Romney advisor: Mitt dropped out for the good of the party by this time in 2008, you know

posted at 11:35 am on March 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I get what Eric Fehrnstrom means, but does the Romney campaign really want to invoke memories of 2008 as a pressure point?  Especially when in the same interview, Fehrnstrom talks about hitting “a reset button” after the primary to engage centrists.  That’s going to bring back a few bad memories:

At the time, John McCain did not have the delegates he needed to clinch the nomination but he was clearly on a path to doing that. The math was very challenging for Mitt Romney. And he made the decision that at that time, the country being at war in Iraq, it was important for John McCain to begin to rally the party behind him so he could prepare himself for the fall election campaign. Mitt Romney stepped aside. Now, in Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, these are both decent, honorable men who have run good campaigns. They are good Americans. They are good Republicans. And ultimately, I’m confident they’ll make a decision that’s not only right for their party, but right for them. …

I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch a Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and we start all over again.

Yeah … that’ll convince the conservative base to throw in with Mitt.

That argument won’t work on Rick Santorum either, who is still winning contests, although not as many as Romney. If Santorum wins the Louisiana primary, he won’t have any reason to get out before April’s nine primaries. He can claim that conservative voters still aren’t backing Romney and deserve a choice rather than a rubber stamp, and that it’s Romney’s responsibility to show he can win in the South. However, that argument will dissipate entirely if Romney manages to win in Louisiana on Saturday, which is still a distinct possibility, especially with Jeb Bush’s endorsement today.

Fehrnstrom’s point is better taken with Gingrich, however.  Newt finished last in Illinois behind Ron Paul, and didn’t bother to put up a fight.  He’s also staking what little he has left on Louisiana, but with two losses in the South last week, he faces long odds in Louisiana for a game-changer.  The Southern Strategy has come a cropper, as the National Journal reports today:

Once again, Newt Gingrich was not present in a state where Republicans went to the polls. This time, as voters in Illinois were handing former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney a solid victory, the former House Speaker was nearly 500 miles away in Louisiana, where he ended his public schedule late in the afternoon and chose to do an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity rather than hold an election night rally.

Calls for Gingrich to end his campaign are bound to increase after his last-place showing in Illinois, where he was only able to muster 8 percent of the vote. He made his usual pledge on the Hannity show to stay in the race, but his fundraising is drying up and his schedule is lightening, and Republican National Committee rules raise questions about what he could accomplish by pressing on to the August convention in Tampa.

Gingrich told Hannity he had chosen to focus on the South, where he believed he had a better chance of winning. His only victories in 33 contests to date have been in South Carolina and his home state of Georgia. But his Southern strategy didn’t work in Alabama and Mississippi, which he lost earlier this month after saying he had to win one or both to be credible. And as he stumped across the northern part of the Bayou State on Tuesday, the former House speaker did not predict a victory in the upcoming weekend primary. Instead, he talked up the potential for collecting convention delegates here.

“We have a real chance to pick up delegates here,” he told a crowd at a morning stop at a café in Shreveport.  By the afternoon he had stepped up the rhetoric just a bit for an audience at a hotel in Monroe, telling them he thought he had a good chance to “win a lot of delegates here.”

That’s basically the Ron Paul strategy on a slightly grander scale, only without the agenda-building motive Paul has to march to the convention.  Gingrich’s campaign is running on fumes as it is, which has already translated into a “noticeably lighter” schedule this month.  Without any wins, he will have no money to campaign soon enough.  Other than a dog-in-the-manger strategy aimed at Romney, there doesn’t seem to be any reason for Gingrich to continue his quest.

Nothing will change before Saturday’s primary in Louisiana, but I’d expect the race to change significantly in the ten days between then and the next primary.  How much it changes really depends on whether Romney can close the deal with a win in Louisiana.

Update: I wrote much the same thing for CNN after last night’s results:

Santorum has a four-point lead in a poll conducted for a New Orleans television station last week, and can be expected to fight hard to finish March with a win. Romney will almost certainly spend significant amounts of time and money looking for a knockout blow.

After that, though, we have 10 days before the next primaries on April 3, the longest slack period in six weeks. Gingrich, whose fundraising cratered in February, may take the time to reconsider his quixotic quest. If Gingrich gets out, or even if the low fundraising totals merely sideline him, Santorum will have a chance of consolidating conservatives in the remaining states and give Romney the one-on-one fight he desperately needs.

It may be too late for Santorum to beat Romney, but it’s unlikely that even a loss in Louisiana would persuade Santorum not to try.

I think the “Etch-a-Sketch” line will make it easier for Santorum to stay in, too.


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

Ah, yeah, that turned out well, didn’t it.

stenwin77 on March 21, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Repeat after me “President-elect Romney is better than two term Obama.. ah what a relief it is!”

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 1:02 PM

you try too hard.. try letting up a bit and then maybe you’ll be able to influence thought

gatorboy on March 21, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Statements like this,

If it’s Romney v Obama, which appears inevitable, my vote goes to Obama.

angryed on March 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM

and,

I have explained why I will vote for Obama over Romney.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

eliminates all ability to influence thought.

Just saying.

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Negotiate now! After Louisiana is too late!

MTF on March 21, 2012 at 4:17 PM

What if he has nothing they want?

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Repeat after me “President-elect Romney is better than two term Obama.. ah what a relief it is!”

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Just a bit too much inside baseball talk but as to abandoning conservatives…..he never courted them.
Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 3:16 PM

That’s simply not true.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Where did I complain that “others are attacking” Mitt Romney? My point is that the idea that a prolonged primary process and brokered convention is like manna from heaven for the GOP is completely wrong, and poll numbers prove it. Still waiting for the quote from Ferhnstrom where he says Mitt will “abandon conservatives” (or anything even close to that!).

AH_C on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

What the hell are you talking about? What “corruption” exists in the GOP among our top candidates (please be specific!); then tell us how a brokered convention ends that alleged corruption. Thanks!

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

eliminates all ability to influence thought.

Just saying.

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 4:41 PM

He’s a Paulbot for God’s sake.

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Newt is in this race for the good of Newt only. Fox news has given him whatever time he wants on their network exercising no restraint. Hannity and Gretta V. fawn all over him. It’s enough to make you very sick. He is not interested in the good of the party. He has lost this race for a variety of reasons and he should acknowledge it and get out lest he be a laughing stock of the political world. No one would even want to buy his books. Santorum is clearly a second stringer and could never mount a serious campaign to defeat Obama. I am not saying Romney is great but he does have the distinct possibility of fighting Obama on his home turf. What I mean by that is that the reason Obama won the last election was because he was able to win the suburban areas around the big cities by sufficient margins to make states like Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and even Indiana fall to the Democrats. This will not happen this time. The suburban areas around the big cities are tuned in to economic conservatism. What they don’t like is social conservatism in it’s rawest and Santorum like form. Romney presents a rational alternative to such voters and Obama will suffer the consequences as long as the social conservatives in the party don’t disappear and stay home on election day. General Elections are controlled in this country by about 10-15% of the electorate. This is the group that swung for Obama in 2008 by about 2-1. I suspect Romney is the only Republican that can turn that around and possibly by exactly the same margin. Obama, being an incumbent has certain built in advantages but Romney seems to have his number. Let’s get on with main event and enough of fighting for nothing.

jake22 on March 21, 2012 at 4:45 PM

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Nope, just those who are voting for Obama.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Romney is losing by 8% to Obama in Virginia. LOL. Good luck with that Mitt-tards.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Repeat after me “President-elect Romney is better than two term Obama.. ah what a relief it is!”

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Yes because a far left white liberal with an “R” next to his name is better than a far left black liberal with a “D” next to his name.

And people wonder why Democrats get 95% of the black vote and 65% of the Hispanic vote. It’s a mystery I tell ya!

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Romney is losing by 8% to Obama in Virginia. LOL. Good luck with that Mitt-tards.
angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Right, and santorum had a lead in Illinois 10 days ago. The general election is a ways out. Cheer leading for Obama isn’t just against Romney supporters but republicans in general who are voting for him to oust Obama. But you know that.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I don’t understand voting for The Won instead of Romney but I guess I don’t have to.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The anti-Romney crowd is reading way too much into the Etch-A-Sketch comment by a Romney adviser. I realize that many of you don’t like Romney, but a Romney adviser saying something that can be interpreted in many different ways is hardly an indictment of the true intentions of Romney himself. Furthermore, interpreting this statement to mean that Romney will abandon the positions stated in his speech last night is a real stretch. You are grasping at straws and looking very much like the liberals/progressives who regularly use such tactics to attack GOP candidates. If Romney wins the nomination, the approach that his campaign will take for running against Obama will, in fact, stay away from things like social issues and focus on the economy. He will need to avoid using conservative talking points that tend to alienate independent voters. That being said, what he said last night is hardly something that would result in moderates rejecting him. I see nothing in that speech that moderates can’t accept. He will continue to talk about what made America great and the need to return to policies that will encourage innovation and help our economy to grow. If he wins in November, it will be because he convinces the majority of Americans that his vision for strengthening the economy is better than what Obama is peddling and that it will reverse the damage done by the unsustainable fiscal policies of the Obama administration. In addition, for those paying close to his speech last night, you can clearly see that he is already changing his focus to what he needs to say to defeat Obama in November. He no longer sees Santorum and Gingrich as real threats to his winning the nomination and is using the free air time to attack the failed policies of the current occupant in the White House and to define his alternative approach for fixing the US economy.

NuclearPhysicist on March 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I don’t understand voting for The Won instead of Romney but I guess I don’t have to.
Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 5:02 PM

I don’t have to understand it either but I’m offended by being criticized by someone who will vote for Obama just because I will support the republican nominee.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Right, and santorum had a lead in Illinois 10 days ago. The general election is a ways out. Cheer leading for Obama isn’t just against Romney supporters but republicans in general who are voting for him to oust Obama. But you know that.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Dude he’s losing in every swing state. He’s losing states that Bush carried by 15%. He’s losing independents. Only people who he isn’t losing are morons like you. Thankfully you are a small minority of the population.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM

I don’t have to understand it either but I’m offended by being criticized by someone who will vote for Obama just because I will support the republican nominee.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 5:09 PM

You’re offended? Grow a pair amigo.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM

He’s a Paulbot for God’s sake.

katy the mean old lady on March 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Nah, Paul would choose Romney over Obama.

He is an Obama supporter/voter/sycophant.

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Romney is losing by 8% to Obama in Virginia. LOL. Good luck with that Mitt-tards.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Like I said,

Debbie Wasserman angryeyed is an Obama supporter/voter/sycophant.

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Angryed, I usually lean to your side of arguments. But the Roves and Ingrahams and Bushes of the world are part of the Beltway establishment, and they’ve been solidly in the Romney camp for a long time now, whatever their motivations for that might be.
Romney didn’t get establishment support in 2008, but he’s had it every day since.

Right Mover on March 21, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Exactly right. There are over 2 dozen former Bush aides and allies in the Romney campaign now. I would not be surprised if Romney asks Jeb Bush to be his running mate–payback for the establishment’s support perhaps. Basically, we’ll be getting the Bush regime reinstalled in the White House if we go with Romney and he wins by some freak happenstance.

KickandSwimMom on March 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM

4,000,000 morons and counting.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Has this link been posted? Click on the Romney quotes and watch them change!!

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

karenhasfreedom on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Like I said,

Debbie Wasserman angryeyed is an Obama supporter/voter/sycophant.

Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Poor Gunlock Billie Bob. Watching the dream of the first Mormon president die a slow and painful death. It’s OK dude, maybe Orin Hatch will run in 2016.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Repeat after me “President-elect Romney is better than two term Obama.. ah what a relief it is!”

Bradky on March 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Okay.

Repeat after me “President-elect Romney is better than two term Obama.. ah what a relief it is!”

What did I win….oh I see, the kewpie prize.

Dr Evil on March 21, 2012 at 5:20 PM

I think it’s telling that anti-Romney bloggers are desperately seizing on Fehrnstrom’s “etch-a-sketch” comment — which WAS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL POSITIONS, BUT RATHER ABOUT AESTHETICS AND OPTICS OF A CAMPAIGN — right now. They are crying, wailing out for something, anything to prevent the inevitable triumph of commonsense conservatism over the self-defeating variety espoused by Santorum, and so now this has to be distorted to ‘prove’ that this is somehow all a big scam or something.

I’m tired of this sort of BS.

Esoteric on March 21, 2012 at 11:41 AM

It’s not going away. It fits too neatly with Romney’s constant repositioning of himself and the admission that he’s taking the conservative vote for granted. To then have an adviser say he could just “reset” is … very, very painful.

tom on March 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Has this link been posted? Click on the Romney quotes and watch them change!!

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

karenhasfreedom on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

That was quick! Funny!

NuclearPhysicist on March 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

It’s a gaffe that would not be used if it fell wide of the mark. But it doesn’t.

The Most Fun With an Etch A Sketch Since Kindergarten

INC on March 21, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Has this link been posted? Click on the Romney quotes and watch them change!!

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

karenhasfreedom on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Heh. Obama will have so much fun in the summer and fall with this lying sack of dung.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Has this link been posted? Click on the Romney quotes and watch them change!!

http://www.etchasketchmittromney.com/

karenhasfreedom on March 21, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Bwawwahhh.

SparkPlug on March 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Like I said,
Debbie Wasserman angryeyed is an Obama supporter/voter/sycophant.
Gunlock Bill on March 21, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Poor Gunlock Billie Bob. Watching the dream of the first Mormon president die a slow and painful death. It’s OK dude, maybe Orin Hatch will run in 2016.
angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Poor angryed, Obama won’t follow him on twitter.

Rusty Allen on March 21, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Romney is losing by 8% to Obama in Virginia. LOL. Good luck with that Mitt-tards.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:51 PM

and after the coalescing ? Once everyone has come to terms with Romney the nominee- even if by default, as there was no better option- you will start to see your precious leader “slipping” in the polls.

It will be called Mittmentum. You just wait and see buddy boy.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The NYT link in my above comment said the etchasketch site was started by Matt Ortega, a Dem operative. The NYT also jokingly brought in the Tebow story by quoting a tweet implying the “suspicious” timing of the Tebow trade occurred because Woody Johnson (not only Jets owner, but also a Romney supporter) really wanted to bury the etchasketch story.

All we need is for Sarah Palin to somehow be connected, and AllahPundit could write a Romney/Tebow/Palin post—guaranteed for a 1000+ hits!

INC on March 21, 2012 at 5:34 PM

How does it affect my credibility in any way to point out that Palin was an electoral drag on McCain?

Esoteric on March 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Because it wasn’t so? It is, however, exactly what the typical liberal believes.

No one claimed Palin was a drag on the ticket until the ticket started losing and they wanted to blame someone. If she was a drag on the ticket, McCain would have sent her far away to campaign. Instead, they wanted her with him everywhere he went.

The reason was simple. She was far more popular than he was. If she had campaigned separately, embarrassing questions would have been asked about why everyone was more interested in the VP candidate.

But instead, McCain had her campaign by his side and was able to appear more popular himself.

tom on March 21, 2012 at 5:36 PM

The point being that none of them are worth a warm bucket of spit, especially the so-called front runner.

BetseyRoss on March 21, 2012 at 12:02 PM

BINGO! That’s a winner. Kewpie doll for you!

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 5:44 PM

*sigh*
… I thought we could at least agree on Anyone But Obama. Guess not.

Look… Obama needs to get put out of office. No matter what. This is priority one. Look at all the crap he’s been pulling while he’s got re-election hanging over his head. Can you IMAGINE what he’d do as a lame duck?

Me, I’m sticking with Romney, because he seems to think with his brain. Newt thinks with his cojones and Santorum thinks with his heart. I’d prefer a president who’d be rational when it’s time to get the nukes out.

Don’t you agree?

(Call me a Mittbot, I dare you. c;)

LunaLovegood on March 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM

It’s as if they’re in a cult and their leader can do no wrong. Even Obamabots saw some flaws in Obama.With Mittbots, the man is a living deity.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I don’t remember who it was, but last night one of them actually made the claim that Romney is “almost incorruptible.” I almost fell out of my chair, laughing.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 5:52 PM

It’s not exactly rocket science. It’s the standard point that all political campaigns understand: once the infighting of the primary is over, you shift your tone and temperament for a general election. No more stupid arguments about banning contraception, or pornography, etc. Instead the message focuses 100%, 24/7 on Obama and his failures. You don’t go out there and fight on so-con issues (because nobody effing cares about that right now, people care about spending and unemployment and debt and the economy and entitlements), you fight on Obama’s failures as a President and the threat he poses to our economic liberty and the future of an entire generation of Americans.

Again: it’s not like this is a particularly new concept. Nor is it an offensive or underhanded one. I mean, do YOU think Romney ought to be out campaigning against Obama in September and October on the issues of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and pornography? Seriously? Or do you think we would be better served by making this race about unemployment, debt, spending, economic freedom, and Obama’s incompetence?

If you think the latter is the proper focus, then hey: you want a ‘reset’ too. Because guess what: this primary has focused on the stupid stuff in Column A and not on the important stuff in Column B.

Esoteric on March 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Apparently you didn’t read the question that Fehrnstrom was responding to. He was asked if Santorum and Gingrich had pushed Romney too far to the right. You are in fantasy land if you think that “resetting the campaign” has anything to do with going after Obama’s record 24/7, although if that turns out to be what happens, then I’ll be a lot more likely to vote — against Obama.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

NuclearPhysicist on March 21, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Very lucid argument & nicely said. However, too bad for a lot of people here it will go “in one ear & out the other.”

Dark Star on March 21, 2012 at 5:59 PM

It’s as if they’re in a cult and their leader can do no wrong. Even Obamabots saw some flaws in Obama.With Mittbots, the man is a living deity.

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM

That is your biggest lie yet or maybe you can’t remember as far back as 2008, but Obama has actually been called God by the Obots –heck, when he received a Noble Prize for doing absolutely nothing they were wetting themselves.

Dark Star on March 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Well, now he should drop out for the good of the nation!

gepaza on March 21, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Yeah, well the difference is I understand the English language and how to take statements in context. Commenters took that quote and then claimed his advisor said Romney would “abandon conservatives” and other such ludicrous interpretations.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Maybe that’s because they paid attention to the actual question that he was responding too, about Romney being forced too far to the right.

Ludicrous or logical? I think intelligent people can decide for themselves.

JannyMae on March 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM

conservative voters still aren’t backing Romney and deserve a choice rather than a rubber stamp

A Choice Not an Echo.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 6:14 PM

So let’s get this straight, an advisor to the Romney campaign makes a statement and now Romney is at fault? Sure his advisor shouldn’t have said it, but I’m not sure it is any sort of disqualifier for what Romney has acomplished.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM

If Romney didn’t “reset” and re-focus on the general election, he would be derelict in representing the GOP.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM

So let’s get this straight, an advisor to the Romney campaign makes a statement and now Romney is at fault? Sure his advisor shouldn’t have said it, but I’m not sure it is any sort of disqualifier for what Romney has acomplished.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM

It’s not that Romney is at fault. It’s that the adviser is telling the truth.

tom on March 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM

So let’s get this straight, an advisor to the Romney campaign makes a statement and now Romney is at fault? Sure his advisor shouldn’t have said it, but I’m not sure it is any sort of disqualifier for what Romney has acomplished.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM

The long-time Romney advisor told the truth about Romney’s approach, and confirmed what many people have thought about Romney: that he will say whatever he needs to say to win a particular election, but will pivot like a weather vane when the political winds shift direction.

He was for the individual mandate and government-run healthcare before he was against it.

Etc., etc., etc.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 6:44 PM

If Romney didn’t “reset” and re-focus on the general election, he would be derelict in representing the GOP.

Tater Salad on March 21, 2012 at 6:17 PM

That is the candidate of “pale pastels”.

I prefer “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

If you look back at the Republican Primaries and general elections of 1976 and 1980, you’ll find that the candidate of “pale pastels” and the candidate of “bold colors” battled for the Republican nomination. The candidate of “pale pastels” won the Republican nomination… and then lost the general election.

In 1980, the candidate of “bold colors” won the Republican nomination and the general election.

Again, I prefer candidates to be “bold colors, not pale pastels”.

Be bold. Be who you are. Stand firm on conservative principles. And win.

Romney 2012 is McCain 2008 deja vu.

ITguy on March 21, 2012 at 7:00 PM

AH_C on March 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM
What the hell are you talking about? What “corruption” exists in the GOP among our top candidates (please be specific!); then tell us how a brokered convention ends that alleged corruption. Thanks!
Buy Danish
 on March 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

There you go again, overwriting my words. Where did I write that any of our top candidates are corrupt? I said clean out the corruption within the party. The root of that corruption is the desire to stay in power and party like Democrats. You want names? Try Lott, Stevens, moocowski, Cunningham, hastert among others of the old guard that taught the current crop. If not corrupt, some of those holding the reins want the perks and to a degree are progressive moderates that chose to be gop when the dnc would have been a better fit, like McVain, Graham, boehner, McConnell, Cantor, Kyle, hatch, lugar, snowe, Collins etc. Even so, I view them as tainted by corruption as well for their lousy stewardship. Did I mention brown? Yeah include him as well. I figure you have a vested stake in the current cronyism as well, which is why you despise Palin.

But way to ignore what conservatives believe. Bless your heart, you just don’t understand the desire of conservatives to get back to the constitution. Someday I hope you will understand.

AH_C on March 21, 2012 at 7:31 PM

THE ROMNEY ETCH-A-SKETCH BROUHAHA IS BULL**IT.

A CAMPAIGN AIDE TO MITT SAID SOMETHING, IN AN UNFLATTERING WAY, THAT’S ALWAYS BEEN TRUE.

BIG EFFIN DEAL.

NOBODY RUNS THE SAME RACE IN THE GENERAL THAT THEY DID IN THE PRIMARIES.

YOU ALWAYS RUN TO YOUR BASE IN THE PRIMARIES AND TO THE CENTER IN THE GENERAL – IF YOU WANT TO WIN.

ALWAYS.

RUNNING AGAINST OBAMA WILL NECESSARILY BE DIFFERENT THAT RUNNING AGAINST CAIN AND PAUL AND SANTORUM AND GINGRICH,

ANYONE WHO THINKS OTHERWISE IS A FECKING IDJIT.

IMO.

reliapundit on March 21, 2012 at 7:53 PM

“A full repeal of ObamaCare might be a little hasty. Once I am elected President, I will go over ObamaCare with a fine tooth comb, and cut out the bad parts of it. I think there is some there that is very good, much like My healthcare plan I authored while Governor.”

You now its coming, right?

portlandon on March 21, 2012 at 11:44 AM

already said he isn’t going to repeal it … will give wavers ….

conservative tarheel on March 22, 2012 at 8:20 AM

drballard on March 21, 2012 at 12:05 PM

when he is the nominee (that is after Tampa-right) I will vote for the nominee …
but that is the extent of my support …. and if Mitt resets himself again …. I may not do that …..

I work on a DoD base ….. and I know 40 ppl that have stated they will not vote
for Romney …. they do not trust him ….
I know 40 ppl is statistically nothing ……

conservative tarheel on March 22, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Now that RINO Romney (aka Obama-Lite) has PISSED OFF 64% of the Republican-leaning base with his outright LIES and MORE LIES (Straight out of the Axelrod playbook) about Gingrich (see “What Really Happened to the Gingrich Ethics Case” by Byron York, Townhall.com, 2/6/2012), and Willard’s (from the RAT movie of the same name) distortions of Santorum’s voting record, maybe it would be a great time for Willard (from the RAT movie of the same name) to BOW OUT NOW for the good of the party!?! But of course, that would put the RepublicRAT establishment (a bunch of power- and money-hungry snot-nosed weasels who have LONG overstayed their welcome in Congress) in a difficlut position as they were COMPLICIT in Willard’s (from the RAT movie of the same name) LIES, LIES, and MORE LIES!?! They ALL sound like DUMMYCRATS!?! NO Wonder We are NOT inclilned to vote for ANY of them!?!?! Yeah, that’ll help down-ticket!?! Nice goin’, STUPID Party!?!

Colatteral Damage on March 22, 2012 at 4:12 PM

And people wonder why Democrats get 95% of the black vote and 65% of the Hispanic vote. It’s a mystery I tell ya!

angryed on March 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM

They hand them welfare money funded by tax dollars from working whites, in return for their assured votes. Encyclopedia Brown could solve that kind of ‘mystery’, and it figures that you can’t.

MelonCollie on March 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3