Romney fundraiser to rich donors: You don’t want a Huckabee/Palin ticket at a brokered convention, do you?

posted at 4:35 pm on April 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

Are New York’s Republican glitterati really such panicky chumps that this longer-than-longshot scenario was enough to get them to toss bags of money at Mitt? C’mon.

[O]n March 14 and 15, Romney had raised over $3 million in New York and Connecticut. … The Romney campaign had a clever pitch for the event. Schmoozing with his money pals before the events, a Romney fund-raiser pointed out that “slightly more than half the delegates” to the GOP convention at Tampa “are evangelicals.” These true-believer conservatives are averse not only to Romney but to semi-reasonable types like Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels. As a result, said this fund-raiser, the “responsible Republican guys” are “starting to realize” that at a brokered convention “it’s not going to be Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan, a ticket they could really love. It’s probably Huckabee-Palin or Palin-Huckabee.” That was enough to scare the Wall Street crowd into getting out their checkbooks.

That’s from the new Mike Allen/Evan Thomas e-book on the campaign. Point one: Why would evangelicals demand Huckabee or Palin when they could nominate Santorum? Given the odds against him now, it’d be a genuine accomplishment if he managed to hold Romney below a clear majority of delegates before the convention. He’ll be debate-tested and trail-honed, and needless to say, he’s the gold standard on “values” for social cons. Why jettison him for Huck or Sarahcuda, each of whom is more of a media presence at this point than a political one?

Point two: Last I checked, evangelicals want to beat Obama as badly as non-evangelicals do. They’re not going to roll the dice on anyone whose electability is questionable, especially since a dark-horse nominee would have just two months to boost his/her favorables before election day. That’s a major obstacle for Palin even though she remains very popular within the party. It’s less of a problem for Huckabee, who’s also popular among Republicans and came out of the 2008 campaign with far less media damage to his image than Palin. Popular or no, though, he has no campaign operation and famously doesn’t enjoy raising money. On what planet does it make more sense for an Obama-hating Christian delegate to hand him the keys to the campaign instead of holding their nose and taking their chances with Romney? Maybe, if there was some sort of serious floor revolt in Tampa, Mitt could be pressured to put Huck on the ticket — that’d actually be a nice regional/religious/class balance — but the only reason to gamble hugely on a dark-horse nominee would be if the convention wanted to bet the election on a supremely important principle like entitlement reform and balancing the budget. That might justify nominating Christie or Ryan or Daniels. But Huck?

Never mind all that, though. The piece you need to read to polish this off is Ryan Lizza’s delegate model for the rest of the GOP primaries. According to his calculations, with Romney needing 1,144 for a clear majority, he should finish June with … 1,122. Good news for Huck? Not quite: There’ll be 598 unbound delegates in Tampa, only 22 of whom would have to break for Mitt to wrap thinks up. Exit question: Huckabee/Palin 2016?


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 5

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Looking in the mirror again, sweetheart?

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Senators O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle would like a word with you on that point.
KingGold on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Do you honestly think that the GOP would have won anything without the conservative enthusiasm that propelled such candidates to their party’s nomination? Clueless.

besser tot als rot on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Romney — Running against conservative Republicans, even conservative Republicans that aren’t running.

29Victor on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Here’s one: The next president is going to replace Ginsburg for sure, maybe Scalia and Kennedy on the court. You really think Romney is going to pick a Kagan? If you do you’re lying to yourself.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Fact: Romney appointed 36 judges as governor. Of those 36, 29 were either Democrats or had donated money to Democrats. 2 of those were gay activist lawyers who worked for gay marriage lobby groups.

But you’re right, he’ll appoint nothing but Scalias and Thomases. You were saying something about lying to yourself….

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

The bottom line is that that ticket would stand a better chance than Romney/Whoever.

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Lots of “conservative” Pavlovian dogs for the liberal media here. How they must laugh and laugh when you folks get the vapors every time they “leak” a story about the Romney campaign being mean to this conservative icon or that one. The Obamamedia has got your number — and they’re gonna use it, suckers!

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

Well he has a point, the woman is not smart.

In fact I will go a little bit far ahead and say she is stupid

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

This is sorta like Beavis saying Butthead needs a brain transplant?

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Senators O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle would like a word with you on that point.
KingGold on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

The liberal/RINO talking point again.

In 2010, the TP won about 70 house seats and 5/6 senate seats. And yes they lost a few as well. Why do you always forget about the wins and focus only on the losses?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Many things thought about are better left unsaid. I am sticking with my belief that Gov. Romney and his supporters are smarter than to denigrate a large block of people that will need to vote for him.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I’m with you, they couldn’t possibly be that arrogant.

/

Night Owl on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Well he has a point, the woman is not smart.

In fact I will go a little bit far ahead and say she is stupid

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I hear the buzzing of a mosquito.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Brokered convention would be a win for the party.

Neither Palin nor Huckabee has any chance of the nomination at said brokered convention.

Funny how Romney and surrogates cannot stop bashing Palin despite her complete lack of presence in this race. It’s not that he could never win my support, it’s that he will never, ever do the things required to win my support, such as cease bashing Palin.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

H*ll yes we want Palin/whoever better than Romney!

ChuckTX on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Lots of “conservative” Pavlovian dogs for the liberal media here. How they must laugh and laugh when you folks get the vapors every time they “leak” a story about the Romney campaign being mean to this conservative icon or that one. The Obamamedia has got your number — and they’re gonna use it, suckers!

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

You’re a liberal so it doesn’t affect you then. Finally, you’ve come out of the closet.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Many things thought about are better left unsaid. I am sticking with my belief that Gov. Romney and his supporters are smarter than to denigrate a large block of people that will need to vote for him.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 4:50 PM

I do not share that belief, and have ample factual backup for my position.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

It’s not that he could never win my support, it’s that he will never, ever do the things required to win my support, such as cease bashing Palin.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Ditto that. Mitt is Mitt and the rombots are the rombots. It’s not going to change.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

This was repeated by Rich Lowry at NRO. I found that interesting to say the least.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

rogaineguy on April 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Sorry, I know that insulting a good part of the base is working like gangbusters here on HotAir, I can’t believe others are so stupid. Let’s hope distrust of the MSM is stronger than the belief that using other Republicans as boogeyman as a legitimate fundraising tool by tools could happen.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Why do Willard and his ilk hate Republicans so much?

steebo77 on April 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM

they love the GOP, they just severely hate any and all conservatives

Doctor Zhivago on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

New Yorkers are scared of some hicks? Wow.

SouthernGent on April 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

That’s not really news though, is it?

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Time for the goobers to get in line.

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Senators O’Donnell, Buck, and Angle would like a word with you on that point.
KingGold on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Senator Fiorina and Governor Whitman want to chime in as well. Senator Murkowski, on the other hand, is sitting in the corner laughing her head off.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Romney and his bots will never get it. No matter how much they insult conservatives and Republicans, he won’t win 1 liberal vote away from Obama. Take a peek if you dare at Kos or HuffPo. Over there Romney is Hitler, but worse. He isn’t changing any mind on the left and every day he’s driving away people on the right.

Good luck with that boyz and girlz.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

The only thing stupider than the comment itself is anyone picking up on it and reporting it like it has any significance whatsoever.

alchemist19 on April 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

no but it is another piece of evidence that Romney hates conservatives

Doctor Zhivago on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Willard went fundraising in New York and Connecticut in order to shore up his base–the plutocrat wing of the Republican Party.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Sorry, I know that insulting a good part of the base is working like gangbusters here on HotAir, I can’t believe others are so stupid. Let’s hope distrust of the MSM is stronger than the belief that using other Republicans as boogeyman as a legitimate fundraising tool by tools could happen.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

It is happening. It has happened. It will continue to happen. People’s reactions here are all the evidence I need to believe that.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Time for the goobers to get in line.

KeninCT on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

This is the voter Romney thinks he will bring to his side by attacking conservatives. How’s that working out for you Mittens?

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Neither Palin nor Huckabee has any chance of the nomination at said brokered convention.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

This has always been my feelings whenever “brokered convention” is mentioned. This fundraiser was just roiling some blue-bloods for some cash. No way Palin (or Huckabee) gets nominated at a brokered convention.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Exactly.

notropis on April 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

I can’t let Obama’s free media get under my skin. ABO!!!!

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Was Mittens speaking to Democratic donors?

Republican voters? We don’t need those stinking Republican rubes to win an election. We’ve got “severely conservative” Mittens who will lots of moderates and independents./sarc

Gladtobehere on April 3, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Completely O/T:

The Old Man is back at home after his transplant.

And I gotta say, the photo of him makes him look pretty good.

JohnGalt23 on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Why would evangelicals demand Huckabee or Palin when they could nominate Santorum?

Because there’s something very satisfying and authentic when you hear social conservatism by someone with an accent.

Emperor Norton on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

O/t: I really hope AP is working on a post about King Barry’s speech at the Associated Press luncheon today. It has to be heard to be believed.

Kataklysmic on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

This was the Mitt campaign’s “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” primary moment. Truth only comes in private. “I don’t care about what you rubes want, now get in line and vote for me!” Not surprising the Mittwits want it swept under the rug.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

I wish they were scared enough not to move in around us.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Romney and his bots will never get it. No matter how much they insult conservatives and Republicans, he won’t win 1 liberal vote away from Obama. Take a peek if you dare at Kos or HuffPo. Over there Romney is Hitler, but worse. He isn’t changing any mind on the left and every day he’s driving away people on the right.

Good luck with that boyz and girlz.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

But…but…but the independents….the moderates…. they matter so much.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Romney tells them to go f**k themselves on the hour, every hour of the day. And yet they’re the bad guys for shunning him? Come on dude.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Except Romney has never said that to them. Stop inventing stuff. He courted them mightily in 2008. A little less so in 2012, but he’s not said anything to offend them either.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

This was repeated by Rich Lowry at NRO. I found that interesting to say the least.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:06 PM

He’s reporting something “from the new Mike Allen/Evan Thomas e-book on the campaign.” They are mega O-bots — Thomas is the guy who said Obama “is God.” Come on, man. These guys are PART OF THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN.

You’re a liberal so it doesn’t affect you then. Finally, you’ve come out of the closet.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

My friends and family will find that hilarious, O-bot. “Hey guys, an O-bot called me a ‘liberal’ today?” (They fall on the floor laughing their asses off.)

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

How can these people be worse than McCain at outreach to the base? How?!

Buckshot Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Once again this proves that Romney people would never vote for a non-Romney GOP candidate. Yet these very same people accuse ABRs of being traitors.

Hypocrites. All of them.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

New York and Connecticut….

Two states that the GOP has zero chance of picking up in 2012…

William Eaton on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Honestly, I could see a ticket forming like that if it were a jump ball. The GOP Convention would basically become an Iowa Caucus.

Michael Steele was a moron for designing a Primary the way he did, I don’t care who you’re supporting, a contested Convention is essentially handing Obama his reelection on a silver platter, even if someone’s “dream” candidate emerged from it.

BradTank on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Seriously, fair question. What is your purpose in life? It has to be more than throwing ad hominem insults at Sarah Palin. So, tell me, what is it?

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Wait a minute. Mike Allen and Evan Thomas have an ebook on the campaign..? Didn’t want to waste the paper?

d1carter on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Except Romney has never said that to them. Stop inventing stuff. He courted them mightily in 2008. A little less so in 2012, but he’s not said anything to offend them either.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Campaigning by saying “give me money or those rubes might win the nomination” isn’t offending? I guess we have different definitions of the word.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

But you’re right, he’ll appoint nothing but Scalias and Thomases. You were saying something about lying to yourself….

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Not appointing Scalias and Thomases doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll appoint Kagans and Sotomayers. If Kennedy is the 5th in favor of repeal, it should become fairly obvious how much even a slight preference for the Constitution matters.

And does anyone truly believe Romney would do worse than Obama in nominating justices?

We the people very rarely get to make big changes to our government, so I don’t see any reason to discount the small ones.

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Romney tells them to go f**k themselves on the hour, every hour of the day. And yet they’re the bad guys for shunning him? Come on dude.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

and Romney should tell them to sit down -and shut the f**k up as well. This freakin war on women BS that was lapped up by the “evangelical base” is driving women voters away. All the while giving these leftist morons endless cover for their marxist messiah. Stop taking the bait.

Give Romney credit for having the patience NOT to go nuculer on all of these whiny impotent self designated “base” factions who are acting like liberal special interest groups. He’s in the lead- should win the nomination, as THERE IS NO ONE ELSE. Huckabee ? Palin ? WHY the EFF have a freakin primary season anyway then. Just ONLY have a turdfest convention- add a few days to it. How delusional can you be.

Your not on board with the Rominator fine- stop the sabotage already – and get the hell out of the way.

You are not helping to get rid of the most arrogant Pres evah.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

My friends and family will find that hilarious, O-bot. “Hey guys, an O-bot called me a ‘liberal’ today?” (They fall on the floor laughing their asses off.)

Rational Thought on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

You keep calling me an O-bot which clearly shows you

a) have never read anything I’ve written
b) are a complete imbecile

Carry on.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Have they voted for others? Some have and some have not. Does voting for someone else mean you thumb your nose or does it mean you think the other guy will do the job you want done?

Even if they did, is it wise or right for Romney to use divisive terms like this? Again, this is a Dem tactic.

But then, a pundit did write that Romney campaigns like a Dem.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

What? They have not supported him with funds, etc. It’s their right. So he’s not trying to be the Evangelical candidate.

That said, Romney didn’t use that language, some “supporter” did. No evidence at all that Romney would charactize his relationship with them like that at all. This is typical stretching of a non news item to incite anger among the base.

Romney is no more responsible for that comment than Sarah Palin is for any comment you make dissing any other candidate.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I wish they were scared enough not to move in around us.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Maybe if we advertised our guns a bit more…

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Huckabee/Palin 2012

I’m sure there are many that would fap themselves silly over this especially if the names were switched, and convince themselves of the possibility.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

steebo77 on April 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM

They don’t hate Republicans as such, they hate Conservatives. There is a difference.

HerneTheHunter on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

That’s from the new Mike Allen/Evan Thomas e-book on the campaign.

Oh yeah those guys. There’s no chance that they’d exagerate at all would they? These two guys have too much at stake to risk their journalistic crediblity and pit people against each another, don’t they? I mean the left never ever tries to divide people does it? I guess it doesn’t matter, the trucons are way too savy to fall for more conservative-baiting, aren’t they?

rhombus on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

RDS is rampant.

Buttercup on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Campaigning by saying “give me money or those rubes might win the nomination” isn’t offending? I guess we have different definitions of the word.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Romney never said that. Some other dude said it. No evidence at all that Romney agrees with that statement.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

and Romney should tell them to sit down -and shut the f**k up as well. This freakin war on women BS that was lapped up by the “evangelical base” is driving women voters away. All the while giving these leftist morons endless cover for their marxist messiah. Stop taking the bait.

Give Romney credit for having the patience NOT to go nuculer on all of these whiny impotent self designated “base” factions who are acting like liberal special interest groups. He’s in the lead- should win the nomination, as THERE IS NO ONE ELSE. Huckabee ? Palin ? WHY the EFF have a freakin primary season anyway then. Just ONLY have a turdfest convention- add a few days to it. How delusional can you be.

Your not on board with the Rominator fine- stop the sabotage already – and get the hell out of the way.

You are not helping to get rid of the most arrogant Pres evah.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

I see you have received the latest memo from Obama HQ about the “war on women” meme. Next time try not to be so obvious.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Sit at home and whine to yourself, then.
The rest of us will go about the business of getting rid of President Downgrade.
Good Lt
 on April 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM

As if only Mittness and his supporters are capable of going about the business of getting rid of Oboobi. As Mittness knows, when half the delegates are evangelicals, nothing is over till the fat lady sings. We know that and he knows that. But if he and his crew keep dissing the evangelicals, he may wake up morning of the convention with a few hundred delegates going AWOL. Operative word is “pledged “. Keep insulting the true base and some of those pledged delegates will withhold their pledge. That’s the beauty of the delegate / convention system — a last chance opportunity to change horses in the event the horse goes lame. You know, or you should know, this is true, so don’t bother denying or deflecting it.

Bring on the convention!!!

AH_C on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Completely O/T:

The Old Man is back at home after his transplant.

And I gotta say, the photo of him makes him look pretty good.

JohnGalt23 on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

THERE sits a REAL man!

annoyinglittletwerp on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

It’s one thing to politely ignore the evangelical voters and hope they’ll still pull the trigger for you on election day, but it’s a another whole level of stupid higher to poke a stick in their eyes and then ask them to vote your ticket.

While there may be some who yearn for Palin and a brokered convention, Huck’s name wasn’t on anyone’s lips. At least it wasn’t until he brought it up. There should be an award for being this dumb.

STL_Vet on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

he’s not said anything to offend them either.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Beg to differ. He is trying to play this like Obama, letting his surrogates be the heavies and he just skates on top with smarmy fake affability. The problem is, both he and Obama are insulting the same people, people romney actually needs support from in order to win.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You’re a liberal so it doesn’t affect you then. Finally, you’ve come out of the closet.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Says the Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Romney never said that. Some other dude said it. No evidence at all that Romney agrees with that statement.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Yes of course I forgot. Every poll showing Romney losing is fake and every quote attributed to Romney (even when he’s on TV saying it) is a lie.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Last I checked, evangelicals want to beat Obama as badly as non-evangelicals do. They’re not going to roll the dice on anyone whose electability is questionable

Last I checked, Romney’s numbers are really starting to reek. What’s the “electability” argument for him now?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I am sticking with my belief that Gov. Romney and his supporters are smarter than to denigrate a large block of people that will need to vote for him.

He got caught – open mics (etc) are good for exposing the soul, and one perfect look at the real foul core of the man -and the party.

Time for social cons to leave and form their own….

Don L on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Oh yeah those guys. There’s no chance that they’d exagerate at all would they? These two guys have too much at stake to risk their journalistic crediblity and pit people against each another, don’t they? I mean the left never ever tries to divide people does it? I guess it doesn’t matter, the trucons are way too savy to fall for more conservative-baiting, aren’t they?

rhombus on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Of course not, Politico would never do anything to cause turmoil in the GOP base to help out their guy, Obama.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

That said, Romney didn’t use that language, some “supporter” did. No evidence at all that Romney would charactize his relationship with them like that at all. This is typical stretching of a non news item to incite anger among the base.

Romney is no more responsible for that comment than Sarah Palin is for any comment you make dissing any other candidate.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Romney doesn’t get his hands dirty…

Romney surrogates have been trashing Palin since 2008.

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Says the Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

I’ve explained to you 100 times why I think Obama is better than Romney. Yet you still don’t understand. I know you’re a Mormon and your blind love for a fellow Mormon is getting in the way of rational thinking. That, and you’re an idiot.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Here’s one: The next president is going to replace Ginsburg for sure, maybe Scalia and Kennedy on the court. You really think Romney is going to pick a Kagan? If you do you’re lying to yourself.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Fact: Romney appointed 36 judges as governor. Of those 36, 29 were either Democrats or had donated money to Democrats. 2 of those were gay activist lawyers who worked for gay marriage lobby groups.

But you’re right, he’ll appoint nothing but Scalias and Thomases. You were saying something about lying to yourself….

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Add into that the fact that he left 12 benches empty in order to allow the Democratic Governor that replaced him to appoint the judges.

Add into that the fact that when given the opportunity to demonstrate an ability to appoint good judges to the bench, he punted by creating through executive order a non political (read leftist) board to review and appoint judges for him. While he could have vetoed any pick they made, he never used that authority, and ended up with the results angreyed outlines.

Nothing says he does not do the same thing, and the Republicans in the Senate will find themselves in a tough position if he does. The reason we were able to get rid of the wise latina that Bush pushed for was that she was not very qualified, in fact likely fully unqualified for the position. The leftists that Romney might appoint will be fully qualified (by his non political board?) and the Republicans might raise a stink about it, but in the end, like all the nominees by Democratic presidents, they will do their duty and approve them so long as they are qualified.

astonerii on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Yes of course I forgot. Every poll showing Romney losing is fake and every quote attributed to Romney (even when he’s on TV saying it) is a lie.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

Oh yes, I forgot that every candidate is responsible for what his supporters say. Makes perfect sense.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

And does anyone truly believe Romney would do worse than Obama in nominating justices?

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Judging by Romney’s absolutely abysmal judicial record in Massachusetts, Hell Yes.

David Souter would be a prime example of the type of nominee we can expect from Romney. Heck, the guy who originally recommended Souter (John Sununu) is now a top adviser for Romney.

Norwegian on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Well he has a point, the woman is not smart.

In fact I will go a little bit far ahead and say she is stupid

liberal4life on April 3, 2012 at 5:00 PM

You, of all people, should be careful about calling anyone else stupid. You are stupid, Biden is stupid, Obama is stupid, Pelosi is stupid, Reid is stupid, DWS is stupid, the guy who worries about Guam tipping over is stupid, Sheila Jackson Lee is stupid, Maxine Waters is stupid, geez, I could go on all day. The stupid on your side of the isle is so great it is about to ruin a once wonderful place to live.

Night Owl on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Romney and his bots will never get it. No matter how much they insult conservatives and Republicans, he won’t win 1 liberal vote away from Obama.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Yes, you are a lost cause.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Romney is at 34% approval nationwide. Keep phooking that chicken Mittens, by labor day you’ll be in single digits.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Once again this proves that Romney people would never vote for a non-Romney GOP candidate. Yet these very same people accuse ABRs of being traitors.

Hypocrites. All of them.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

All completely false including the “a” and “of.”

This RomneyBot is ABO 2012 all the way – will gladly pull the lever for whoever the Republican nominee is.

kjl291 on April 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

HUH?

This freakin war on women BS that was lapped up by the “evangelical base” is driving women voters away.

How in the world was that lapped up by the evangelical base?

The rest of your comment is arrogant enough to have been written by a Dem.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

And does anyone truly believe Romney would do worse than Obama in nominating justices?

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I can envision a scenario, yes. Romney is likely to nominate another David Broder, whereas we’ll be able to filibuster another Kagan or Sotomayor.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:20 PM

Esthier on April 3, 2012 at 5:15 PM

I think they are more scareder of Jesus!

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Romney doesn’t get his hands dirty…

Romney surrogates have been trashing Palin since 2008.

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Paranoia. The whole Evil Romney really hates evangelicals and Palin and Huck and orchestrates others to do his dirty deeds.

No chance that someone with a few beers at some fundraiser event and mouths off his opinions independent of Romney.

Any more conspiracy theories?

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yes, you are a lost cause.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

You really are the stupidest poster here. And I am including lib4life in that category.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

These are exactly the kind of comments we real conservatives need the Romney people to continue to make.Keep alienating the base.Keep demeaning conservative heroes.Keep taking us for granted.That way we can destroy the GOP once and for all when we stay home in November.

redware on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Fact: Romney appointed 36 judges as governor. Of those 36, 29 were either Democrats or had donated money to Democrats. 2 of those were gay activist lawyers who worked for gay marriage lobby groups.

But you’re right, he’ll appoint nothing but Scalias and Thomases. You were saying something about lying to yourself….

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:02 PM

Right, because Massachusetts liberals in their statehouse would just rubber stamp conservative judges. How many Republican judges had been appointed before Romney? Oh right. Criticizing Romney for working within the constraints of Massachusetts is similar to criticizing Reagan for working with liberals in California. It’s not the same, but it’s similar. Hell, Palin appointed a Democrat to the state senate of Alaska, I guess she’s a RINO too.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

The constitution doesn’t say anything about the nominating process, or political parties at all for that matter. It merely states that for a presidential election, states may choose electors in “whatsoever manner” they see fit. Personally I think that drawing out the process will redound to the benefit of the nation, if not necessarily the Republican party, but I know there will be many people who don’t share that opinion with me.

gryphon202 on April 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM

What the Constitution say:

Article II – The Executive Branch Note

Section 1 – The President Note1 Note2

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

In other words, the concept of a brokered Convention falls squarely under Article II Section 1 of the US Constitution.

Brokered conventions in history

Before the era of presidential primary elections, political party conventions were routinely brokered. The Democratic Party required two-thirds of delegates to choose a candidate, starting with the first Democratic National Convention in 1832, and then at every convention from 1844 until 1936. This made it far more likely to have a brokered convention, particularly when two strong factions existed. The most infamous example was at the 1924 Democratic National Convention (the Klanbake), where the divisions between Wets and Drys on Prohibition (and other issues) led to 102 ballots of deadlock between frontrunners Alfred E. Smith and William G. McAdoo before dark horse John W. Davis was chosen as a compromise candidate on the 103rd ballot. Adlai Stevenson (of the 1952 Democratic Party) and Thomas Dewey (of the 1948 Republican Party) were the most recent “brokered convention” presidential nominees.[citation needed]The last winning U.S. presidential nominee produced by a brokered convention was Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1932.

Doh…….. What is that you say? From 1817 until 1952 the brokered convention was the STANDARD method of choosing a candidate, meh, what the hell could those rubes in 1817 possible have known about how they were suppose to elect a President. Every President between James Monroe and Dwight D. Eisenhower were clearly elected using a flawed and incompatible to the US constitution method.

SWalker on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

How can these people be worse than McCain at outreach to the base? How?!

Buckshot Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

I dunno but they are… It looks like RomneyCo, et al, would like to have a couple of big checks to cash in rather than a bunch of little ones. That’s cool. I’ll just keep my checkbook tightly shut.

Fallon on April 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Of course not, Politico would never do anything to cause turmoil in the GOP base to help out their guy, Obama.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Wait a second. Isn’t Politico one of those outlets that helped Romney get to the position he’s in today? What was their motive then?

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

JohnGalt23 on April 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Thanks for the link, he does indeed look awesome.

Cindy Munford on April 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Once again this proves that Romney people would never vote for a non-Romney GOP candidate. Yet these very same people accuse ABRs of being traitors.

Hypocrites. All of them.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Says the hypocrite Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Beg to differ. He is trying to play this like Obama, letting his surrogates be the heavies and he just skates on top with smarmy fake affability. The problem is, both he and Obama are insulting the same people, people romney actually needs support from in order to win.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:17 PM

You conspiracy theorists are too funny. Evil Romney secretly hates everyone and sends his surrogates to hate on everyone.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Romney never said that. Some other dude said it. No evidence at all that Romney agrees with that statement.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

We do not generally presume that a candidate disagrees with paid campaign staff, no. If he wants us to know he does not share an opinion by one of his campaign team it is on him to say so.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

This libertarian deist thinks you are an 0-bot.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Right, because Massachusetts liberals in their statehouse would just rubber stamp conservative judges. How many Republican judges had been appointed before Romney? Oh right. Criticizing Romney for working within the constraints of Massachusetts is similar to criticizing Reagan for working with liberals in California. It’s not the same, but it’s similar. Hell, Palin appointed a Democrat to the state senate of Alaska, I guess she’s a RINO too.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Yawn. Typical excuse. It was the evil Democrats that made him do it. Dems made him create Romneycare. Dems made him appoint liberal judges. Dems made him raise taxes. Dems made him ban guns.

I guess when Harry Reid says jump Willard will say how high. Yes, much better than Obama.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Says the hypocrite Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

You make lib4life seem like a Mensa member.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

We do not generally presume that a candidate disagrees with paid campaign staff, no. If he wants us to know he does not share an opinion by one of his campaign team it is on him to say so.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Where does it say he was paid staff? HMMM. Let’s speculate some more. And even if it was, you assume that everyone of his staff have the same opinion as him on the other candidates. Of course you do. Welcome to all conspiracies.

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Right, because Massachusetts liberals in their statehouse would just rubber stamp conservative judges.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

I’m a little tired of the “Romney was an outSTANDing governor…but his record doesn’t count because MA is a blue state” bullshit. Actually REALLY tired of it.

ddrintn on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Reagan for working with liberals in California. It’s not the same, but it’s similar.

cpaulus on April 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

Reagan went out there and put himself on the line making a pitch for conservative ideas. Name one single time Mitt has done that.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

This libertarian deist thinks you are an 0-bot.

cozmo on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Because I won’t vote for a leftist like Willard? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

I see you have received the latest memo from Obama HQ about the “war on women” meme. Next time try not to be so obvious.angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

LOOK at the polls and see whats going on with women- THAT’S THE BALL GAME – meme my ass- the lefties are looking for any suicidal tendencies you may have – and you truCons are gold mine for self infliction.

Obama HQ my ass- stop the sabotage of your “supposed” own damn party.

FlaMurph on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Exit question: Huckabee/Palin 2016?

Allah, that question only makes sense if you believe that Romney will likely lose. So, are you just being negative, or do you really believe we’re witnessing a slow motion train wreck?

Gladtobehere on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

cd98 on April 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM
alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

From what I’ve read the Romney campaign is tightly disciplined and I believe his closest aides are from MA. As I said, I don’t think for a minute that anyone on his campaign goes rogue.

INC on April 3, 2012 at 5:25 PM

You keep calling me an O-bot which clearly shows you

a) have never read anything I’ve written
b) are a complete imbecile

Carry on.

angryed on April 3, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Says the Obama supporter/voter.

Gunlock Bill on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

We do not generally presume that a candidate disagrees with paid campaign staff, no. If he wants us to know he does not share an opinion by one of his campaign team it is on him to say so.

alwaysfiredup on April 3, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Better yet, why doesn’t he fire the guy?

idesign on April 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5