Romney repudiating repudiations

posted at 10:41 am on May 30, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

That’s the message Team Romney sent yesterday when they refused to comment much on Donald Trump, according to Byron York.  After watching John McCain play the “repudiation game” in 2008 while Barack Obama and his campaign leveled a flotilla of negative ads against the Republican nominee, they have no intention of following suit.  Instead, they want to keep their focus on jobs and the economy, the subjects that Team Obama has worked so hard to avoid:

Romney aides believe that cooperating with Democrats and media figures who are demanding a Trump disavowal would most certainly lead to more calls for more disavowals of other figures in the future — leaving Romney spending as much time apologizing for his supporters as campaigning for president.  Team Romney views it as a silly and one-sided game designed to distract voters from the central issue of the race, which they remain convinced will be President Obama’s handling of the economy.

By one-sided, they mean not only that Obama has not disavowed SuperPAC contributor Bill Maher for a number of Maher’s statements that were particularly insulting to Republican women.  They also mean the press, with, as Team Romney see it, questionable associations of its own. Has David Gregory, moderator of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” repudiated his colleague Al Sharpton, the MSNBC host with a decades-long record of incendiary statements and actions?  And has, say, the New York Times columnist Gail Collins repudiated her colleague Charles Blow, who once wrote to Romney, “Stick that in your magic underwear”?  Romney, his team believes, understands that the calls for him to repudiate Trump over the issue of birtherism — and future calls to repudiate this or that supporter next week or next month over some other issue — are at the core all about politics.

Another reason Romney is wary of such concessions is that John McCain tried them, and they didn’t do him any good.

To some extent, this seems like an attempt to make a virtue out of necessity.  Romney can’t tell Trump to keep quiet, and even if he managed to do so, the damage has been done — to whatever extent damage has been inflicted at all.  Jim Geraghty asked that basic question earlier today on Twitter:

Can anyone find a single voter who says they were ready to vote for Romney, but now won’t vote for him because of Trump?

That’s the point Allahpundit made yesterday, too, as well as a number of our commenters on my earlier post.  For most people, Trump’s obsession doesn’t even make the radar, but Romney going on the defensive would certainly get their attention.  Trump can raise money, especially this early in the cycle, and it won’t make anyone convert from Romney to Obama.  That could change if Trump continues his rants in October, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the media will seek Trump out for that purpose in the final days of this campaign, but will it really have any impact?  The people who support Trump’s accusations are already voting for Romney, even if it’s cast as a vote against Obama.  Voters who find it so offensive that the comments of a fundraiser would change their vote are almost certainly already Obama loyalists.  Everyone else wants to get job creation back on track and fix the federal budget.  The more that Obama and his team focus on Trump, the more likely they are to lose votes simply for lack of seriousness.

I’d guess that Obama loses more net votes over his comments about “Polish death camps” than he gains, net, from Donald Trump’s antics.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I’m not immune to seeing her flaws.. but to blame that loss on her is nonsensical…

mark81150 on May 30, 2012 at 11:48 AM

I am not blaming McCain’s loss on Palin. But as he did lose the election, it stands to reason that there were many contributing factors. Fine if you don’t want to believe that was one of them.
With Palin, she was the on the tkt. At that stage what choice did McCain have but to fully embrace her and believe that the qualities he saw when choosing her would resonate with voters.
But with Trump…Romney has no need for him. None.
It’s just a bad decision. All the barking on the right that McCain ran a bad campaign…and yet they cheer this?
Delusional.

verbaluce on May 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Flora

Of course they would go there

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 12:00 PM

No brainer – compare Trump to OBOZO’s pals: Rev. “God Damn America” wright, “You Lie!” hussein’s vile, racist mentor for 20+ years; his pal, benefactor and home-buying partner, and hussein’s personal sugar-daddy convicted felon Tony Rezko; his life-long pal and co-worker Bill Ayers who is a founding member of the Weather Underground TERRORIST organization who has stated his pride in the Weathermen setting off bombs against the US Government, and on, and on, and on.

TeaPartyNation on May 30, 2012 at 12:05 PM

He’s certainly not McCain 2.0

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 11:02 AM

And that is a good thing. Just goes to show what a terrible candidate McCain was. I wasn’t going to vote for him last time. The only reason I did was because he picked Sarah as his running mate. I was planning on writing in someone. That someone was Mitt.

Mirimichi on May 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

McCain wanted us to “stand up” and fight with him, but he refused to really fight Barackabama.

SouthernGent on May 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Mitt has done a wonderful job of going against conventional wisdom so far… Mitt ran to the center in the primary (and got the press singing his praises) and is moving to the right in the general election, playing the media the whole time… We might actually get the Bain Capital Mitt Romney (not the Governor of MA version) and hopefully he brings his spending axe to DC

phreshone on May 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Anyone who thinks that doesn’t matter probably also thinks Palin didn’t have anything to do with McCain losing Repub & Independent votes to Obama in 2008.

verbaluce on May 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

You are an idiot. Palin brought voters to McCain. McCain lost the election because he suspended his campaign to go to Washington to “help” with TARP and that “too big to fail” crap.

Mirimichi on May 30, 2012 at 12:18 PM

But with Trump…Romney has no need for him. None.
It’s just a bad decision. All the barking on the right that McCain ran a bad campaign…and yet they cheer this?
Delusional.

verbaluce on May 30, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Who’s cheering?

I don’t see any upside to this either way.. he dumps the Trump and we get a PO’d Trump threatening to go 3rd party and wrecking havoc inside Ronmey’s defenses.. he doesn’t and just says he disagrees and the media will try to make hay with it..

I think most middle of the road voters will see that.

Romney has no good choices here.. even if you don’t think dumping Trump will hurt him.. the number of birthers is high enough to cost him in a tight race.. enough to balance out the additional swing voters?

a coin toss..

but after 4 years of Obama.. if a so called swing voter hasn’t tired of hopey changey enough to seriously think of voting R this time.. They are beyond help.

also.. if you didn’t mean you thought she was the cause of the loss.. I’m sorry that was the impression I got from your post. A factor? … well people that vote only for the taller guy are a factor too.. the defining point is wether it’s a big enough one to matter.

I’m not kidding when I said my wife a democrat liked her immensely.. that she was a strong willed female candidate and that she appealed more to my wife’s conservative democrat leanings helped too. My wife liked Hillary just because she was a woman who might win the WH. When she saw how the dems treated her when a new shiney flashy candidate upstaged her really PO’d her quite a bit.

Enough to turn her to looking seriously at Palin.

That was a factor too.. we can’t really know how many fell into the democrat women for McCain/Palin.. but it had to be more than just my wife and under voting age daughter.

mark81150 on May 30, 2012 at 12:26 PM

I demand Obama repudiate the endorsements of Fidel Castro’s niece, the Communist Party of the USA, and truther Van Jones.

MFn G I M P on May 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Romney is wise.

He needs to play his own game, and not let Obama dictate the agenda.

How frustrated the liberals must be that he won’t play the petty games they play! Finally, a Republican with brains.

Republicans have always been right. But they, we, are seldom smart about being right.

Go Mitt!

petunia on May 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I demand Obama repudiate the endorsements of Fidel Castro’s niece, the Communist Party of the USA, and truther Van Jones.

MFn G I M P on May 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM

The American Communist Party endorsed Obama?

Never saw that on the news…. (what a shock.)

Imagine the Klan endorsed Romney.. think the media would let that go like they did the communist support for Obama?

yeah.. they would need a seeing eye dog.. the Hubble and both hands with a flashlight even begin to find that one.. which they promptly would bury.

mark81150 on May 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM

We want a fighter. Refusing to repudiate (contrarefudiation?) may not be much as fighting goes, but it’s better than playing the game by their rules, especially when they ignore their rules.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 30, 2012 at 12:37 PM

OK, I’m stumped. What bad word sent that post into the ether? Soros? Streisand? Kerry?

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

At a certain point, they are either going to have to take control or let the media write the narrative for them.

inthemiddle on May 30, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Heh. By not doing what the Obama campaign and the media (but I repeat myself) demand, the Romney campaign has taken control. You just haven’t realized it yet. The Obama campaign has moved on to dogs women Bain bullies gay marriage Massachusetts already.

de rigueur on May 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

I demand Obama repudiate the endorsements of Fidel Castro’s niece, the Communist Party of the USA, and truther Van Jones.

MFn G I M P on May 30, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Brett Kimberlin perhaps.

Maybe those were the bad words…

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

yeah.. they would need a seeing eye dog.. the Hubble and both hands with a flashlight even begin to find that one.. which they promptly would bury.

mark81150 on May 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM

There are no seeing-eye dogs in the media/Obama campaign. One guess why not.

de rigueur on May 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

So the name of that left wing terrorist now harassing bloggers is a bad word? That might deserve some kind of update.

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I don’t see any upside to this either way.. he dumps the Trump and we get a PO’d Trump threatening to go 3rd party and wrecking havoc inside Ronmey’s defenses.. he doesn’t and just says he disagrees and the media will try to make hay with it..

Agreed, if the Donald was smacked down, he would come back real hard. You can just bet every cable news show would be booking him to slam Romney relentlessly. Trump is a blowhard and the birther stuff is dumb, but at the end of the day, you want him on your side. He brings star power and money to the table.

rubberneck on May 30, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Mirimichi on May 30, 2012 at 12:08 PM

:)

McCain wanted us to “stand up” and fight with him, but he refused to really fight Barackabama.

SouthernGent on May 30, 2012 at 12:11 PM

THIS

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 1:01 PM

not a peep about poland…just focusing on trump

the lsm are idiots

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM

andrea continuing the drum beat now…

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 1:04 PM

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Your comment with the word “Kimberlin” appeared. Was there a delay between when you posted it?

It wouldn’t be so unreasonable to put posts about Kimberlin into moderation, just to make sure idiots (or Kimberlin Mobys) weren’t trying to retaliate by posting his home address or things like that.

We’ll see if this comment appears right away.

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:08 PM

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM

That was predicted and reported by about seven writers here and elsewhere.

The morons are always biased and sometimes destructive! WE NEED TO MAKE THE MEDIA ACCCOUNTABLE BY ACT OF CONGRESS OR AMENDMENT

IlikedAUH2O on May 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM

So the name of that left wing terrorist now harassing bloggers is a bad word? That might deserve some kind of update.

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

I just had something with K*berlin moderated. I think it’s just temporary to make sure no one is posting his address. He’s trying to claim, in a rather Orwellian fasion, that he is the one being threatened, so Ed and AP are probably just trying to make sure that no idiots on our side give him anything to use in court.

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I dislike the media far more than I do our President. He is just a symptom and catalyst. They create and carry the poison.

Then they block attempts to recover.

IlikedAUH2O on May 30, 2012 at 1:12 PM

IlikedAUH2O on May 30, 2012 at 1:10 PM

hear hear

cmsinaz on May 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Rush just played a group of audio clips of talking heads “worried” about Romney not distancing himself from Trump and Limbaugh. And as usual they see no double standard. Did Rush or Trump give Gov. Romney a million dollars.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Only democratic talking heads seem to be worried. If they don’t want Romney they should just want him to keep Trump.

gerrym51 on May 30, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Trump is a caricature – a dumber Bugs Bunny and only low info voters will make a decision based on what he says and they’re already voting for Obama.

I’m becoming more impressed with Romney’s campaign. What’s the cliche – keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Trump’s an idiot, but you never know what he’s going to do so to try to minimize any collateral damage from a Trump flame out is just smart. It won’t be a guarantee, but it’s better than irritating him to the point where he might decide to waste some $$ to run third party just to be spiteful. We know he’s capable of it.

kim roy on May 30, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The Trump ring kiss is a negative for Romney.
Fair enough he doesn’t have to answer for Trump’s idiocy – but he also doesn’t have pal around with him.
The diehards love it – sure. But Romney has their votes no matter what. Trump has nothing to offer.
But the independents…they don’t go for the batsh*t stuff as much.

I don’t dispute that independents don’t like kooks, but this is unlikely to be a serious problem for Romney. Just having some kook support you or fund-raise for you or whatever is nothing. At some point there has to be either a very strong connection (e.g., putting him on the ticket, joining some organization run by him, having a close personal friendship with him, etc.), or the offense has to be extremely egregious, like some kind of criminality.

Having a supporter who is a bit of a nut is the kind of thing people will shrug off.

Anyone who thinks that doesn’t matter probably also thinks Palin didn’t have anything to do with McCain losing Repub & Independent votes to Obama in 2008.
But whatever…Trump it up.
And maybe a bus tour with Ted Nugent while he’s at it.

verbaluce on May 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM

No, I’d believe McCain lost some Republicans and independents over Palin, though at least part of that was made up by people in the base who were energized. In fact, I believe Steve Schmidt himself viewed her as a net plus, in terms of votes.

As for Nugent, I don’t think independents care about him one way or the other. If Romney went on a bus tour with the guy, the only news that would stick with people would be “Republican goes on tour with right-wing cultural icon”. Big deal.

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Rush just played a group of audio clips of talking heads “worried” about Romney not distancing himself from Trump and Limbaugh. And as usual they see no double standard. Did Rush or Trump give Gov. Romney a million dollars.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Every. Single. Day. We. Talk. About. The. Same. Stuff.

Fox said this, MSNBC talking head did that. Some reality show person gives their opinion.

Good grief, this campaign is the ultimate microcosm of just how far America has fallen when it comes to serious things being discussed by serious people. Completely dumbed-down

Vote for America by not voting in the 2012 presidential election!

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

…but after 4 years of Obama.. if a so called swing voter hasn’t tired of hopey changey enough to seriously think of voting R this time.. They are beyond help.

mark81150 on May 30, 2012 at 12:26

Let’s assume they were seriously thinking of it – this is the kind of thing that would make them re-think it. Puts the ‘swing’ in swing voter.
You maybe right that Romney doesn’t really have the option now to distance himself…heels too dug in.
But that’s the cost of a bad decision.
From a campaign perceptive, I’m sure he’ll make more…as will Obama.

verbaluce on May 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Every. Single. Day. We. Talk. About. The. Same. Stuff.

Fox said this, MSNBC talking head did that. Some reality show person gives their opinion.

Good grief, this campaign is the ultimate microcosm of just how far America has fallen when it comes to serious things being discussed by serious people. Completely dumbed-down

Vote for America by not voting in the 2012 presidential election!

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Could you explain precisely how not voting increases the chances of greater seriousness in future presidential elections?

Exactly one of the two major candidates will be elected, whether you vote or don’t vote. Any serious person realizes that at this point, their decisions can only effect the chances that Obama will win, vs Romney winning. Not voting is mathematically equivalent to casting half a vote for one candidate, and half a vote for the other, for practical purposes.

How is throwing a temper tantrum over the “lack of seriousness” a serious action? One might even call such a tantrum evidence of a “dumbed down” attitude.

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Dumbfounding that you guys are excited about Romney. You’ve accepted exactly who the media and elites have told you accept. I’m wondering if I’m on the Hudfington Post website or HotAir. This is pathetic. You guys realize that John McCain beat Romney in the last go around right?

air_up_there on May 30, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Dumbfounding that you guys are excited about Romney. You’ve accepted exactly who the media and elites have told you accept. I’m wondering if I’m on the Hudfington Post website or HotAir. This is pathetic. You guys realize that John McCain beat Romney in the last go around right?

air_up_there on May 30, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Excited? I see no “excitement”. I see people being pragmatic and going with Romney because he is now the candidate and right now getting Obama out of the WH is the most important thing. Can you just imagine what an unencumbered Obama will do for the next four years? I get ill thinking about it. The worst we will get with Romney is the status quo and time to fight on. I’ll take it.

The only “excitement” you are seeing is people realizing that just maybe this thing is winnable and we’ll be seeing the back of Obama’s head in January.

What would you rather we do at this point? Denigrate our candidate and give Obama a second term? Would that be less “pathetic” to you?

Geez. Some of the ABR people are just plain out brain dead. The long game, you fools, it’s all about the long game.

kim roy on May 30, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Trump supporting Romney isn’t going to hurt him one bit. If anything, it’s a net gain from the star power and fundraising trump is capable of. People simply don’t care who Romney or Obama associate with, they care about who’s going to be a better president. Now does everyone see why Romney didn’t want the rev. Wright ad to run? It’s just a distraction and what’s going on now with trump proves people don’t give a sh*t. Obama is flailing about desperately to take the focus off his record and frame the narrative but Romney is so far way too smart for him.

1984 in real life on May 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

the damage has been done — to whatever extent damage has been inflicted at all.

Very Clintonisque.

VorDaj on May 30, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Play Birth Certificate Whac-A-Mole

Would you like to play a neat parlor game with your friends? Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate forgery contains so many forger’s errors which are visible to the naked eye or which can be seen on your computer under slight magnification that you can play a fun game finding them, either alone or in a contest with your friends. It’s similar to the arcade game Whac-A-Mole, where you pound a mechanical mole back into its hole before it disappears on its own and randomly reappears in another one of the five holes in the game. You can score by time per defect — five points for each one found within two minutes, for example — or by total score — five points for each defect for the length of the game. (Note: Conservatives will generally spot these defects more quickly than liberals do.)

VorDaj on May 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I’d say that Romney, much unlike McCain, is running a competent campaign. And thank God for it.

paul1149 on May 30, 2012 at 2:37 PM

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I understand your dismay but unfortunately the world keeps turning and we have to do the best with what we are given. As for the rote system of reporting and reacting, as boring as it is, if one person sees the light it has not been in vain.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2012 at 2:38 PM

How is throwing a temper tantrum over the “lack of seriousness” a serious action? One might even call such a tantrum evidence of a “dumbed down” attitude.

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

No, one should call it calling things as they are.

Not voting is mathematically equivalent to casting half a vote for one candidate, and half a vote for the other, for practical purposes.

Hmm, not really. There is no practical reason for choosing between “bad” and “worse.” In fact, the more people vote for the status quo situation the more that status quo situation stays around.

Could you explain precisely how not voting increases the chances of greater seriousness in future presidential elections?

Well, if nobody voted within the status quo situation (and by this I mean whoever the entrenched power brokers of one party offers Vs. the offering of the entrenched power brokers) you would eventually end the status quo situation. Both sides just want the “blessing” of the American voting public.

I am a registered Republican living in NJ. The primary here is in June. I would rather not vote for Mitt Romney but it doesn’t even matter now because Republicans and other primary voters in other states like Iowa and Texas (I know these states are very similar to NJ /sarc) have already decided for me. Therefore, folks like myself can’t even attempt to nominate the candidate for “my party.”

I was legally allowed to vote for the first time in 2004. Voted for Bush, then I voted for McCain. Both times because the “alternative was worse.” Now I am asked to vote for Romney for the same reasons.

That’s why I will be voting for somebody other than the two main candidates or third party. After awhile it gets tiring trying to make chicken salad out of chicken s***, especially when you can’t even choose out of the initial offering of chicken s***.

As long as everybody keeps going with the guy who is not as bad as the other guy the choices will never change.

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM

the offering of the entrenched power brokers)

should be “of the other party”

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM

BTW, I voted for Romney in the 2008 primaries because McCain was so bad. Many other people voted for Romney for the same reason.

So in the four years the best the GOP could do was go with the back up quarterback from last time around?

Sad.

If Romney didn’t have the money and connections he has he would never be the nominee.

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Lord Christopher Monckton asked two people who were in the business of forging documents to look at the April 27th, 2011 Obama computer generated birth certificate and they declared it to be a forgery and a very poor forgery at that. Major General Paul Valleley, a one time Fox News contributor, had three retired CIA friends have their expert friends look at the document and all ten of them declared it to be a forgery. There are many testimonies pointing to this document being a forgery. Worse than the birth certificate being a forgery Obama’s Selective Service registration was fraudulent also. There is substantial evidence that the Obama SS# that was flagged by E-Verify has been used fraudulently in the purchase of land and the reporting of deductions on Tax forms in Chicago. You can google the work done by Skip Trace and Debt Collector Albert Hendershot for the details. Anyone of us would be doing time in a Federal Pen.

RasThavas on May 30, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Was there a delay between when you posted it?

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 1:08 PM

My first post where I responded to the Concern Troll Who Is Concerned, never did appear. The second post did, after a delay. Weird as all I did was ask our Concern Troll Who Is Concerned whether he repudiated the words and actions of he who shan’t be named.

Oh well, now we know that naming convicted left wing terrorists sends a post to etherland.

MNHawk on May 30, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Well, if nobody voted within the status quo situation (and by this I mean whoever the entrenched power brokers of one party offers Vs. the offering of the entrenched power brokers) you would eventually end the status quo situation. Both sides just want the “blessing” of the American voting public.

How would that end the status quo situation? Low turnout doesn’t invalidate the result of an election.

If Obama beats Romney, or vice versa, they don’t care if they do it in a low-turnout election or a high-turnout election.

I am a registered Republican living in NJ. The primary here is in June. I would rather not vote for Mitt Romney but it doesn’t even matter now because Republicans and other primary voters in other states like Iowa and Texas (I know these states are very similar to NJ /sarc) have already decided for me. Therefore, folks like myself can’t even attempt to nominate the candidate for “my party.”

That’s unfortunate, and a great argument for reforming the primary system, though do you really think it would change anything? Romney won because no one more palatable to the Republican primary voters stood against him. People had plenty of time to coalesce around a challenger, and in fact, having the primaries scattered over a long period of time gives the electorate more of a chance to do this, not less.

Romney was simply the best there was, this time around.

I was legally allowed to vote for the first time in 2004. Voted for Bush, then I voted for McCain. Both times because the “alternative was worse.” Now I am asked to vote for Romney for the same reasons.

Why else would you ever vote for someone?

That’s why I will be voting for somebody other than the two main candidates or third party. After awhile it gets tiring trying to make chicken salad out of chicken s***, especially when you can’t even choose out of the initial offering of chicken s***.

Sure it’s tiring. Life is tiring. If there is a serious, non-spoiler third-party challenger, then sure, it makes perfect sense to vote for them. Otherwise, what’s the point? What do you accomplish?

“I’m tired” is not a serious argument. It’s a tantrum. If you’re tired of something, you take action designed to change the situation, you don’t slam your fist in the wall to make noise.

If we elect Romney, we get someone who may very well do a lot of bad things. If we elect Obama, we will get someone who will easily be just as bad, and probably worse – it is much more likely, for example, that Obama will obstruct any serious attempt at entitlement reform.

As long as everybody keeps going with the guy who is not as bad as the other guy the choices will never change.

joey24007 on May 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM

What sort of nonsense is this? Why on earth would you not want the guy who isn’t as bad to win?

This is supposed to be a serious argument?

RINO in Name Only on May 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I wrote McCain in 2008 and told him that he was running for President, not in a debate with a fellow senator where the “my good and honorable friend from the beautiful state of XXX” is the standard way of addressing another. He didn’t listen to me or anyone else, including Palin.

amr on May 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM

has Barkey repudiated Corzine yet? Oh, wait, Carney just informed us that the prezy of the United Stezy knows 3 Corzines…

jimver on May 30, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2