Video: Romney campaign uses new secret weapon at NRA meeting

posted at 9:53 pm on April 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Supplyboys News, it’s hard to tell from the audio but ABC says Ann Romney got a “hero’s welcome” and a “rock-star reception” from the crowd. Team Mitt must have anticipated it: It sounds like her intro here, which is brief and halting in spots, might have been a last-minute addition to capitalize on l’affaire Rosen. They were always planning to use her in their outreach to women, but now I wonder if her profile’s been sufficiently raised that they’re going to expand her role on the trail more generally. Is that good news or bad? On the one hand, she’s warm and sympathetic. On the other hand, per Byron York, it’s a further temptation to playing Obama’s “war on women” game:

The underlying point they’re trying to make, say Romney aides, is that the big issue for women is the economy, and not contraceptives or abortion, as Democrats screaming “war on women” would have voters believe. Of course, those issues that matter most to women — jobs, economic growth, the price of gas — matter just as much to men. None of them involves a “war on women” by anybody.

One of the main themes of the Romney campaign is that in 2009 and 2010, when Americans were desperate for a president to devote his energies to creating jobs and fixing the economy, Obama was instead obsessed with passing an intrusive and vastly expensive national health care plan, as well as with pushing through Congress a pork-laden stimulus, and even hoped to pass a cap-and-trade scheme that would have reordered the parts of the economy that hadn’t already been reordered by the health care scheme.

Yet now Romney calls Obama’s obvious economic failures “the real war on women.” Romney’s motives are pretty transparent: He’s trying to fight back against the Democrats’ latest talking point. But Republicans know the Democratic charge is ridiculous. Why make one of their own?

Feminists are waiting for her too:

“I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,” said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. “And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.”

Privately, senior Democrats are even more candid — predicting that the relitigating of the Mommy Wars against the backdrop of a larger Retro Mitt campaign is not a battle that any Republican, and especially not this one, can win.

“She doesn’t connect in any ways with the women that he has a problem with,” a Democratic strategist aligned with Obama said of Ann Romney, alluding to the GOP hopeful’s polling deficit with younger, college-educated women. “She’s as foreign to them as he is. That’s not to disparage anybody who stays home and raises kids. But she’s just not like them.”

A second Democratic strategist acknowledged that the Rosen flap was “messy today,” but added: “They’re not going to win on this issue.”

That’s from Politico’s piece on the Don Draper-ization of Romney, but even without having watched a single episode of “Mad Men” I know Mitt’s a starkly different character from DD. What’s really going on with Democrats, it seems, is the Ward Cleaver-ization of Romney, with Ann soon to be cast as June. Can sniping at the Romneys for being a wholesome nuclear family in the mold of 1950s America distract enough voters from protracted unemployment and crushing deficits to earn The One four more years of protracted unemployment and crushing deficits? Stay tuned.


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

It’s hard to think of something that would help Obama get elected more than a 3rd party run?

Maybe if Jesus came down and endorsed him… maybe.

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM

Not that I can think of or better yet, I had hoped that the American people would see the huge mistake they made by falling for that hope and change crap and run from him as fast as possible.

But then again, I’m the eternal optimist who grew up behind the Iron Curtain, watched communism fall and still believe that goodness will always prevail over evil. And Obama is evil and must be defeated.

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:26 AM

It’s hard

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 12:19 AM

No, it’s easy: The most certain way to reelect Obama is to nominate Romney with no strong 3rd party. At least a 3rd party offers us a chance to defeat them both, and it’s entirely possible to do so. If conservatives and libertarians reignite the tea party we can win just like we did in ’10. The reason the Republican primary voters are split now is because it’s split into factions and the libertarians and conservatives are working at cross purposes. If we can reunify, and conservatives stop trying to disparage and cast out Ron Paul supporters, we will be able to defeat Romney and Obama both.

In fact since Obama and Romney should split the liberal vote giving the tea party a huge edge over ’10! This is the best time for a 3rd party since the Republican Party was started, and the most necessary time as well.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:27 AM

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:26 AM

How is Romney not a “hope and change” candidate just like Obama? His rhetoric and record are two entirely different things. All the Romneybots have to go on is their hope that Romney has changed. It’s the same thing.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM

No, it’s easy: The most certain way to reelect Obama is to nominate Romney with no strong 3rd party. At least a 3rd party offers us a chance to defeat them both, and it’s entirely possible to do so. If conservatives and libertarians reignite the tea party we can win just like we did in ’10. The reason the Republican primary voters are split now is because it’s split into factions and the libertarians and conservatives are working at cross purposes. If we can reunify, and conservatives stop trying to disparage and cast out Ron Paul supporters, we will be able to defeat Romney and Obama both.

In fact since Obama and Romney should split the liberal vote giving the tea party a huge edge over ’10! This is the best time for a 3rd party since the Republican Party was started, and the most necessary time as well.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Yeah. That explains why Romnet won in a nutshell.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:31 AM

I’ll take my chances with the Rino. He wants to be re-elected.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Anyone who equates Mitt’s will to win with McCain’s is still suffering from McCain-2008 PTSD, and it’s clouding their judgement. Mitt clearly is not like McCain in this area – he’s competitive i.e. he really doesn’t want to lose. Not only that, he is more intelligent than McCain, and immeasurably more intelligent and mature than 0bamessiah.

It’s not wise to bet against someone who combines a superior intellect with a determination to succeed. Romney outclasses 0bamessiah in every way, and the more the general public notices this, which will be case because the difference in quality between the two is too blatant to deny, the more this election heads towards a humiliating loss for 0bamessiah.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:32 AM

No, I told you, that’s what I’m trying to prevent by convincing people not to nominate Romney.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Romney was at the bottom of my list, too, but he is light years above the communist in the White House now. You heard Obama telling Medvedev how he could be more “flexible” after the election. Imagine how flexible he will be when it comes to the rest of our rights here.

Enjoy your world of perfection, your utopia, and the warmth it brings you. I, on the other hand, choose to make the best of the hand I’ve been dealt. You choose perfection, I choose Obama gone from the White House, stat. Welcome to the real world, if you wish it.

TXUS on April 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM

Anyone who equates Mitt’s will to win with McCain’s is still suffering from McCain-2008 PTSD, and it’s clouding their judgement. Mitt clearly is not like McCain in this area – he’s competitive i.e. he really doesn’t want to lose. Not only that, he is more intelligent than McCain, and immeasurably more intelligent and mature than 0bamessiah.

It’s not wise to bet against someone who combines a superior intellect with a determination to succeed. Romney outclasses 0bamessiah in every way, and the more the general public notices this, which will be case because the difference in quality between the two is too blatant to deny, the more this election heads towards a humiliating loss for 0bamessiah.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:32 AM

read up further.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM

How is Romney not a “hope and change” candidate just like Obama? His rhetoric and record are two entirely different things. All the Romneybots have to go on is their hope that Romney has changed. It’s the same thing.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:30 AM

For starters, I’m not a Romneybot, I’m voting for anybody but Obama who’s about as close to a communist as I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen and lived with many of them.

I believe that Mitt Romney loves the United States unlike the pure evil that occupies the Oval Office.

Romney and Obama are not the same thing, even when you factor in RomneyCare. Not. Even. Close.

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:37 AM

read up further.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM

I wasn’t directing my post at you, I was amplifying your point.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:42 AM

Can sniping at the Romneys for being a wholesome nuclear family in the mold of 1950s America distract enough voters from protracted unemployment and crushing deficits to earn The One four more years of protracted unemployment and crushing deficits?

The answer is, of course, no.

I guess it’s a certain blogger’s beta male instincts that cause him to act like a quivering, peeing Chihuahua when faced with Dim-o-crat talking points.

cicerone on April 14, 2012 at 12:44 AM

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:37 AM

JP, we’re talking to a brick wall idiot here, no use. Sheesh.

TXUS on April 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM

For starters, I’m not a Romneybot, I’m voting for anybody but Obama who’s about as close to a communist as I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen and lived with many of them.

I believe that Mitt Romney loves the United States unlike the pure evil that occupies the Oval Office.

Romney and Obama are not the same thing, even when you factor in RomneyCare. Not. Even. Close.

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Well said JPeterman. But make no mistake. Even if ABO wins this time, just about every student incapable of thinking for themselves has been indoctrinated (the more you spend, the more it has “taken”) and this will probably be the last of America as we have known it.

Still, it is better to fight the noble losing fight.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:42 AM

sorry

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:48 AM

WOW. Ann Romney, I’m impressed.
You are Michelle Obama’s worst nightmare in all respects.

This is the first smile I have had about the Romney’s getting the GOP nod.

Michelle is giving Ann the evil-eye, like she did when sitting next to Sarkozy’s new wife, awhile back. heh

Typicalwhitewoman on April 14, 2012 at 12:48 AM

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:27 AM

ahhh… Ron Paul. I get it now…

3rd party = Obama second term. It’s simple math.

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 12:48 AM

JP, we’re talking to a brick wall idiot here, no use. Sheesh.

TXUS on April 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM

You are right. I guess it may take a total collapse of life the way the people of the U.S. know it and a total loss of their freedoms before some of them wake up from their dreams of perfection and purity.

JPeterman on April 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM

The problem with you “True Conservative” is that you call anyone who doesn’t agree with you a RINO.

To be honest I stopped reading after the RINO…

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 12:16 AM

These RINO hunters are geniuses. We’ll support the GOP candidates even when they aren’t very Conservative, the self-appointed RINO hunters won’t vote for the GOP candidates if they aren’t ‘sufficiently’ Conservative, yet we’re the RINOs and they aren’t. Hilarious.

I look at them as bad teammates a la Terrell Owens who don’t care so much about defeating the other team as they do having their egos coddled and stroked.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM

Yeah. That explains why Romnet won in a nutshell.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Romney won because he dominates the media. The media is owned and operated by corporate interests. Those corporations rely on good relations with other corporations, they interview them on their business networks. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’ve watched CNBC and Fox Business for years, off and on. The problem with the arrangement is that these corporations get to pick the pundits. They have tremendous influence. The media corporations also have a natural crony relationship with the government as well, the media having to play politics to get the scoop and not look too deep into Washington corruption, and the politicians having to play along with the media narrative and play the game by their rules.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM

sorry

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 12:48 AM

No need to apologize – since I wasn’t very clear in the first place, your inference that it was directed at you was a completely legit one.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:59 AM

“Obama’s going to come for your guns!”
And Willard won’t? His words and actions say otherwise…

Dunedainn on April 14, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Romney won because he dominates the media. The media is owned and operated by corporate interests. Those corporations rely on good relations with other corporations, they interview them on their business networks. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’ve watched CNBC and Fox Business for years, off and on. The problem with the arrangement is that these corporations get to pick the pundits. They have tremendous influence. The media corporations also have a natural crony relationship with the government as well, the media having to play politics to get the scoop and not look too deep into Washington corruption, and the politicians having to play along with the media narrative and play the game by their rules.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Ummmm……So???

At this point it’s still Obama vs Romney. And (yes I hated romney at first) it’s now a no-brainer.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM

OR…

people thought he had the best chance of defeating Obama.

I’ll admit my logic is much less imaginative than yours…

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM

And (yes I hated romney at first) it’s now a no-brainer.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Same here. But I have to admit he’s growing on me. The anti Romney people are helping with that.

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 1:03 AM

By the way Rock, if you are a libertarian, you do know that Rosen lobbied for SOPA (or whatever it was called in the other chamber) and was a dem operative??

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Same here. But I have to admit he’s growing on me. The anti Romney people are helping with that.

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 1:03 AM

As long as we don’t get the same lame campaign we got with McCain. If this guy can throw negative ads against other repubs he better be able to do so against abbott and costello.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:07 AM

Romney won because he dominates the media. The media is owned and operated by corporate interests. Those corporations rely on good relations with other corporations, they interview them on their business networks. There’s nothing wrong with that, I’ve watched CNBC and Fox Business for years, off and on. The problem with the arrangement is that these corporations get to pick the pundits. They have tremendous influence. The media corporations also have a natural crony relationship with the government as well, the media having to play politics to get the scoop and not look too deep into Washington corruption, and the politicians having to play along with the media narrative and play the game by their rules.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM

What are all of the reasons Romney dominated the media? You are sounding like all of the other candidates’ major flaws played little to no role in their defeats. Can Mitt help it that he looked more competent than the rest of them?

You like Ron Paul – how excited were you by Santorum? He was the ABRers last gasp – please, think about the significance of that.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 1:07 AM

The best view that I’ve come to is that at least Romney has a clue about how economics works. Obama on the other hand shows us why he won’t release his college transcript.

J_Crater on April 14, 2012 at 1:16 AM

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:05 AM

Who is Rosen, is that from the war on women story? I don’t understand the context of your comment.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:17 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 1:07 AM

It is not up to you or Fox News or the WSJ to decide when the primary has had it’s last gasp, that is for the voters. Romney hasn’t bought the nomination yet, he’s paid half of it off.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

OR…

people thought he had the best chance of defeating Obama.

I’ll admit my logic is much less imaginative than yours…

Ampersand on April 14, 2012 at 1:01 AM

They might have thought that because that’s certainly the impression you’d get watching Fox News, isn’t it? But in fact polls show that even with a virtual media blackout at Fox News, Ron Paul still polls strongly against Obama. On what grounds can he be written off, Romney doesn’t have this wrapped up. Ron Paul has a higher potential voter base than Romney does, according to polls, the other not-Romney candidates surged one by one as they were each examined by Fox News.

By what right does Fox News have to decide that, no, this is over and it’s not Ron Paul’s turn. On what pretext of “journalistic ethics” do they get to decide that instead of the voters and apply different “journalistic standards” to Ron Paul and just skip over him and declare it over?

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:33 AM

A second Democratic strategist acknowledged that the Rosen flap was “messy today,” but added: “They’re not going to win on this issue.”

Solyndra, Gas prices, Housing market, NKorea launch, Fast and Furious,
Algae for Oil, Buffet Rule, Trillions in debt, High unemployment. Obamacare. I could fill the rest of the comment space with the epic failures of Obama. but will not. I would say most of Obama’s presidency was “messy today,” and it seems everyday. and as the Democratic strategist acknowledged “We’re not going to win on these issues.”

stormridercx4 on April 14, 2012 at 1:38 AM

By what right does Fox News have to decide that, no, this is over and it’s not Ron Paul’s turn. On what pretext of “journalistic ethics” do they get to decide that instead of the voters and apply different “journalistic standards” to Ron Paul and just skip over him and declare it over?

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:33 AM

I will say this. Even Ron Paul himself has admitted that to have a serious shot at winning, he probably does have to win a state at some point. He has yet to do that. When the candidate himself makes a statement like that and refuses to deliver, then journalists have a right to move on. Newt had the press following him for a while but after he consistently came in 3rd or 4th place in state after state, they stopped covering him too. News networks have to be wise in how they expend their resources.

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Fox News is not only favoring Romney, as Newt correctly pointed out, but they have also been disfavoring Ron Paul, with a few exceptions like Cavuto.

And yet Ron Paul still polls well in head to head matchups with Obama. In that regard, if he is tied with Romney now, if he actually starts to surge, and Fox News gives him fair hearing instead of smearing him like other Republicans have, he could easily move into a commanding lead over Obama in the polls, while Romney would fall, and before you know it we’re off to the races and Ron Paul is in the lead, and unlike many of the other candidates he is the real deal and probably won’t falter.

Ron Paul could win most of the remaining states if he is the next not-Romney… even if only half of the Republicans involved in the other surges participate in the beginning.

Who is Fox News to decide, nah, it’s over. Never mind waiting to let the voters decide, let’s just create the meme in advance.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Ron Paul could win most of the remaining states if he is the next not-Romney… even if only half of the Republicans involved in the other surges participate in the beginning.

He had his chance to be the not-Romney in at least one state: Virginia. It was only Romney and Paul on the ballot there and Romney won by 20 points.

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 1:45 AM

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:41 AM

you’re right. we’ll see how it goes.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 1:47 AM

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 1:38 AM

I think now that Santorum is out of the race, unless there is another surge candidate to prevent Romney from winning the remaining states then he’s going to get the delegates he needs. The only way for Ron Paul to win the nomination is to do it outright. His base is wider than the other candidates so if he surges and starts to look more viable I think it will snowball.

Once his support rises, instead of being tied with Obama like Romney is, (when he isn’t losing), Ron Paul will be beating them both!

It can happen, and it’s not for the MSM to decide to nip it in the bud.

The media is taking far to great of role in this election. Fox News Channel is supposed to report the news, not make it.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

I think now that Santorum is out of the race, unless there is another surge candidate to prevent Romney from winning the remaining states then he’s going to get the delegates he needs. The only way for Ron Paul to win the nomination is to do it outright. His base is wider than the other candidates so if he surges and starts to look more viable I think it will snowball.

I suppose anything is possible but if Romney couldn’t be stopped when anti-Romney sentiment was at its peak, I don’t really see it happening now, with the party starting to coalesce pretty quickly around him. It is rumored that Santorum is set to endorse Romney next week in Pittsburgh. Newt will probably follow suit soon as well.

Once his support rises, instead of being tied with Obama like Romney is, (when he isn’t losing), Ron Paul will be beating them both!

I guess it depends on what poll you’re looking at. The latest Rasmussen and Fox News polls both have Romney up.

RealClearPolitics in their poll of polls has Obama up 2.6 over Romney; Obama up 6.8 over Paul

Also, you have to remember that Paul, because of his lack of traction, hasn’t really even been vetted like Romney, Newt, and Santorum have. Paul polls okay now, but it’s unlikely to hold if he were to be fully vetted.

It can happen, and it’s not for the MSM to decide to nip it in the bud.

The media is taking far to great of role in this election. Fox News Channel is supposed to report the news, not make it.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:55 AM

Sure, it can happen, but in the end, the candidate has to make it happen. You always have to give the media a reason to cover your campaign. If you can’t win even one state, it really gives the media no incentive to cover your campaign. It’s not a knock on Paul. It’s just how the business works. The media loves a great news story. They covered Newt, but as soon as he flamed out, they abandoned him.

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 2:04 AM

It is not up to you or Fox News or the WSJ to decide when the primary has had it’s last gasp, that is for the voters. Romney hasn’t bought the nomination yet, he’s paid half of it off.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 1:19 AM

You’re not exactly addressing why Romney dominates the media – most of what you’ve said is in the realm of opinion/emotion, as in ‘Romney’s paid half of the media off!’, and ‘Fox News is in the tank for Romney!’.

What/where is your objective evidence to back up these assertions? Throwing your perceptions out as facts is what every candidate and their supporters do, so, until you provide something substantial, your statements shouldn’t be taken seriously (not that they should be taken unseriously though, either).

I admit being especially amused by the Fox News allegation when it comes from the Right, as though it’s as monolithic there as the Leftists believe it is. It reminds me of what happens with Jay Leno, who tries to play it pretty much down the middle, and ends up getting called a GOPer by the Left and a Dem by the Right for his efforts – to me, that says he’s doing his job correctly.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 2:11 AM

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 1:45 AM

Good point but it’s only one contest and it wasn’t under surge conditions, it was a one off, and even then Ron Paul didn’t do too bad considering all of the smears he gets from prominent establishment Republican voices and virtual blackout from Fox News.

What I’d like to see is for Ron Paul to get an infusion of cash into his campaign, maybe from some 2nd amendment supporters that don’t want to give up on it so easily, so that he can pick up the mantle of the not-Romney vote. I hope he’ll spend the money on some hard hitting ads that will be a game changer. Maybe he’ll win Texas if all goes well. Without checking, I think there are other states ahead of Texas so hopefully his surge will already be well under way by then.

On the other hand, I’m not saying it will happen, only that it should if we really want to beat Obama.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Good point but it’s only one contest and it wasn’t under surge conditions, it was a one off, and even then Ron Paul didn’t do too bad considering all of the smears he gets from prominent establishment Republican voices and virtual blackout from Fox News.

What I’d like to see is for Ron Paul to get an infusion of cash into his campaign, maybe from some 2nd amendment supporters that don’t want to give up on it so easily, so that he can pick up the mantle of the not-Romney vote. I hope he’ll spend the money on some hard hitting ads that will be a game changer. Maybe he’ll win Texas if all goes well. Without checking, I think there are other states ahead of Texas so hopefully his surge will already be well under way by then.

On the other hand, I’m not saying it will happen, only that it should if we really want to beat Obama.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 2:16 AM

I admire your loyalty and I do appreciate your comments. Obviously, we don’t agree on this issue, but that’s okay. At least you like to discuss these sorts of issues honestly and thoughtfully. I personally think Romney is the best shot we have at beating Obama. You obviously don’t agree. I just hope that if Romney does become the nominee, you’ll at least consider voting for him.

GOPRanknFile on April 14, 2012 at 2:21 AM

On the other hand, I’m not saying it will happen, only that it should if we really want to beat Obama.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 2:16 AM

Cause God knows, only Paul can beat Obama. Whatever. If Paul pulls it out, he gets my support. And money.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 2:23 AM

FloatingRock, let me be the voice of reason here. Ron Paul is not going to be the nominee for the GOP. Not now, not ever. Come to grips with this. He may one day, in a future campaign, be the nominee of the Libertarian party. But he will under no circumstance be the 2012 GOP nominee.

Now is the time to unite. Not because you love Romney, but because he can get it done. I’m sure plenty of privates hated Patton’s guts, but he got stuff done. This is a make or break moment. If Obama gets a second term, the things he will do with the Executive branch will make you wet the bed. He will make FDR look like a constitutional, fiscal conservative. You need to understand that Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough. Romney may not be perfect, but he is good enough.

Embrace the Suck.

flashoverride on April 14, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 2:11 AM

This isn’t a court room. The people I’m talking to already know what I’m talking about. Romney is clearly treated as a maintstream candidate and his negatives are glossed over as though they’re unimportant. Romneycare is where the unpopular individual mandate came from. I think Romney thinks he’s superior to the rest of us and that we simply don’t understand…. no, no, that is wrong. People understand the basics of insurance, they oppose the mandate because it is un-American. Sure, a state may be allowed to do it, but it is still skulduggery. And this candidate is being foisted on the nation by corporate interests, all of which want the tea party destroyed, they spread money around on both sides of the isle to make sure there is no competition. Thus we are given a choice between two candidates that are virtually the same, right down to their healthcare plans and anti-gun agenda.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 2:30 AM

Embrace the Suck.

flashoverride on April 14, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Did you make that up? “embrace the suck” That’s brilliant!!

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 2:32 AM

I think Romney thinks he’s superior to the rest of us and that we simply don’t understand…

And Ron and Rand don’t?

In the end, it HAS to be ABO.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Romney’s primary negative reigns supreme among all the negatives of all the candidates! He also has an atrocious record on the 2nd amendment. Hope and Change

Sheep don’t look at the record they listen to the Shepard sweet cooing words—as they’re lead to the slaughter.

15 trillion in debt, people! Romney supported bailing out the corrupt banks, which took the money and and bought up a bunch of good banks. The bad guys won out over the good guys thanks to government interference at taxpayers expense. Thanks to that bailout, the corrupt banks that are in bed with our government are still here instead of bankrupt and liquidated, and so they’re still in bed with the government pulling the ropes.

Ron Paul is the only one with a plan to balance the budget in a reasonable time, three years. The Romney plan takes over 30 years to balance, and most of the cutbacks are way off in the future. A budget only applies to one year, they can’t bind the future actions of congress. Romney’s “Plan” doesn’t cut any real spending, it only reduces the rate of growth, yet it goes after Democrat pet issues while increasing Republican interests. It might be worth the battle if it actually balanced in a responsible period of time, but it doesn’t, it’s just a fig leaf so the establishment can pretend to cut but in fact it is just another dog and pony show. They’re not really going to cut spending, everything will be MSM approved. they’re just shining you on so you’ll vote for them and then they’ll go back to their old ways, just. like. every. other. time.

Before you take the bait, look for the hook. If Romney is the better candidate, if he understands the economy better than Ron Paul, then why wasn’t it Romney that was warning us of the trouble ahead? When Ron Paul spoke up in the debates back in ’08, why didn’t Romney add his support? The answer is he didn’t have a clue.

The reason is because running a business and understanding global economics are two entirely different things.

I’m sure Romney did a good job with the Olypics, but he requested and got a large federal bailout. He didn’t do it the old fashioned way, he used crony capitalism. Romneycare, the origin of the mandate, forces people to buy corporate products.

That’s not the America I grew up in, I don’t want to have to choose between Obamacare or Romneycare.

Let’s refuse to make that choice, lets donate some money to Ron Paul and give him a chance.

I don’t know if anybody will ever read any of this but oh well. : )

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 3:11 AM

And Ron and Rand don’t?

In the end, it HAS to be ABO.

WryTrvllr on April 14, 2012 at 2:35 AM

They don’t claim to be superior, they’re claiming that the Constitution is superior.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 3:12 AM

Without TARP our government wouldn’t be nearly as corrupt as it is. A lot of those corrupt banks would have gone belly up and ceased their influence on our government. Then good banks would take their place and thrive, and even if they also had influence on our government, at least it would be a better influence.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Instead a lot of he good banks got gobbled up by the bad, funded by taxpayers. It is an offense, and Romney, Obama and Bush all supported it.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 3:22 AM

So you’d rather elect a guy that agrees with you on 20% of the issues than a guy that agrees with you on 70% of the issues. I see your logic now.

hot-heir on April 13, 2012 at 11:25 PM

This argument would be valid if it were true for His Royal Highness King Willard the Inevitable, He Whose Turn it is. It is not.

Dunedainn on April 14, 2012 at 3:53 AM

Hey Floating, I read the Ron Paul budget. It is fantastically simplistic and extraordinarily high level.

It’s not as complex as it should be. It simply names departments that will be cut, not specific programs. Yeah… well, when dealing with a massive republic, the details matter. Espescially with lobbyists.

It’s a fantasy budget. That’s what it is. Does Ron Paul elucidate on which Executive orders he’ll implememnt within the first 100 days? No. There’s some really general statements. Read the Romney plan, and he’s all about what can be done on day one. You know, because he’s been an Executive and understands the powers and limitations of the executive branch, which the current occupant of the White House does not, nor does Ron Paul appear to, since he’s never been an executive.

There are three branches of government on the federal leve, and per the constitution on a state level as well. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. They are seperate and co-equal branches. I for one am tired of Legislators thinking they can be immaculate Executives – they just plain can’t. See Obama – he was a State legislator and then a Federal legislator. When did he get held to task? As an executive, you are on point, the guy making the call. A legislator gets to weasel and collude and vote present.

Reagan was an Executive (Gov. California). Bush was an Executive (Gov. Texas). Even Clinton was an Executive (Gov. Arkansas), which is why he knew when to make deals. Legislators make terrible leaders, because by their natures they don’t have the Huevos to make the call. They can “represent the interests” and collude and schmooze and cast inconsequential votes, but exceedingly rarely are they the point man on call.

Give me Gov. Romney over any grandstanding, risk-averse legislator.

Santorum? Legislator.
Gingrinch? Legislator.
Paul? Legislator.
Obama? Legislator.

flashoverride on April 14, 2012 at 4:01 AM

flashoverride on April 14, 2012 at 4:01 AM

Good post. It didn’t take three years to get here, and it’s not going to take three years to fix it either. (This is not an excuse for Obama, who made it X times worse)

Though I have doubt it will ever get fixed no matter who is in office, the entrenched interests and the co-equal branches of government will see to it.

What we really need to do is replace a good share of the population.

moo on April 14, 2012 at 6:34 AM

moo on April 14, 2012 at 6:34 AM

Its a pretty big fix. Both that we are in and that which can put us back on the proper course. To actually do something meaningful, means a lot of one term Presidents. At the end of four if they have truly done what is necessary they well be hated by nearly all. Not to mention the House and Senate. Its largely why I am not a Party man anymore they both share some blame. Just remember the smartest and brightest got us here. Those two qualities will not be necessary to get us out from under. 0 is unique in that he truly hates this Country and has had a great opportunity to do her great harm under the guise of its everyone else’s fault. An uninformed population makes it nearly impossible to have self governance. Self governance involves having an engaged citizenry which we have not and do not have.

Bmore on April 14, 2012 at 6:45 AM

You’re not exactly addressing why Romney dominates the media –

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 2:11 AM

Nor are you. Are you saying Romney’s overwhelming charisma just cries out for coverage? Or maybe Romney is SO very closely reflective of the values of the typical GOP voter that he became the obvious choice. What?

In the meantime he’s having to rely on VP speculation and now his wife to help him in the polls. That’s called “weak”. Now how did someone so weak become the fronetrunner in the first place? Care to answer that one?

I look at them as bad teammates a la Terrell Owens who don’t care so much about defeating the other team as they do having their egos coddled and stroked.

Bizarro No. 1 on April 14, 2012 at 12:53 AM

And of course the squishes are the brainy, studly quarterbacks who can win all by themselves. I mean, they could’ve flipped control of the House on their own if it weren’t for those stupid TrueCons — who, by the way, are the ones who have always been holding their noses to vote. It’s the squishes who seem to have been the ones who b1tch and moan about the “unelectability” of conservative candidates while expecting everyone to fall in line to support the squishies. Talk about coddled egos and “bad teammates”.

ddrintn on April 14, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Like almost all of the higher level gop women……she’s PRO-CHOICE.

If you can’t even stand for the unborn, I don’t care how charismatic or “real” you are.

And from what I’ve seen of her she’s a bit pushy, ala MichelleO.

That being said at least she is proud of her country all the time, and……NOT A MARXIST.

Romney2012………#hewontspendyearsapologizingforAmerica!

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 7:42 AM

After hearing her brief speech I’m wondering if she can’t be nominated instead of Mitt?

It sounds like ANN is ready to set HER HAIR on fire to get the base excited!!!!!!

Even though she’s pro-choice………out of the four of them (The Obamas and Romneys) she is the most “real”.

ROMNEY2012………….the blonde one!

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 7:56 AM

After hearing her brief speech I’m wondering if she can’t be nominated instead of Mitt?

Um… she supports Planned Parenthood.

stenwin77 on April 14, 2012 at 8:03 AM

THE ISSUE: The DEBT we are leaving our children and grandchildren. POUND IT !

stenwin77 on April 14, 2012 at 8:03 AM

Mitt looks goofy staring at her.

stenwin77 on April 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Um… she supports Planned Parenthood.

stenwin77 on April 14, 2012 at 8:03 AM

PappyD61 on April 14, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Did you hear her say anything about abortion or PP in her speech? WTF!

mike_NC9 on April 14, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Romney won because he dominates the media.

FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Why didn’t you say so earlier? This changes everything.

Ron Paul will do wonderfully in the general, since the media usually just hibernates during the general election.

RINO in Name Only on April 14, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Mitt > Obama

If we lose in Nov…we lose the SCOTUS for a generation

Losing is not an option

corujodp on April 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Truth will out FloatingRock – keep giving them hell. The 15 trillion (43 if you include unfunded liabilities) hasn’t scared them (evidenced by its place in the current debate – better to talk about the war on women). Romney? Obama? No difference. One’s a communist, one’s a statist. Both get us to the same place at different times. A true constitutionalist and a supreme court that guts years and years of commerce clause expansion is our only salvation. Without federalism socialists could live in California and destroy 1 state, instead of a nation. Pragmatists suck because they are selfish. As long as there short time on earth is livable, there’s no need to draw lines in the sand – and now we’re 50 trillion dollars in debt becuase of them. Or is it only the Democrats’ fault?

noeastern on April 14, 2012 at 9:39 AM

If we lose in Nov…we lose the SCOTUS for a generation

corujodp on April 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

And what, in God’s ?#@*&% name, makes you think Romney will not appoint another Souter? His record of judicial appointments in Mass is abysmal.

noeastern on April 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM

BigSven really Likes Ann Romney ♥♥♥♥♥ !!!

A great role model for all !!

BigSven on April 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM

Mrs Romney has a tough act to follow with the ray of sunshine that now is called First Lady and spends countless millions in order to sustain a sense of earned entitlement of vacations outside of a nation she so despises.

Hening on April 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM

If we lose in Nov…we lose the SCOTUS for a generation

corujodp on April 14, 2012 at 9:34 AM

And what, in God’s ?#@*&% name, makes you think Romney will not appoint another Souter? His record of judicial appointments in Mass is abysmal.

noeastern on April 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Well, the difference is that we now know what type of people O’bama will nominated to SCOTUS. But we can only guess about Romney. I’m willing to take a chance on Romney.

BTW, you have to remember that as MA Governor all of his nominations to the Judiciary had to go thru an 8 person Board. All 8 of the Board members were Democrats.

In the end, his nominations to the Judiciary (which, remember, does not just include Judges), were 40% Democrats, 30% Independents, and 20% Republicans. Which is probably the best any Republican Governor of MA could have done.

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM

No, it’s easy: The most certain way to reelect Obama is to nominate Romney with no strong 3rd party. At least a 3rd party offers us a chance to defeat them both, and it’s entirely possible to do so. If conservatives and libertarians reignite the tea party we can win just like we did in ’10. The reason the Republican primary voters are split now is because it’s split into factions and the libertarians and conservatives are working at cross purposes. If we can reunify, and conservatives stop trying to disparage and cast out Ron Paul supporters, we will be able to defeat Romney and Obama both.

In fact since Obama and Romney should split the liberal vote giving the tea party a huge edge over ’10! This is the best time for a 3rd party since the Republican Party was started, and the most necessary time as well.

FloatingRockDavidAxelrod on April 14, 2012 at 12:27 AM

Akzed on April 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Third party is a circular firing squad.

PaleoRider on April 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Third party is a circular firing squad.

PaleoRider on April 14, 2012 at 10:17 AM

That may be the case, but it doesn’t stop the environment being ripe for one being created.

Dr Evil on April 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

My oh my. The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Mitt up 48-43 over PBHO!

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

There are two choices a prospective president has to make that are absolutely essential. These two choices show the whole measure of the man, past and present. The choices are, who he married, and who he picks as his running mate. Romney married up, and she shows what kind of man he is past, now let’s see who he picks for his running mate. This is going to be an amazing race.

Kristamatic on April 14, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Presidential. Nice to see class at work again. Divisiveness and name calling just doesn’t do it for me.

DDay on April 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I know, let’s have the enviromentalists start a 3rd party. In fact let’s encourage it. Better yet, there is a former mayor of Salt Lake running for the presidency. He would be a great alternative to 0b0z0. In fact, he doesn’t think 0b0z0 is left enough. Yeh, that’s the one! Maybe dr eveil could be his running mate. This guy is so cool that he flipped the bird, publically to Bush, when he was mayor of Salt Lake. He has a lot of class just like 0b0z0 (sending busts back to England, giving the Queen a ipod (?) with his speeches on it).

Bambi on April 14, 2012 at 10:35 AM

That may be the case, but it doesn’t stop the environment being ripe for one being created.

Dr Evil on April 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Agreed. On both sides.
So I post at lib sites demanding a 3rd party.
Still baffled why the TP did not get more traction.
Really no candidate got it done.
So, the hand we are dealt, best to hang together.

Hoping for a rebirth of Balanced Budget Ammendment.
Long term, it seems the only possible answer?
It is just to easy to say yes, print money, lie.

PaleoRider on April 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

His record of judicial appointments in Mass is abysmal.

noeastern on April 14, 2012 at 9:46 AM

I hate repeating myself noeastern but the judges that were placed in Massachusetts were ones that were fed to him by the nominating council, that was put in place by state legislature, that was dominated by the Democrats.

THEY told him who he could choose for which benches and all of his choices were allowed by consent of the council.

He had 14 benches left when he left office that hadn’t been chosen and why was that do you think? Because he didn’t like the choices they gave him.

SauerKraut537 on April 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM

One of the bigger reasons the Dems failed so miserably with their meme of Ann Romney as rich white woman and her inability to connect is her health issues.

Cancer minds no bank accounts and there isn’t a female in this country who hasn’t faced breast cancer, even if only at the annual mammogram. Plus she has a case of MS as I understand it.

This is the great equalizer plus, come on, raising five sons is “not working a day ” in your life, how dumb, how very, very dumb, what Dem idiot boobs came up with that?

As for making the Romneys the “Cleavers”, again, June Cleaver never had breast cancer and didn’t raise five sons, I see another epic FAIL coming.

I see Valerie Jarrett coming up with all this stuff, Obamer going along and Michelle implements this stupidity behind the scenes.

But I’m okay with that, they do make me smile.

patfish on April 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

My oh my. The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters has Mitt up 48-43 over PBHO!

MJBrutus on April 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM

I thought polls this far out are meaningless.

ddrintn on April 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM

I thought polls this far out are meaningless.

ddrintn on April 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM

They are but they tell the tale of the ebb and flow. They tell us what’s working and what isn’t.

They’re still instructive, but “meaningless” until much closer in. It’s how you finish, but if you can begin the snowball this far out then you’re good.

SauerKraut537 on April 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Enjoy your world of perfection, your utopia, and the warmth it brings you. I, on the other hand, choose to make the best of the hand I’ve been dealt. You choose perfection, I choose Obama gone from the White House, stat. Welcome to the real world, if you wish it.

TXUS on April 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM

..exceedingly well said. Thank you very much!

The War Planner on April 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM

..crap! I spazzed again!

..one begins to wonder if FloatingPebble, jdun, et al have been contacted by the dark side and are, infact, receiving a troll stipend from AsselHat & Co.

The War Planner on April 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM

Romney won because he dominates the media.
FloatingRock on April 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM
I always thought it was the whole–getting more votes thing that did it for him. Newt owned the media for a while and had some success. And this argument that Mitt bought the primary with negative ads is rediculous. People can make up there minds based on the evidence provided. If they had a problem with Romneys negative campaign, they could have chosen someone else. And yes, I realize a great deal of voters did chose someone else; however, this is always the case when choosing a nominee. This all reminds me of the Hillary people displaying their outrage when Obama won the primary. It’s futile, some people are winners.

Rusty Allen on April 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Obama in a 2nd term won’t need Congress to restrict gun rights. He’ll do it by Exec Order and thru his Court appointments, which will endure for decades.

As to Romney, Judge Robert Bork is leading his judicial selection panel. Is Bork a RINO now?

I’ve never heard such nonsense that Romney’s record on guns and judges would be worse than Obama. Conservatives will OWN Romney on judicial appointments, or he will face a fatal primary challenge in 2016.

matthew8787 on April 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Agreed. On both sides.
So I post at lib sites demanding a 3rd party.
Still baffled why the TP did not get more traction.

PaleoRider on April 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Tea Party was and is a discombobulated mash-up of people whose most unifying statement is “I hate taxes!” This sentiment is so unique it has only been said by, oh, every person in history who’s ever had to pay them.

You’re gonna have to do better than that if you want a viable 3rd party, folks. A LOT better.

MelonCollie on April 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM

A third party will arise when the conditions are ripe. The tea party was a protest movement, not a party, and as such it had its intended effect and then faded. It was not an ultra-conservative movement. It was a rebellion against unrestrained spending with no particular emphasis on social issues or foreign policy. If there is any real tea party politician in prominence today, it is Paul Ryan. Ryan has endorsed Romney and Romney has endorsed Ryan’s plan.

Immolate on April 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM

This is the great equalizer plus, come on, raising five sons is “not working a day ” in your life, how dumb, how very, very dumb, what Dem idiot boobs came up with that?

As for making the Romneys the “Cleavers”, again, June Cleaver never had breast cancer and didn’t raise five sons, I see another epic FAIL coming.

I see Valerie Jarrett coming up with all this stuff, Obamer going along and Michelle implements this stupidity behind the scenes.

But I’m okay with that, they do make me smile.

patfish on April 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

..buried beneath all of this are signs that the Obama campaign may be struggling despite putting a pretty face on things. Consider his class warfare strategy over the last year, the association with the OWS crowd, the leaks indicating that not only is he falling off the pace for his billion dollar war chest, but he may even be trailing “W” efforts in 2004 IN REAL DOLLARS UNADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. Possible signs that those who once loved this incompetent phony are turning away from him.

This latest kerfluffle (which you have adroitly analyzed) seems strange unless viewed in the context of him trying to amp his base. He kicked asss with women in 2008 but signs show that Romney (with the help of Ann) is closing the gap.

If Obama loses in November — and I believe he will — then I hungrily await the diarrhetic outgushing of tell-alls and exposés — the feeble attempt of former cohorts cronies distancing themselves from this loser — that are surely to follow.

The War Planner on April 14, 2012 at 11:41 AM

Ann can tell the real story of their beginnings as a married couple with kids who worked their way to the American dream.

She is the antidote to the class warfare and faux war on women venom that will be spewed by the left. Her own story is compelling, and Mitt would not have achieved what he did without her holding down the fort at home. She helped make the man and Americans adore her. She humanizes Mitt.

Americans will identify with her challenges and Mitt’s unwavering support. And that is killing the Dems – it’s disastrous to the Obama campaign. They were ready to portray the Romneys as Ward and June – wooden, contrived and boring white people who live in a fake world. Sorry, libs.

The GOP’s got a feevah and the cure is more Ann.

Philly on April 14, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Enjoy your world of perfection, your utopia, and the warmth it brings you. I, on the other hand, choose to make the best of the hand I’ve been dealt. You choose perfection, I choose Obama gone from the White House, stat. Welcome to the real world, if you wish it.

TXUS on April 14, 2012 at 12:36 AM

..exceedingly well said. Thank you very much!

The War Planner on April 14, 2012 at 11:27 AM

….we better all become part of the choir…or all but a designated few, will soon lose the right to sing!

KOOLAID2 on April 14, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I see Valerie Jarrett coming up with all this stuff, Obamer going along and Michelle implements this stupidity behind the scenes.

But I’m okay with that, they do make me smile.

patfish on April 14, 2012 at 10:59 AM

And don’t forget Anita Dunn. She is a leading figure at Rosen’s PR firm-you know, the PR Firm that’s been paid $120,000 by the DNC since last year?

Del Dolemonte on April 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I’m in the ABO crowd, so Romney gets my support now by default.
Not sayin I’m likin it, but it is what it is.
Anne is kind of a sweet little lady.
Whatever you want to say about Mitt, his family is quite adorable.
That does say a lot about a man.

Badger40 on April 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I think Ann Romney’s speech was just fine, but it missed a very powerful point that could have made it even better–mentioning “armed women”. Women are buying guns at a frantic rate, they are taking their safety into their own hands, and we as Republicans and Conservatives (they are not always the same thing) applaud that. The Left, on the other hand, has always pandered to the criminal element. They don’t want women armed (or anybody, for that matter), and generally pander to the criminal element that would prey upon said women. The tired old, “He grew up in a very bad family environment” is not just a sad excuse, it is excusing the victimization of women. But an armed woman is a very powerful thing–it is real feminism. We should foster the idea even more of the “mama grizzly” protecting her young, or the valiant patriot mother who ran the households while their men fought the British for national independence. They often held a child in one hand, and a rifle in the other, all to protect their families as others fought battles of independence, and this should not be forgotten.

Only the Left would think it is feminism to welcome victimization in order to provide a talking point for greater govt. The Police do not have to get there in order to protect you and your family.

darkmetal on April 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I think some are mistaken when they see Romney to be another McCain. John McCain would rather lose than take the fight to a fellow Senator. Romney has not problem doing that. Sure, he will smile and speak delicately and be “nice” most of the time, but at the same time I don’t see the guy pulling every ad that the Democrats define as not “fair”. He knows that Politics can be very dirty, and has not problem throwing that dirt, if only not always in public. He held back no punches toward his Republican opponents, and I don’t think he will do any less against Obama, who has the worst record of any US President in current History.

darkmetal on April 14, 2012 at 12:46 PM

On “playing Obama’s game”: It is not playing someone else’s game to demolish them with the same voters. The Democrats falsely labeled Republicans as being “anti-contraception”, with full help of the media. But they cannot keep their minions from saying how they really feel about the average woman. They think a woman who gives birth as some sort of oddity, and if she does, she must surely put the child into daycare, and later into a school system that will indoctrinate them into wards of the State. If they could, they would put children into Cuban-style camps to make sure they became little soldiers for the Socialist cause.

The average woman is more traditional then one realizes. They want their children to have security, individual identity, and a future they can rely on. The Left thinks of them as disposable, and should they become babies, of limited value–only when they become of age to be transformed into minions do they see their value. To the Left, they can be props to show their personal generosity, ala “The Madonna complex”. Or they become experimental subjects for strange family units without a father, or perhaps with 2 mothers or fathers.

The traditional family to the Left is bizarre. They consider the “Ozzie and Harriet” or “Father knows best” family to be a caracature of reality. Who would want a loving mother and father? It would be better if they lived in an orphanage to teach them the fairness of life.

We are not “playing Obama’s game” by pointing out the illness of the Left on their own chosen battles, we are beating them by speaking truth, and defusing their own war machine on America.

darkmetal on April 14, 2012 at 12:56 PM

darkmetal, I agree. I don’t know what world these moron lefties live in. I cordially invite them to keep alienating women.

Philly on April 14, 2012 at 1:14 PM

It’s going to be grand — GRAND — to have a couple in the White House again who are gracious, poised, kind, intelligent, MODEST and sincere, while being, also, sincerely kind and specifically astute to the responsibilities of the Office by which they are there.

I am going to be so very pleased to welcome President Mitt Romney and First Lady Ann Romney to the White House, if only by vote and good sentiments as they move on in come January 2013.

It’s going to be just grand to have a couple in the White House who can be admired and appreciated again.

Lourdes on April 14, 2012 at 1:22 PM

“I simply have not seen her in any way as an advocate for women’s empowerment in society,” said Kim Gandy, the former head of the National Organization for Women, of Ann Romney before Rosen’s comments. “And since Gov. Romney looks to her to find out what women care about, that does not bode well. I haven’t heard her speaking out about increasing women’s opportunity for higher paid employment, for women in non-traditional occupations, specifically for increasing pay equity for women, closing the pay gap, certainly not on women’s reproductive rights.”

Privately, senior Democrats are even more candid — predicting that the relitigating of the Mommy Wars against the backdrop of a larger Retro Mitt campaign is not a battle that any Republican, and especially not this one, can win.

“She doesn’t connect in any ways with the women that he has a problem with,” a Democratic strategist aligned with Obama said of Ann Romney, alluding to the GOP hopeful’s polling deficit with younger, college-educated women. “She’s as foreign to them as he is. That’s not to disparage anybody who stays home and raises kids. But she’s just not like them.”

A second Democratic strategist acknowledged that the Rosen flap was “messy today,” but added: “They’re not going to win on this issue.”

As with the other Leftists in Planned Parenthood, Move On and such, NOW is so out of touch with “real Americans” as they are with who American women are.

What they’re attacking in and about Ann Romney is despicably anti-American as it is anti-decency and anti-family — that she’s “wealthy” seems to bug them the most and this reflects their intense bitterness and dedication to “women as impoverished”: go outside that inflexible negative stereotype, as Ann Romney has and does, and one is extremely threatening to those who have built entire industries and personal identities around that negative stereotype.

As to family and America and decency, it’s a horrible mark on these attacking Ann Romney as they are that they bear such animosity about her as mother and her happy family.

Lourdes on April 14, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Lourdes

on April 14, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Amen to that. I trust that Mrs. Romney will select more tasteful attire to wear when she performs her duties to this nation. That sounds petty, but Mrs. Obama’s choice of wardrobe at times is a trainwreck and speaks volumes about how seriously she views her role as a representative of the United States.

Philly on April 14, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4