Quotes of the day

posted at 11:04 pm on November 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

Romney’s crowds are building—28,000 in Morrisville, Pa., last night; 30,000 in West Chester, Ohio, Friday It isn’t only a triumph of advance planning: People came, they got through security and waited for hours in the cold. His rallies look like rallies now, not enactments. In some new way he’s caught his stride. He looks happy and grateful. His closing speech has been positive, future-looking, sweetly patriotic. His closing ads are sharp—the one about what’s going on at the rallies is moving.

All the vibrations are right A person who is helping him who is not a longtime Romneyite told me, yesterday: “I joined because I was anti Obama—I’m a patriot, I’ll join up But now I am pro-Romney.” Why? “I’ve spent time with him and I care about him and admire him. He’s a genuinely good man.” Looking at the crowds on TV, hearing them chant “Three more days” and “Two more days”—it feels like a lot of Republicans have gone from anti-Obama to pro-Romney.

Something old is roaring back. One of the Romney campaign’s surrogates, who appeared at a rally with him the other night, spoke of the intensity and joy of the crowd “I worked the rope line, people wouldn’t let go of my hand.” It startled him. A former political figure who’s been in Ohio told me this morning something is moving with evangelicals, other church-going Protestants and religious Catholics. He said what’s happening with them is quiet, unreported and spreading: They really want Romney now, they’ll go out and vote, the election has taken on a new importance to them.

I suspect both Romney and Obama have a sense of what’s coming, and it’s part of why Romney looks so peaceful and Obama so roiled.

***

Mitt Romney’s record, to put it gently, has not always been that of a National Review conservative. The more we have learned about the health-care plan he got enacted in Massachusetts, the less wise we consider it. During his campaign he has too often been unimaginative or vague on health care, federal spending, and taxes. Yet he has also stood, riskily, for a necessary reform of entitlements. He has vowed to be a reliable ally of pro-lifers and judicial conservatives. Without indicating any desire to go to war with Iran, he has treated its nuclear ambitions, and the increased power their realization would gain it, with an appropriate alarm (and we trust Tehran would read his election as a negative development). He has made it clear that in cutting spending he would be mindful that the national defense is the federal government’s foremost responsibility. In choosing Paul Ryan as his prospective vice president he has shown far better judgment than Obama, whose own pick weekly demonstrates that the categories of buffoon and demagogue are not mutually exclusive.

In this election we are proud to stand with Mitt Romney over the vain collectivist in the White House, and we hope the voters will make the same decision.

***

Many (including myself) have been critical of the Romney campaign for not being aggressive enough in laying out a domestic policy vision and an agenda for getting us beyond the collapsing liberal welfare state. But the most important plank of such an agenda—the domestic policy challenge that matters most if we are to avert a fiscal catastrophe and replace liberal statism with conservative dynamism—is the challenge of Medicare reform. And on that front, Romney has shown more courage than any Republican presidential nominee in the history of the liberal welfare state—not only proposing a significant reform, but proposing just the right reform, and doing so despite countless warnings about the political risk. And he didn’t just propose it, but he pressed the Medicare issue when it mattered, and seems to have essentially defused the political risk while helping make a market-based reform of Medicare the consensus Republican position. This has been, to put it mildly, no small feat…

Mitt Romney has shown that he deserves to win this election. He deserves to win not just for being a better choice than his opponent, but also for giving us some reason to believe that he may really be up to some of the daunting challenges confronting whoever will be president in the coming years. No leader can do everything he should, and no presidency can be devoid of countless failures, embarrassments, and missed opportunities. The question is whether a leader is basically focused on the right priorities, and whether a president gets the big things right. The Romney campaign has suggested that Mitt Romney could well be up to doing that. And in the process of running a campaign that suggests this, he has also shown himself to be a decent, serious person with a high-minded sense of what it is to run for office. His opponent has not. No one could mistake him for the messiah, but Romney could be a pretty good chief executive for the federal government. And that’s saying a lot.

***

Against all odds, Romney is feeling like a winner.

Even as polls show him trailing, albeit narrowly, in most battleground states, Romney has seen the final chapter of his 20-year quest for the presidency take on a cinematic quality. He’s speaking, for the first time, to huge, zealous crowds. His rhetoric has gotten loftier, and his voice often takes on the tone of a true believer as he declares that his campaign “has become a movement.”

“This is exciting,” the candidate exclaimed at one point. “Isn’t this exciting?”

“To a lot of us who are exhausted just because we have long days like this, you know, we feed off his energy,” Madden said. “Right now, I think he’s just in a really great place and he’s enjoying this.”

***

I’m going to make my predictions on this race based on more than just the polls. Over the past few months there have been many indicators that this race is going to be drastically different from the one we saw in 2008 — Romney’s crowd sizes, volunteer efforts, fundraising efforts, and a change in the Obama campaign from presenting the candidate as an uplifting symbol of hope to presenting him as a beleaguered president trying to claw his way to reelection.

First, I believe Romney will squeeze out a popular-vote win of about two percentage points: 50.5 to 48.5 (I’m assuming about 1 percent of the vote will go third party). This margin will be enough for Romney to win the Electoral College. Just last week, I would have predicted a slightly larger victory, but Hurricane Sandy cut a little bit of the edge Romney had by providing Obama with one last chance to leverage the advantage of the incumbency…

My final Electoral College prediction is 295 for Romney to 243 for Obama. We’ll find out in two days how close I am, but if Republicans come out Tuesday like the party-identification polls from Gallup and Rasmussen have predicted, I feel confident that Romney is going to shock the conventional wisdom set by the media and be announced as the next president of the United States.

***

“My sense about this is fairly simple,” Hume said. “We’re looking at a national race, which is, for all intents and purposes, tied. We are looking at a set of state polls in the battleground states that suggests President Obama is leading — he is leading in most of these polls. And most reporters would look at that and say, ‘Well, if that’s the case, it looks like President Obama is going to win.’ And that is what a lot of people think. That is kind of the conventional wisdom.”

“However, a number of those polls have a remarkably large number of Democrats in the sample — more Democrats, in some cases, than turned out by percentage on Election Day four years ago, which was a big year for the Democrats,” Hume continued. “They don’t expect to have as big a year. So, those polls are troubling. Now, it would be unprecedented for this many polls reflecting a similar outcome to be wrong, which is why I think people are reluctant to draw that conclusion. But there’s something wrong here.”

***

It’s not enough for the GOP to win tomorrow. It needs to win big, a win so convincing that even the Left won’t be able to explain it away. The definition of victory in war is not a 50.1 percent majority that allows the other side to keep fighting — it’s the battleship Missouri, on whose deck the losing side signs articles of capitulation. The modern Left — the unholy spawn of ’30s gangland and ’60s academic Marxism — must be forced to its knees in surrender.

There’s a honored place in our political system for a leftist party, one that pushes for improvement in areas that need improving, but not one devoted to revolutionary “fundamental change.” A vote for Romney tomorrow is a vote against the socialist elements that seized control of the JFK/Scoop Jackson Democratic party in 1972, and has worked against America’s best interests ever since. A vote for Romney tomorrow is a vote for a restoration of the old Jacksonian — Andrew, that is — Democratic party, a true populist party shorn of its Communist accretions that is every bit as all-American as the other guys. Unless and until this happens, though, the modern donkeys will continue their war on the Constitution, convinced they are on the side of the angels, and taking solace in the late Ted Kennedy’s words, “the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”

It’s up to the electorate tomorrow to show them that the dream is really a nightmare, from which it’s time to awake, that the cause of America always endures, and the work of restoring our founding principles begins anew today.

***

***

Via Daily Rushbo.

***


***



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

I don’t believe that they would ask any progressive groups what the content of their prayers were.

crosspatch on May 17, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Because everyone already knows.

Praise and save Obama and punish the evil right wingers, amen.”

profitsbeard on May 18, 2013 at 3:43 AM

This is a disgusting and diabolical use of a government agency for nefarious ends. Honest Americans in both parties should be appalled and scared by such abuse.

Random targeting of groups due to their political beliefs is more the product of thought police than a republican democracy. Whoever is involved used the auspices of government, a government we own and finance, to despotically and illegally destroy her citizens. That is not only “chilling” but destructive to the very freedoms upon which our country operates.

There is no question this was carried out by Democratic Party operatives and is therefore political in premise. Tax exempt groups applying at the same time received no similar scrutiny and in fact moved swiftly through the process. So the only question I have is who knew what and when? What were their motives?

The President has stated he found out about this last week. Yet last year, before the election this was fairly common knowledge. In fact senior officials in his administration, including Neil Wolin, were directly briefed. Again, who knew what and when? Why was this not disclosed by those who knew- especially given the criminal nature of this activity, which apparently then continued through the election? Did this not rise to something of importance to Mr. Obama either as President or a candidate? Surely such as scandal would be notable in some regard.

This entire sordid mess stinks and not simply as a matter of politics. It undercuts the very premise of our democracy by destroying a voters right to participate in free and fair elections. It adds an element of fear to freely voicing one’s political choices. That’s not just chilling, it has no place in our country and should be punished in the most punitive way to send a signal of zero tolerance for such criminal behavior.

Thus far, President Pedestrian is still sitting on the sidelines muttering how he “looked away” when the parade passed and wants to know what he missed. One begins to wonder who running our country.

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Apparently a secret can be kept in DC, especially if it involves keeping your highly paid no show job. No one with a govt job ever gets fired, they get promoted.

Kissmygrits on May 18, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Why? Do you have to be that stupid to ask that?

watertown on May 18, 2013 at 11:14 AM

re:
verbaluce . . ad nauseum . .
He who argues with a fool (tool?) is an even greater fool.

barton on May 17, 2013 at 6:34 PM

As I recall, Solomon had that figured out almost 3,000 years ago. LOL

yesiamapirate on May 18, 2013 at 11:28 AM

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Ann Barnhardt has a couple of good pieces up about you people.

tom daschle concerned on May 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Three: It’s just what it looks like. The IRS’s higher-ups were all in the tank for another term of Hopenchange. There’s circumstantial evidence to believe that’s true, but if you’re feeling slightly more charitable, you might conclude that it wasn’t Obama himself that they were invested in so much as their own careers. If they blew the whistle on what was happening and O ended up winning the election anyway, then they’re in deep trouble for having tried, but failed, to derail their boss’s chance at history. Not a happy place to be if you’re a time-serving tax apparatchik. So they kept quiet to stay on Obama’s good side.

I go with option Three, above.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The goal was to cripple the fund raising of these groups for the 2012 election — and they succeeded.

TarheelBen on May 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Also correct, almost certainly, as goal.

Anyone who thinks Axelrod, Obama, Jarrett, Holder, Hillary, etc. are nice people is out of their mind.

Lourdes on May 18, 2013 at 12:04 PM

“I was not told of this problem at any time before the election … Even if I was told of it, it was an on-going investigation that I couldn’t comment on … When actual evidence was developed that this problem existed, and that laws, regulations, and rules were violated, we couldn’t comment until hearing both sides … Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:11 PM

With the acquisition of power, Obama was able to substitute the IRS, and other government agencies, for the thugs at ACORN who enabled his 2008 election.

Another Drew on May 18, 2013 at 12:13 PM

The question is – “who benefits”?

The answer is – Obama personally (his re-election), the Democrats and their big govt. liberal agenda.

It is laughable to think this was being done without their knowledge. It’s like thinking all the traffic lights you’ve come to recently are now magically changing “green” just as you arrive by sheer luck. The fix was in. And even if you didn’t order it, it gets NOTICED.

Saltyron on May 18, 2013 at 12:44 PM

From the NY Times article:

In that context, he said, the screening of Tea Party groups for special scrutiny was not the scandal itself but “just the latest example of a culture of cover-ups — and political intimidation — in this administration.”

Here the NY Times is trying to limit the damage to the Obama Administration but these are career bureaucrats that have been working there long before Obama was elected in many cases. This is a culture of coverups and political intimidation that penetrates the entire “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party. The NY Times here is trying to limit the scope and blame only Obama. But we see the same sort of coverup and dishonesty in the New York state government and the government in New York City.

This is a systemic problem with the entire Democratic Party and it needs to be portrayed in that way.

crosspatch on May 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Simple answer; it probably would have made the difference in our last election.

The idea of reforming the tax code is nothing new, with 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney among the most recent to try by proposing a more across-the-board or “flatter” tax rate with fewer deductions and loopholes.

Romney was riding high in popularity on this issue and loathing for the IRS is fairly ubiquitous across the political spectrum. So combined with the first debate, could Obama’s second campaign withstood a wide-ranging scandal which got extensive coverage on an important economic issue? Or is the real scandal in covering up the fact they knew and were deeply involved in this issue? That’s hard to say and speculative. But it sure became a non-factor with no impact- which was ultimately the Obama Campaign’s intent.

As to the cover up, I suspect we are about to find more people close to the president who had very intimate knowledge of what was going on. Anyone heard from Jim Messina lately?

Marcus Traianus on May 18, 2013 at 2:49 PM

And let us not forget the leaking that the IRS did to ProPublica… funded in part by Soros… it isn’t just the rectal exam level of information, down to prayers conducted by organizations… but the ‘inadvertant release’ of such information to political groups.

Also the IRS getting its hands on your healthcare info. Isn’t that sweet? Can’t yo just wait until THAT INFORMATION gets leaked by the IRS? Because the same lady who headed up the political rectal exam unit is now heading up the Obamacare enforcement unit.

ajacksonian on May 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The clinton’s used the IRS as a weapon when they were in the White House and I imagine many more did the same thing with the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover was at the helm. After his death they found he had files on tons of people.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Asking a question like that equates to the intelligence of a snail.

mixplix on May 18, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Very simple. These guys are smart. Once the election is safely stolen, as 2012 was stolen by the Democrats, it does not matter if Obama’s henchmen (and in this case, henchwoman) broke the law. Since their side has control of the Government, no one will be prosecuted and the regime remains in power and the election remains stolen.

The IRS was instrumental in stealing the election and the election will stay stolen no matter what happens. That is all that these totalitarianists care about.

Rogervzv on May 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM

I’m really not surprised, it’s time to leave this place.
Not sure where to go, but it’s time.

mmcnamer1 on May 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I go with the option that most public employees vote Democrat. As an observation. Dems are risk averse – not all, but definitely the majority – “Let someone else tell me what to do; when I’m in power, I’ll tell others what to do.” They think alike – just as most secure university positions are held by Dems, so are most government positions. Rs are in the minority. (Guess we’re too busy creating real jobs, working two jobs to stay off the gov’t welfare, coaching, heaving forbid – going to church or a gun range, etc.”

Stolen election or not, this crew will stay in power – no one will impeach a minority president or a woman.

MN J on May 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Now the IRS is like the labor unions.
Basically they are political organizations that force you to donate to them.

esnap on May 19, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

SERIOUSLY? You are THAT stupid that you have to ask?!

easyt65 on May 20, 2013 at 9:16 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Why did the IRS keep the scandal quiet until after the election?

Every time the main page of Hot Air loads, I see this question, and think, “That must be a rhetorical question!”

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Then again, you have Exhibit A for why you sometimes need to ask rhetorical questions…..

Wait, so the IRS discovered these wrongdoings, independently put a stop to them and briefed the Treasury department, AND authorized an IG investigation which then they leaked to the public. But we’re mad because they chose not to make it a campaign issues considering it has nothing to do with Obama’s governance? *yawn*

libfreeordie on May 18, 2013 at 10:14 AM

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 20, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3