capella on February 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

That’s the spin. But that’s not what the call says. Plus, Santorum did not oppose TARP. He bravely took no position. Of course, I guess that was because he was a “journalist” for Fox.

Priscilla on February 28, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Heh. Voting Present?

a capella on February 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

IMO, he shouldn’t apologize when he does his richie-rich gaffes. He should own them! He is who he is…a brill cream laden administrator. I don’t love it, but I can live with it as long as he convinced me that he’s a very good administrator.

When he tries to manipulate his image based on poll testing, however, I get the feeling that his whole shtick is one big lie. That makes it much harder to accept him.

Deafdog on February 28, 2012 at 3:18 PM

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Meh. Practically my whole extended family lives on the South Side of Chicago. Most just a few scant blocks from the “Obama Mansion”, and the “Calypso Louie Compound” of gated/guarded look-alike mansions. My peeps are only 5-percenters.

Do you ever look anything up before you post? Or is agitation/disruption your true goal?

:P

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 3:07 PM

First of all, I doubt liberal4life has ever been in an “inner city”, but that’s not important. It sincerely believes the O’bama Fallacy Myth that has been created.

Wiki, for example, never cites that O’bama’s only lived in that fancy part of Chicago. All they say is that he “settled down” there in 1992. And they never mention the mansions; all they say is

Hyde Park, a liberal, integrated, middle-class Chicago neighborhood with a history of electing reform-minded politicians independent of the Daley political machine.

That neighborhood also has a median income that is 15% higher than the rest of Chicago.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Game changer indeed. It is the one way that virtually assures a second Obama term with landslide proportions of Reagan/Bush 84. The GOP base will never get behind a racist homophobe isolationist who hates the military and is clueless on national security.
Happy Nomad on February 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

yes, that is exactly why he gets more donations from active duty military then all other canidates combined including obama… and I can see why you would think he is clueless on national security because the national security geniuses who sold you a war with iraq are now selling you a war with iran… and you’re stupid enough to buy again. I can also see how you would suggest he would lose in a landslide against obama after seeing that rasmussen pole on the drudge report yesterday that showed him beating obama… and I’m sure you’re one people who say you detest the left and the media for name calling yet you use the same tactics when it suits your agenda… it makes about as much sense as a conservitive claiming they want small government and an overseas empire all at the same time.

dom89031 on February 28, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Here’s the Chicago ‘hood that used to be the Obamas’ old stomping ground (and my own):

Hyde Park home for sale

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I think lib4life is from New Jersey. No doubt she bought into the fake narrative created for the Obamas. Both the Obamas are Harvard Graduates, where does she think Harvard Graduates look for housing in Chicago the projects?

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I could care less how many expensive cars he owns. I can not imagine a more worthless discussion.

tullius on February 28, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I think lib4life is from New Jersey. No doubt she bought into the fake narrative created for the Obamas. Both the Obamas are Harvard Graduates, where does she think Harvard Graduates look for housing in Chicago the projects?

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I won’t hold being from New Jersey against anyone lol.

Didn’t Mooshelle also graduate from Princeton? I wonder if she took any of Krugman’s propaganda seminars?

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Here’s the Chicago ‘hood that used to be the Obamas’ old stomping ground (and my own):

Hyde Park home for sale

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 3:32 PM

6,000 square feet and it’s only got 3 1/2 baths? That’s criminal.

Romney’s lake house here in NH has only 4,000 square feet.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM

BTW yesterday we floated 2 perfectly logical names of NASCAR owners Romney was probably talking about knowing-Boston Red Sox co-owner John Henry, and also Joe Gibbs, who is a star in Republican circles and in fact spoke at the 2008 RNC Convention. There’s no denying that Henry is mega wealthy but Gibbs has a reputation as a God-Fearing religious type.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Hmmm. So how did Kennedy or Bush ever get elected?

Bitter Clinger on February 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Kennedy is easy to explain… Americans didn’t hate the “1%” in the late 50s. Instead we assumed most of them had worked hard (or their ancestors had) in order to become a member of the 1%, and we aspired to reach that lofty goal through our own hard work. Instead, we now resent the 1% while at the same time still wanting to be part of the 1%.

Bush I got elected on the coattails of the very successful Reagan presidency. No one can explain how Bush II got elected.

gravityman on February 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

6,000 square feet and it’s only got 3 1/2 baths? That’s criminal.

Romney’s lake house here in NH has only 4,000 square feet.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Hey, it’s the big city ya know? Always more bang for your buck in the wide open spaces.

:)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on February 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

. . it turns my stomach that the Republican Party is trying to foist this Democrat onto the American people. It is turly and utterly despicable!

Pragmatic on February 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

You need not worry. Given that choice the real Socialist Democrat will win. In a bi-partisan move Romney may get the nod to lead the HHS bureaucracy.

Annar on February 28, 2012 at 3:59 PM

I have to giggle because Laura Ingraham this morning was raving about how Romney and his organization knew how to get out the vote, and Santorum didn’t. Never underestimate your opponent. They are both putting up a good fight and letting the people decide.

lea on February 28, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Right on…Santorum is not calling out that Romney was against the auto bailout as much as that he was for bailouts that benefited his friends, his cronies. Essentially, if Romney is for one why not for all….because he is a spineless man that only supports his buds.

PuritanD71 on February 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So for Santorum to be consistent, as opposed to Romney, he is for all bailouts if he is for the auto bailout?

Remind me again how that jives with the small-government reduced-spending conservatism that he tells us he will be for as President (when he isn’t “taking one for the team”)?

gravityman on February 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Can’t we all just face the simple fact that NEITHER Santorum nor Romney are small government conservatives? At least, their records don’t say they are, only their campaign rhetoric. And if the last 100 years of campaign promises wasn’t enough to tell us that campaign promises are worth about as much as the resale value of a Chevy Volt, then certainly recent memory of Obama’s lengthy trail of broken campaign promises should show us the value of anything said on the trail.

gravityman on February 28, 2012 at 4:17 PM

Actually, it applies to both. I don’t want Obama OR Santorum OR Romney as my president. I’m really hoping the GOP doesn’t earn its label as the Stupid Party by nominating this doofus either of these doofi.

DRayRaven on February 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I could have actually pointed out that Obama is Romney is Romney is Obama, but the wrath of the Mittbots would cause Hot Air to burn up. Oops, there I go comparing Mittbots with SMOD.

NOMOBO on February 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I won’t hold being from New Jersey against anyone lol.

Didn’t Mooshelle also graduate from Princeton? I wonder if she took any of Krugman’s propaganda seminars?

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1976. The Obama’s had to cross paths with the wise latina somewhere at some point in their lives…..I believe that Princeton also had courses on liberation theology.

Dr Evil on February 28, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Democraps joining in on the Republican primary wouldn’t be making a difference if Mittzy was the “principled” conservative he claims to be. He’d have the majority of base voting form him.
Instead he comes across as the privileged, spoiled Northeast RINO who figured he had the road to the nomination all sown up because the RINO establishment was going to pave the way.
So sorry the electorate is getting in the way. BAWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

chickasaw42 on February 28, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Speaking of ignorance…..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/28/pruden-the-ignorance-of-rick-santorum/

a capella on February 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Yep. I linked to it earlier – somewhere – I forget:)

Buy Danish on February 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Bush I got elected on the coattails of the very successful Reagan presidency. No one can explain how Bush II got elected.

gravityman on February 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Bush II won because Algore was rejected by the voters of his own Home State of Tennessee.

Del Dolemonte on February 28, 2012 at 5:16 PM

It’s sad to see so many commenters here acting in ways that will only help to reelect Obama.

Nobody seems to remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

rokemronnie on February 28, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Al Gore still won the popular vote in 2000

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM

You weren’t born yet.

KOOLAID2 on February 28, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Clinton could not keep his stuff in his pants.

Agreed. But that’s not the only thing that made him a mediocre President, but it didnt help.

Even after that Al Gore still won the popular vote in 2000

liberal4life on February 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I must have missed the “American Idol” clause in the Constitution…darn those Dead, White, Slave owners!

What the heck did *they* know?

BlaxPac on February 28, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I’m getting the feeling that Hot Air has been co-opted by the Santorum campaign.

I just heard on Fox News that they felt Santorum’s comments on the JFK speech and “Obama is a snob because he thinks everyone should go to college” hurt him in Michigan. So why has Hot Air ignored these comments on their site?

They are quick to post anything Romney says that may hurt him (Nascar, Cadillacs), but ignore Santorum’s slip ups. Now I know Ed and crew have all but endorsed Santorum, but can we please cover each candidate fairly without bias. It’s getting a little ridiculous.

teliason on February 29, 2012 at 12:10 AM

It’s a shame when someone has to be embarrassed by how well they have done. And shame on any republican for jumping on the OWS-lite bandwagon.

Ododeo Jones on February 29, 2012 at 4:25 AM

I feel like a capitalist pig! I have 2 Fords and 2 Hyundais! Don’t let Obama find out, they’ll say I’m “rich” and tax me even more!

kirkill on February 29, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I don’t have a problem with Romney being rich or acknowledging that he’s rich — he earned his wealth.

But I still have a problem with his platform. I think the country needs fundamental tax reform, but Romney and Santorum both seem to think that tinkering with the tax rates is sufficient.

We also need fundamental budget reform and fundamental entitlement reform, and no one is talking about these issues.

J Baustian on February 29, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2