Beltway Republicans planning to intervene more in GOP primaries

posted at 6:55 pm on January 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

I remember when the NRSC took such intense heat for endorsing Charlie Crist in the primary over Rubio that then-chair John Cornyn vowed to stay out of primaries in the future. Three years and several Sharron Angles/Christine O’Donnells/Todd Akins later, the tune has changed among the broader Republican establishment. Question for readers: Is this worthy of automatic opposition on “damn these establishment RINOs” grounds or is it more of a wait-and-see thing? My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate. Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates. At least until they go and back another Crist.

High-profile Senate Republicans are going to try to pre-empt bloody primaries with aggressive, early recruitment and support — effectively trying to clear fields…

Further, top Senate Republicans have made clear to outside groups that they’d like the third parties to not exist simply as entities that air attack ads against Democrats in general elections but to play a more hands-on role in GOP primaries…

Translation into non-Senate speak: The big-money establishment Republican super PACs like American Crossroads need to serve as a counterbalance in primaries to conservative outfits such as Club for Growth and former Sen. Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund…

“To be effective, you have to go well before the primary and identify well-qualified candidates using a number of criteria,” said one source familiar with Crossroads’s thinking. “It’s not who’s more or less conservative, but putting together a more discriminating evaluation of candidates.”…

“When a center-right Republican is in a primary and is being targeted by some group as a RINO, we’re going to make sure we have their back,” said LaTourette. “Not just with speeches and press releases but with money.”

Better recruitment would sound wonderful if not for the fact that the establishment’s talent evaluators decided that this soulless careerist was a worthier candidate than Marco Rubio, a guy who’s already being touted as a potential Republican presidential nominee in 2016. Is there any situation where American Crossroads would endorse a more impressive, more conservative longshot over an ostensibly more “electable” centrist (especially a centrist incumbent)? My agita here isn’t over Steve LaTourette’s RINO Super PAC wading into a primary to try to torpedo a conservative, it’s the fear that it’ll wade in to torpedo impressive conservatives like Mike Lee or Ron Johnson or Pat Toomey or Ted Cruz or any of the other credible right-wing candidates who’ve been elected since 2010. Whom do you trust, among either the establishment or the grassroots, to consistently reliably discern “worthy” candidates from unworthy ones?

At the very least, this’ll be a fun experiment in seeing how far Super PAC money goes. In most cases, being opposed by Crossroads or the NRSC or whoever will be a badge of honor and mark of credibility for a tea-party upstart; will that mean doom for the establishment candidate on election day or can the ad blitz on his behalf buy the primary for Joe Beltway? And won’t this ultimately mean more right-wing dollars overall being spent on Republican primaries than on general elections? That’s safe in a red state, not so much in a purple one.


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

Stupid is thy name! Seriously going to attack Newt from that angle with Romney hanging around your neck? SERIOUSLY?

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Um, Romney was the FIRST Republican in the primaries that I attacked in my “Know Your Candidate” series. I did so on 4 December 2011, and continued to do so.

Mitt Romney: Flip-Flopping Away, Flip-Flopping Away. You Know The Weaker Your Foundation, The More You’ll Be Flip-Flopping Away.

As I said REPEATEDLY through the primary, I am a libertarian. I have never been a Republican. I was a conservative for about 1 year…when I was 10 years old. You can go back and read every single one of my posts during the primary season and the general election and my position was quite clear: I said that I would vote for whomever the GOP nominated because it was my ONLY hope of defeating Barack Obama. I further stated EXPLICITLY that I was NOT voting FOR said Republican, but AGAINST Barack Obama.

If you want to ignore Newt Gingrich’s Big Government tendencies and statements, then that’s you prerogative, but the idea that he is Mr Super Con is a bloody joke.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:24 PM

We’re pretty freaking depressed that we a) performed dismally in congressional primaries compared to 2010 and b) the people who swore they knew what was best for us turned out not to know anything. Hey, at least we knew we didn’t know anything! But we weren’t really depressed until the election was over.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Folks aren’t voting..Bottom line..:(

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM

If you want to ignore Newt Gingrich’s Big Government tendencies and statements, then that’s you prerogative, but the idea that he is Mr Super Con is a bloody joke.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

I do not recall anyone claiming he was Mr. SuperCon. We said he was more conservative and more electable than the soggy cucumber sandwich that is Mitt Romney. Both assertions are arguable.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM

“I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there’s a package there that’s very, very good. And frankly, it’s something I would strongly support…If we had instituted a regime that combined three things I just said — mandatory caps, a trading system inside the caps, as we have with clean air, and a tax incentive to be able to invest in the new technology and to be able to produce the new technology — I think we would be much better off than we are in the current situation.”

- Newt Gingrich, PBS’ Frontline, 2 February 2007

“[O]ur federal government should take the lead on this vital issue, an effort that may require strong incentives to encourage enterprise and drive the formation of private-public economic partnerships. Future presidents will surely find a way to vet their bold proposals with an appropriate subset of environmental and economic gurus so our national leaders are better prepared to deliver workable and effective environmental policies.”

- Newt Gingrich, A Contract With the Earth, 2007

“I agree entirely with whatever criticism the senator (Kerry) wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership.”

– Newt Gingrich, preemptively distancing himself from Bush on global warming, 11 April 2007

“I am not automatically saying that coercion and bureaucracy is not an answer.”

– Newt Gingrich, on how to combat climate change, 11 April 2007

Gingrich support cap-n-trade. Just like Romney. They were/are both Big Government when they want to be.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Folks aren’t voting..Bottom line..:(

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM

Not for progressives they aren’t.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

supported

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Final comment:

WE outlined it here. The media, the W record in the public mind and a togh primary while O attacked did not help.

Then despite crackpot ideas from people like me to chase the votes of the poor and black, Mitt did nothing.

Numerous people tried to offer other innovative ideas. He listened to Dick Morris or whomever and din’t need to be flashy and throw the football.

Mitt listened to his staff, whom I praised by knowing only their reputation(s). Remarks even came from Dems here in DC who did not want to face that guy. They did not. They wanted a total crackpot with minor league consultants for the media to savage.

Mitt went peaches and cream after the first debate.

And I will not mention the money allegedly wasted.

The media controlled the narrative on everything including Sandy and Benghazi. Dang Bloomberg News ran a report calling Mitt’s great idea (/sarc) to send the FEMA work to the states “reprehensible”.

No wonder GOP leaders act like beaten rattus norvegicus and that is why I donate even though my ideas gather dust.

Thanks for the therapy and info.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Not for progressives they aren’t.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Please point out this “true con” that folks would have voted for??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Folks aren’t voting..Bottom line..:(

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:37 PM

It’s important to identify which voters aren’t voting and why, though. The people who come here, they voted. People who identify themselves as political conservatives, they voted. It’s the loosely-affiliated republicans we need to reach, and I am not at all persuaded that moderation reaches them. I think they would respond better to big ideas.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Gingrich support cap-n-trade. Just like Romney. They were/are both Big Government when they want to be.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:38 PM

There were no perfect candidates. There was Bad, Worse, and Never Gonna Happen. Gingrich understood and could explain conservative ideas, even if his attention span was short, his execution was iffy and he ran his mouth too much.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

I said, do you really want to attack Newt from that angle with Mitt Romney around your neck. The argument is that Newt would have lost bigger than Romney did. Your attack against my argument means you are siding with Romney!

Yeah, Newt came forward when no one else was in the conversation, Darrel Issa was even quiet at the time. There was NO competing argument, surveys showed that Americans wanted something. if you are not going to be part of the conversation then the other side wins by default.

Effectively, if we did not get ClimateGate out of England when we did, there most certainly would already have been global warming legislation passed. Newt entering the ring gave us a voice in the negotiations which stalls things down if you have not noticed.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

You make a good point..The GOP has to expand their message in urban areas where we (GOP) are getting crushed and are “flying over it @ 30,000 ft”..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Please point out this “true con” that folks would have voted for??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I would have brought out an absolute minimum of 15 and a top of 33 family members as additional votes on my own for Perry or Newt. I could have persuaded several additional at work. I also would have worked the get out the vote efforts.

Obama/Romney just simply were not worth any effort on my part. Romney was by far more progressive than any other alternative and Perry and Newt actually have conservative records. Newt got Welfare Reform done and signed.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:47 PM

I was for Perry all the way..BUT he lost the primary..Romney won the primary!!..Like the NFL the GOP primary was the playoffs..Do we just pick two teams to play in the Super Bowl???..No we have a regular season and playoffs??..My candidate (Perry) lost..So I went (voted) for the candidate that won the GOP playoffs..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Two things, three really………

We are outnumbered.
Some folks that we thought should/might vote Romney, didn’t.
Romney lost.

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 8:54 PM

Very good point..:)

PS..Good to see you..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Don’t ever use a picture of that incredibly narcissistic stupid sh*thead again.

Not kidding.

Bruno Strozek on January 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM

Seems like it would be easier to just tell ALL Republican conservative candidates to simply refuse to answer Democrat media set up questions. The media are DEMOCRATS and they are trying to destroy you so DO NOT PLAY THEIR GAME!

devan95 on January 4, 2013 at 8:56 PM

I said, do you really want to attack Newt from that angle with Mitt Romney around your neck. The argument is that Newt would have lost bigger than Romney did. Your attack against my argument means you are siding with Romney!

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

It means no such thing nor is there anything hanging around my neck, luv. Yes, I voted AGAINST Obama by voting for the only candidate on the ballot that had a shot at beating him, the Republican. If you guys had nominated a liverwurst sammich, I would have voted for said disgusting garbage. Would you have rather that I had voted for Obama or Gary Johnson or stayed home? If I had, then you would be screaming that I didn’t do anything to try to stop Obama. I maxed out on donations and I voted even though, in my state, it was never going to matter.

As for electability, I long ago (and maybe preceding the Flip-Flopping post) wrote that it was a myth about Romney, but the same is true about Gingrich. He might have turned out more of the base, but I doubt that he would have done as well with independents because he had more baggage than a Louis Vuitton factory.

The idea, however, that I am some Mittbot or “defending” Romney is a bloody joke. If Gingrich had been the nominee, I would have voted for him.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Great to see you as well Dire! ; )

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Excellent post!!..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Great. But the current debate I thought we were having on this thread was whether or not the establishment picks are better than other picks.

More specifically, someone stated that Romney was the man that absolutely under all circumstances got the highest possible vote total of all the primary candidates, with s a few, including Newt listed as certainly lower turnout.

I disagree and am making my case.

Romney is a known. He had potential to do better. A simple statement in the debates along the lines of “Cut, Cap and Balance, you can take that to the bank” would have gotten me motivated and gotten me to do vote gathering for him. Instead, what we got was, I will make sure the greediest generation and generations to come will be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains of Medicare and Social Security. Instead of saying we have a spending problem, what we got from Romney was an argument of not having enough slaves creating wealth to be appropriated by the government to keep spending and he was just the guy to get more slaves creating wealth to pay for it.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM

The idea, however, that I am some Mittbot or “defending” Romney is a bloody joke. If Gingrich had been the nominee, I would have voted for him.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

So what you are saying is that, even though I am attacking your argument, I am not siding on the other side of the argument?

Got it.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Effectively, if we did not get ClimateGate out of England when we did, there most certainly would already have been global warming legislation passed. Newt entering the ring gave us a voice in the negotiations which stalls things down if you have not noticed.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Newt didn’t stall anything on climate change. He was PROMOTING cap-n-trade in 2007. Cap-n-trade didn’t get done because of Democratic Senators from states like West Virginia and Louisiana. Remember, Republicans could NOT stop ANYTHING for between Al Franken being sworn in and Scott Brown being seated. The House had already passed a massive climate change bill.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:04 PM

So what you are saying is that, even though I am attacking your argument, I am not siding on the other side of the argument? Got it.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:01 PM

No, I’m saying that Newt Gingrich wouldn’t have made a difference nor was he some conservative panacea.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:05 PM

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 8:59 PM

All walks of life are filled with “what ifs”..Again Romney won..It is a circular argument..In 2016 everything will have changed..Who knows who the GOP nominee will be..I can’t predict the future..But (as you will also) I will strive to get there..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Sounds like the same losers who drove Romney and McCain into the ground now want to go to war against the Conservatives.

They must know that Palin is planning a resurgence. Thought so….

victor82 on January 4, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Who knows who the GOP nominee will be..

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM

And who cares?

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Newt didn’t stall anything on climate change. He was PROMOTING cap-n-trade in 2007. Cap-n-trade didn’t get done because of Democratic Senators from states like West Virginia and Louisiana. Remember, Republicans could NOT stop ANYTHING for between Al Franken being sworn in and Scott Brown being seated. The House had already passed a massive climate change bill.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:04 PM

If they are debating it, it is being stalled. You are right though, in the end he did not stall anything. But for climategate, we would be staring global warming legislation done by democrats only like we are Obamacare. But, by getting into the debate, it would have stalled it if climategate had not come along.

By the way, which democrats do you find as stand up guys who never vote against their constituents best interests or even desires? Didn’t we get Obamacare despite all the blue dog democrats that were pro life? Yes, why, yes we did.

It took them ages though to get Obamacare through congress… Why? Because it was being DEBATED! It may have made it through, but not before it was drug through the mud and distorted into an unworkable monstrosity that the public hates. That there is the goal. If they are going to get it, we might as well make them poison the well on the way!

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM

I remain a registered Republican .
Have not given a dime to the party
in years .
I get to vote in the primaries .
The weenies won’t influence me .

Lucano on January 4, 2013 at 9:10 PM

For the love of God don’t drag that loser Romney back around. He screwed up a layup. He is done.

SurferDoc on January 4, 2013 at 9:10 PM

There were no perfect candidates. There was Bad, Worse, and Never Gonna Happen. Gingrich understood and could explain conservative ideas, even if his attention span was short, his execution was iffy and he ran his mouth too much.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

I was always ABO … even when I was ABR ….
Perry was my choice …. when he lost I was done

after that I was ABO ….

conservative tarheel on January 4, 2013 at 9:10 PM

All walks of life are filled with “what ifs”..Again Romney won..It is a circular argument..In 2016 everything will have changed..Who knows who the GOP nominee will be..I can’t predict the future..But (as you will also) I will strive to get there..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Sure is full of them. What if George W Bush had cut the housing boom off at the ankles in 2003 instead of adding air to the bubble and letting it run its course.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:12 PM

I am a registared independent … this lets me vote in NC in either primary ….

conservative tarheel on January 4, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Some folks that we thought should/might vote Romney, didn’t.
Romney lost.

Bmore on January 4, 2013 at 8:54 PM

…and may their hemorrhoids be flaming… as they burn in he11…!!!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM

This past election cycle proved just how deeply broken the GOP primary is, from the top down. There was a conservative crackup that enabled Mitt to win through attrition. The way the state primaries were conducted left a LOT to be desired.

This action by the RINOs only cements the inevitable third party split. They didn’t learn with McCain, they haven’t learned with Miit, and they show no desire to learn.

Meanwhile, the Dems could nominate a reanimated corpse of Hitler, and he’ll get 51% of the vote because the reanimated corpse is a Democrat.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:20 PM

It means no such thing nor is there anything hanging around my neck, luv. Yes, I voted AGAINST Obama by voting for the only candidate on the ballot that had a shot at beating him, the Republican. If you guys had nominated a liverwurst sammich, I would have voted for said disgusting garbage.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 8:57 PM

And said disgusting garbage would have lost, all the kicking and screming and fingers in the ears and “lalalalalalala” and TROLLCOTT!!!!!!!!1111!!!! notwithstanding.

People aren’t voting “against” anymore, if they ever really did.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

All walks of life are filled with “what ifs”..Again Romney won..It is a circular argument..In 2016 everything will have changed..Who knows who the GOP nominee will be..I can’t predict the future..But (as you will also) I will strive to get there..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM

It will be either Marco Rubio or Chris Christie. If it’s Marco, that only heightens the irony of this push from the RINO wing. Doesn’t mean he’ll have a shot of winning… he is a conservative like David Cameron is a conservative. All flash, no substance.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

/Todd Akins

…he looks like he has been coupling with Elizabeth Warren on the steps leading up to the Senate!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Senator John Cornyn shot himself in the foot when he abandoned Akin. I will not support his reelection in 2014. May God bless Texas with another Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate.

TXJenny on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I am a registared independent … this lets me vote in NC in either primary ….

conservative tarheel on January 4, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Can’t do that in FL unfortunately . Must be registered in a party
to vote in primary .
However we do have many other ways to screw up an election .

Lucano on January 4, 2013 at 9:27 PM

And said disgusting garbage would have lost, all the kicking and screming and fingers in the ears and “lalalalalalala” and TROLLCOTT!!!!!!!!1111!!!! notwithstanding.

People aren’t voting “against” anymore, if they ever really did.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:25 PM

I personally am not willing to persuade friends and family to vote against worse just so we get horrible. It damages my credibility, damages the Republican brand and most importantly says it is ok for the republican party to stab us and America in the back.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Well lets see Angle, won the primary, because the lead candidate, Lowden ‘self destructed’, O’Donnell did about as well as any candidate that wasn’t William Roth, who had lost the last race,
Lugar had his typical temper tantrum, typical of how he turned his back on McCain, and vouched for Obama. Losing with Thompson, Allen
and Mack, should tell them there is something wrong with the system,

Newt did consider Cap n Trade, Romney helped create the RGGI framework, furthered MassCare, and actually argued for the ‘fair
taxing’ of millionaires, that Obama took up in the general.

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Sounds like the same losers who drove Romney and McCain into the ground now want to go to war against the Conservatives.

victor82 on January 4, 2013 at 9:08 PM

Yeah, I was thinking this was another little oblique attempt to shift the blame for their own pathetic presidential candidate and the loss to the most beatable incumbent in a century.

And for those idiots who keep spewing the “all the others would have lost even worse”, I call bullshit. Romney is probably the only one even in that pathetic Klown Kar Primary who could’ve screwed it up against Obama.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM

My sense from the comments here after Akin blew up over his rape remarks was that even a lot of grassroots conservatives wished he’d been torpedoed in the primary by a more electable candidate. Maybe that buys moderates a tiny bit of leeway among the base to push more “electable” candidates.

It’s not a question of moderate vs ultra conservative. The problem with Akin was that he couldn’t answer a question from the media without shooting himself in the foot. He was a bad candidate, regardless of his views. So it’s not simply about moderate Republicans finding a more moderate candidate but rather it’s about finding a candidate with enough savvy and professionalism to deal effectively with a hostile media.

cicerone on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

I personally am not willing to persuade friends and family to vote against worse just so we get horrible. It damages my credibility, damages the Republican brand and most importantly says it is ok for the republican party to stab us and America in the back.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:30 PM

To hell with the ‘Republican brand,’ as the GOP has shown time and time again that they couldn’t give a rat’s fart about the conservative movement.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Newt did consider Cap n Trade, Romney helped create the RGGI framework, furthered MassCare, and actually argued for the ‘fair
taxing’ of millionaires, that Obama took up in the general.

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Newt considers many things. He is always persuadable towards the conservative ends though. That was a large part of what finally got me to go from hate Newt to support Newt. I was totally against Newt in November of 2011. By mid January I had reviewed his past to the extent that I cam up with what I view as the Newt method.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

To hell with the ‘Republican brand,’ as the GOP has shown time and time again that they couldn’t give a rat’s fart about the conservative movement.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

True enough. It is pretty much past redeeming I think. I figure by 2020 we will be looking at a replacement party and many of today’s Republicans will be Democrats.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

It’s not a question of moderate vs ultra conservative. The problem with Akin was that he couldn’t answer a question from the media without shooting himself in the foot. He was a bad candidate, regardless of his views.

cicerone on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Same goes for “47%” Mr Electable himself.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Oh, crikey, they included LaTourette, which is French for Steve Schmidt, in this clown rodeo,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

No, Akin wasn’t my preferred candidate, but nothing instills confidence, like Rove pulling 5 million dollars out of the race, overnight, did he forget we were still dealing with Claire McCaskill,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 9:38 PM

My opinion, The media pasted Romney and kept him acting like a gerbil.

IlikedAUH2O on January 4, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Oh, b.s. Compared with recent GOP nominees for prez and VP, Romney was treated with kid gloves by the media. Romney was acting like a gerbil because politically that’s what he IS.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:39 PM

If they are debating it, it is being stalled.

But, not by Newt Gingrich. While he was promoting cap-n-trade – and maybe even using coercion and bureaucracy to achieve the desired results – there were people fighting AGW. Senator Inhofe and Chris Horner are two.

You are right though, in the end he did not stall anything. But for climategate, we would be staring global warming legislation done by democrats only like we are Obamacare. But, by getting into the debate, it would have stalled it if climategate had not come along.

What? Climategate happened in December 2009 when the Democrats could get anything they wanted through Congress. Again, Gingrich had nothing to do with it.

By the way, which democrats do you find as stand up guys who never vote against their constituents best interests or even desires? Didn’t we get Obamacare despite all the blue dog democrats that were pro life? Yes, why, yes we did.

As the Democratic Party is currently situated, I wouldn’t care if a nuclear bomb went off in their next caucus. What on earth is your question supposed to mean? Do you somehow think that I support Democrats in any way, shape or form? I don’t. I’m just telling it like it is.

It took them ages though to get Obamacare through congress… Why? Because it was being DEBATED!

As I said, the House had passed cap-n-trade. It was dead in the Senate because of Democratic Senators from energy-producing states. While Mary Landrieu might have been able to be bought off for a few hundred mil for her vote in Obamacare, voting for cap-n-trade would have meant slitting her own political throat given the fact that even Democrats are big into the energy biz down there. The same is true for most of the other big energy-producing states with Democratic Senators.

It may have made it through, but not before it was drug through the mud and distorted into an unworkable monstrosity that the public hates. That there is the goal. If they are going to get it, we might as well make them poison the well on the way!

Obamacare was always going to be a monstrosity no matter how it got through Congress and Americans will hate it since they are unused to what it will mean for them concerning wait times, rationing, premium costs, taxes, etc. It didn’t matter if it passed as it is, with a public option, or as single-payer.

None of this matters. Gingrich was not the nominee. I did what I could to defeat Obama even if I didn’t “love” the candidate. It is time for people to move on from this asinine game of “McCain outperformed Romney” or “Anybody other than Romney could have beaten Obama.” It’s all history. The future is what is important now.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

These morons are going to split the party.

The Tea Partiers that they so look down on managed to deliver the GOP it’s only major victories in the last three elections. None of their presidential candidates have broken 50% of the popular vote in a decade. They bow to the liberal’s and MSMs (BIRM) narrative of every issue and constantly appologize for conservatism. The Democrats managed to harness the energy of the filthy and disorganized Occupiers while the GOP offended, harangued, disowned and completely wasted the opportunity that was the much more powerful Tea Party.

And yet they’re convinced they know how to win elections. Maddening.

29Victor on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

It’s not a question of moderate vs ultra conservative. The problem with Akin was that he couldn’t answer a question from the media without shooting himself in the foot. He was a bad candidate, regardless of his views. So it’s not simply about moderate Republicans finding a more moderate candidate but rather it’s about finding a candidate with enough savvy and professionalism to deal effectively with a hostile media.

cicerone on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Although, the main problem here is that the GOP establishment IS identifying Achin’ and Christie O’Donnell with their viewpoints, while never fessing up to the fact they couldn’t field better candidates to go up against them in the first place. If the GOP wasn’t trying to force a liberal Democrat in Mike Castle down the Delaware primary voters’ throats, O’Donnell never would have emerged as an insurgent candidate.

While the voters may admit they made mistakes, has the GOP establishment ever admitted to their own? Precisely.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

It’s very true that Todd Aiken sucks but the establishment republicans suck more!

MCGIRV on January 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM

These guys are totally insane. Every RINO they put up, including Romney got their head handed to them. And they want to do it again. We need to purge these guys from the leadership. We need to take over the party at the state and local levels to prevent these “geniuses” from getting into positions of power in the first place. We need to make their craven behavior unacceptable.

Iblis on January 4, 2013 at 9:45 PM

There were no perfect candidates. There was Bad, Worse, and Never Gonna Happen. Gingrich understood and could explain conservative ideas, even if his attention span was short, his execution was iffy and he ran his mouth too much.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:44 PM

And Gingrich openly admitted he had been wrong about AGW. He clearly stated why he had believed the way he did, what had changed his mind and what his feelings were now on the subject. These are all thing Romney could never bring himself to do.

29Victor on January 4, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Please point out this “true con” that folks would have voted for??..:)

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 8:41 PM

Good post. :)

That’s what it always comes down to – what were our choices. We all bickered and fought with each other over various candidates in the primary. Then when it was decided we had essentially two choices, Romney or Obama.

That’s it. Neither were good, but the time to deal with establishment, next in lines, RINOs, etc, etc, etc is now, not sometime in late 2015 or 2016 itself.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Remember, Steve LaTourette once had Dave Barry moonlight as his press secretary back in 1995, so that should tell you more than you need to know about the guy.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Maybe you could show me the high profile reaching American’s AGW fighters who were out there persuading the public, because before Newt, I knew of no one else. I was in the sites like watts up with that for a long time and there were no right of center voices being heard by anyone that was not already out in the trenches working on ways to stop the AGW scam. Newt was effectively the first voice out there.

This Inhofe?
“I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost.”

LOL, what ever it takes man to try and keep some semblance of self I guess.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM

It’s all history. The future is what is important now.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

“Those who do not know history are destined to repeat it” in 1996, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016…

29Victor on January 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Who knows who the GOP nominee will be..

Dire Straits on January 4, 2013 at 9:06 PM

And who cares?

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM

Unless we get it in gear and get a third party who has a hope in heck of winning, then that will be the person going against the moron the Democrats run.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

True enough. It is pretty much past redeeming I think. I figure by 2020 we will be looking at a replacement party and many of today’s Republicans will be Democrats.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I feel it could be by 2016. If LaTourette’s SuperPAC has it’s way, 2014 could be a watershed year that produces the split.

Even still, the current Republican Party will be reduced to a less than 9% party, perpetually playing spoiler to whatever conservative party emerge, and resulting in the Democrats forever holding power. Even Mexican pols would view that model as one-sided…

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:53 PM

Although, the main problem here is that the GOP establishment IS identifying Achin’ and Christie O’Donnell with their viewpoints, while never fessing up to the fact they couldn’t field better candidates to go up against them in the first place. If the GOP wasn’t trying to force a liberal Democrat in Mike Castle down the Delaware primary voters’ throats, O’Donnell never would have emerged as an insurgent candidate.

While the voters may admit they made mistakes, has the GOP establishment ever admitted to their own? Precisely.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The other problem was that as soon as Akin made his stupid statement the GOP removed all support. They washed their hands of him and essentially surrendered the seat because they foolishly believed that doing so would get them a pass from the press.

Instead, the DNC and the MSM continued to use him as an albatros around Romney’s and the GOP’s neck AND we lost the seat.

29Victor on January 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

None of this matters. Gingrich was not the nominee. I did what I could to defeat Obama even if I didn’t “love” the candidate. It is time for people to move on from this asinine game of “McCain outperformed Romney” or “Anybody other than Romney could have beaten Obama.” It’s all history. The future is what is important now.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

None of this matters. Gingrich was not the nominee. I did what I could to defeat Obama even if I didn’t “love” the candidate. It is time for people to move on from this asinine game of “McCain outperformed Romney” or “Anybody other than Romney could have beaten Obama.” It’s all history. The future is what is important now.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Sorry let me try that again.

You are beating your head against the wall. This person will forget everything you’ve stated here and in a week will be telling you that you were wanting Romney in the primary and have been shilling him since day one and then call you a progressive.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM

None of this matters. Gingrich was not the nominee. I did what I could to defeat Obama even if I didn’t “love” the candidate. It is time for people to move on from this asinine game of “McCain outperformed Romney” or “Anybody other than Romney could have beaten Obama.” It’s all history. The future is what is important now.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 9:41 PM

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:54 PM

Time to move on? Uh uh. We’re going to KEEP bringing it up to forestall having the very same shit thrown in our faces the next cycle.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM

then that will be the person going against the moron the Democrats run.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

And what difference will that make? Ya gotta vote for Chris Christie or A LIBERAL MIGHT WIN!!! Or will it be King Jeb The First of the Royal House of Bush?

Be still my beating heart.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Time to move on? Uh uh. We’re going to KEEP bringing it up to forestall having the very same shit thrown in our faces the next cycle.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Yup.

And their defense of Romney is what is going to get the shit shoveled again… I could care less if they supported Newt in the primary, if they are still willing to argue that Romney was the best choice today, that support is worthless.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM

You are beating your head against the wall. This person will forget everything you’ve stated here and in a week will be telling you that you were wanting Romney in the primary and have been shilling him since day one and then call you a progressive.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM

No, it’s that anyone who correctly predicted exactly what would happen to Mr Electable was, let’s see: a “butthurt Palinista”, an OWser, an OFA operative, a filthy commie bastard, an O-bot.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

And what difference will that make? Ya gotta vote for Chris Christie or A LIBERAL MIGHT WIN!!! Or will it be King Jeb The First of the Royal House of Bush?

Be still my beating heart.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

Eggggggzackly.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Which I never figured out the logic of this, establishment candidates like Landon, Wilkie, Dewey don’t win, the closest are Nixon and George HW Bush, of course, the primary conducted with the Dem’s chorus, the MSM, moderating the match was a big problem,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Time to move on? Uh uh. We’re going to KEEP bringing it up to forestall having the very same shit thrown in our faces the next cycle.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Yup.

And their defense of Romney is what is going to get the shit shoveled again… I could care less if they supported Newt in the primary, if they are still willing to argue that Romney was the best choice today, that support is worthless.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Remember when a certain media type (hint, hint) equated Mitt to a second Reagan? Yeeeeeeeeah. Haven’t followed said person since and don’t care to do so ever again. We need to weed out those people who don’t have the best interests of the conservative movement at heart.

I even have had major issues with pundits like Krauthammer who repeatedly bashed Sarah Palin. Now, the only Talking Head I give a darn about is David Byrne…

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Seems they are performing up to par, again;

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/republican-establishment-slipping-in-missouri-congressional-race/

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Which I never figured out the logic of this, establishment candidates like Landon, Wilkie, Dewey don’t win, the closest are Nixon and George HW Bush, of course, the primary conducted with the Dem’s chorus, the MSM, moderating the match was a big problem,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 10:02 PM

George H.W. Bush ran on Reagan’s coat tails the first time, and won. Second time, he didn’t have that advantage, and lost.

Nixon won in 1968 because the Democrat Party imploded in historical proportions (prompted in part by the incumbent refusing to run again, an insurgent candidate getting murdered, and the convention disintegrating into total chaos). Any other cycle, and Nixon probably would have lost. His 1972 reelection doesn’t and shouldn’t count.

The only time a non-establishment candidate lost was Goldwater in 1964. But Rockerfeller likely wasn’t going to win, either. The mood of the country was not going to allow a Republican to win. The “Daisy” ad only served as a tipping point. The only saving grace from that race was, Reagan learned from Barry’s missteps.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 10:18 PM

then that will be the person going against the moron the Democrats run.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 9:52 PM

And what difference will that make? Ya gotta vote for Chris Christie or A LIBERAL MIGHT WIN!!! Or will it be King Jeb The First of the Royal House of Bush?

Be still my beating heart.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 9:57 PM

So you are giving up now and doing absolutely nothing to get involved or try to get a better candidate in?

Why is it bad to care if your only choices might be crappy or crappier?

Did I say that people had to vote? No, I was talking about caring who the choices might be.

Anything for the argument, even if you have to build a strawman or misrepresent, huh?

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 10:18 PM

No, I meant in the general election, he is just pointing out that they are flacking the establishment candidates like Christie, four years out,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 10:21 PM

No, it’s that anyone who correctly predicted exactly what would happen to Mr Electable was, let’s see: a “butthurt Palinista”, an OWser, an OFA operative, a filthy commie bastard, an O-bot.

ddrintn on January 4, 2013 at 9:59 PM

Your obsession and anger towards not being hailed as a visionary has made you incoherent.

I recall saying (along with others) how totally craptacular the choices in the primary were. “We’re going to try to beat Obama, his billion dollars and the media with this gang of stiffs?”

That sound like confidence to you?

I don’t think anyone really had much hope until near the end when the BS was flying fast. Maybe the last two weeks at best people actually believed that Romney might have a chance, or maybe right after the debates.

What should we have done? Stayed home? Gave up? Cried? Continued being useless negative nellies b!tching and moaning? Vote for a random joke candidate or Johnson?

So instead we tried to make the best of it and drag a sorry RINO across the finish line because the alternative was worse.

I’d love to hear what your solution would have been, because as you are giving us right now is a bunch of useless “I told you so’s” while watching the liberals destroy the constitution.

It must really suck to be you if this is the best you can offer.

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Anything for the argument, even if you have to build a strawman or misrepresent, huh?

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 10:18 PM

What strawman do you mean? Jeb Bush might very well be the nominee, and with open primaries and GOP support that won’t be something the base has a great deal of say in.

sharrukin on January 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM

…and may their hemorrhoids be flaming… as they burn in he11…!!!
KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Bwahahaha. Me and my hemorrhoids are chilling just fine over here watching RINOs like you blow a gasket over our refusal to vote for your quislings.

Get used to it!!! There are millions of us waiting for a conservative to vote for but at the same time refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils when we have third and forth options.

AH_C on January 4, 2013 at 11:04 PM

We’re pretty freaking depressed that we a) performed dismally in congressional primaries compared to 2010 and b) the people who swore they knew what was best for us turned out not to know anything. Hey, at least we knew we didn’t know anything! But we weren’t really depressed until the election was over.

alwaysfiredup on January 4, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Thank you. As far as I’m concerned you speak for millions of us who feel exactly the same way.

HiJack on January 4, 2013 at 11:15 PM

The mainstream GOP doesn’t have the balls to support a conservative that may have a gaffe in his/her background. You don’t see the dems backing off their candidates no matter how crazy they are. Once they have a candidate, they back him/her 100%.

Vince on January 4, 2013 at 11:18 PM

It’s not a question of moderate vs ultra conservative. The problem with Akin was that he couldn’t answer a question from the media without shooting himself in the foot. He was a bad candidate, regardless of his views. So it’s not simply about moderate Republicans finding a more moderate candidate but rather it’s about finding a candidate with enough savvy and professionalism to deal effectively with a hostile media.

cicerone on January 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Right.

Mitt’s statement about the 47% was just as stupid.

Mitt’s support of Obama Care and his passing the first version of it Romney Care were both far less Republican than Todd’s statement which he took back as soon as possible.

Yet no one asked Mitt to resign. In fact Todd is the only one ever asked to resign a position he won in a primary for a stupid statement that was retracted. In fact the first asked to resign for anything non criminal reason.

Like others had said had Todd been a Democrat they would have supported him 100% even if he had been charged criminally for something.

There is no defense for the actions taken against Todd Akin.

There is no defense for all the GOP leaders in Nevada endorsing Harry Reid Democrat Senate over Sharon Angle.

But to do that then blame those you stabbed in the back should be criminal.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:19 PM

George H.W. Bush ran on Reagan’s coat tails the first time, and won. Second time, he didn’t have that advantage, and lost.

Myron Falwell on January 4, 2013 at 10:18 PM

You forgot one thing about George H.W. Bush losing the second time: he lied, as in, “Read my lips.”

HiJack on January 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM

kim roy on January 4, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Vote for the lesser of two evils.

No. No. No.

I will not vote for evil ever again.

I regretted voting for McCain I am glad he lost. We were promised the GOP would not make the same mistake in 2012 but they made a much bigger one actually nominating the author of Obama Care we went to the polls and put the Republicans in charge of the House to repeal. Mitt was an utter embarrassment. Far worse than McCain. Scorched Earth against his Republican Opponents then a love fest with Obama. Obama accuses him of Murder. Mitt says let’s just get along. Eventually Mitt seemed to be agreeing with Obama on everything. Now his son lets us know Mitt never wanted to be President.

Come on. Nominate a man that does not want the job is 100% insane. STUPID PARTY. Either get a brain or go the way of the Whig Party you replaced.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:27 PM

You forgot one thing about George H.W. Bush losing the second time: he lied, as in, “Read my lips.”

HiJack on January 4, 2013 at 11:22 PM

He became Establishment and lost Big Time.

His son also became Establishment but only after he won the second time. He showed us what a huge mistake America would have made had they given GHW a second term by being the worst second term President in history and universally hated by the Right and Left when he left office in disgrace giving all three branches with huge majorities to the Democrats. But the GOP learned nothing from this. STUPID PARTY.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:32 PM

And their defense of Romney is what is going to get the shit shoveled again… I could care less if they supported Newt in the primary, if they are still willing to argue that Romney was the best choice today, that support is worthless.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Reading (comprehension) is fun! Try it.

I wrote that I didn’t support anyone in the primaries. I said that I would vote for whomever you guys nominated because, as a libertarian, the Republican nominee would be my best chance of defeating Obama. Again, I didn’t support Romney over Newt or Bachmann over Santorum. You Republicans picked your candidate. All that I did was to do what I could to defeat Barack Obama.

How you continue to get the idea that I believe that Romney was the best choice is beyond me. The fact of the matter is that he was, nevertheless, the ONLY alternative in the general election that had any chance to beat Obama.

Start nominating better candidates. It’s not my party nor my fault.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM

The fact of the matter is that he was, nevertheless, the ONLY alternative in the general election that had any chance to beat Obama.

Start nominating better candidates. It’s not my party nor my fault.

Resist We Much on January 4, 2013 at 11:38 PM

There you go again.

Stating Propaganda as fact.

Fact is Mitt proved he was not electable by losing. Thus 100% we know he was the wrong choice. Only way to know if they others would have won it is to have run them. Opinion is not fact. It is Propaganda when presented as fact. Hitler would love you I do not.

I can not prove Santorum would have won. I am of the opinion he would have. You disagree but so what. I know Mitt could not win 100%. You lie if you say that about Santorum.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Last time, Romney spent 50 million, before quitting the campaign, this time 150 million or so, pulverizing anyone with a semblance of Tea Party support, it worked about as well as Nelson Rockefeller,
had he won the nomination in either ’64 or ’68,

narciso on January 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM

He became Establishment and lost Big Time.

His son also became Establishment but only after he won the second time. He showed us what a huge mistake America would have made had they given GHW a second term by being the worst second term President in history and universally hated by the Right and Left when he left office in disgrace giving all three branches with huge majorities to the Democrats. But the GOP learned nothing from this. STUPID PARTY.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:32 PM

WRONG! They were always establishment. How do you think they got positioned to be nominated in the first place? And you’re correct: the GOP is very stupid, except that they know how to play the Christian right.

HiJack on January 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Allahpundit, your ‘sense of the matter’ is simply full of excrement, colored by your own liberal biases and the liberal cant of this audience. You’re quite simply incapable of properly judging what the proper actions are for the GOP expecially with regards to conservatives. Just as the GOP Establishment / ‘Beltway’ a-holes are incapable. They are incapable of leadership in this regard, and incapable of winning any elections as Democrat-lite, going forward. The GOP is dead as a party, if they remain dominated by progressive-establishment morons, as they currently are.
I know your supper is dependent upon maintaining the fiction that the GOP is viable and opposed to the Democrats, but it simply isn’t the case. As long as the Beltway Establishment – of BOTH titular parties – remains a frat club of comity, nothing will function or recover in this nation.
Harsh corrections need to be made throughout our government bureaucracies and policies and as long as the GOP Establishment – and the digital nomenklatura that are wed to them at the hip – remains focused on wishing conservatives into the cornfield, those corrections will not be made. And jiggling voodoo dolls labeled Sharon Angle/Christine O’Donnell/Todd Akin/Sarah Palin around is not going to deliver any elections. Damned liberal retards.

rayra on January 5, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Welll there is a certain quality of ‘promises broken’ that I don’t think W ever made, he ran as a ‘compassionate conservative’ not focuses on border enforcement, or rigorous budgeting, but pro tax cut, and pro military, but the pickings were pretty slim in 2000, just marginally better then the Democratic primary picks, Bradley,

narciso on January 5, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Just to be clear, I am no longer a Republican. As this site says, it is for conservatives.

Hot Air is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Republican primary, the 2012 election, politics, media, and culture.

In fact, I doubt there will be too many down tickets I even waste my time filling an oval in for in the future unless something drastic changes within the Republican party.

astonerii on January 4, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Surely you realize that slogan is a ridiculous fraud? This site hasn’t been ‘conservative’ since Malkin left. The social liberals running it don’t know wtf ‘conservative’ actually means and worse are completely hung up on destroying actual conservatives.

rayra on January 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM

A couple of comments on the comments. First, Christine O’Donnell, the media attacks on her were, in some ways, more ruthless than they were against Sarah Palin. Is the standard now something someone says when they’re 18-19 years old? By the time the press was finished with her, no one knew whether she had a brain or not because she was too busy answering witch questions. When the sycophant media supports the Democrat, like they did in Delaware, winning is extremely difficult, for anyone.

Secondly, Newt would have been a harder election for Obama. Playing the class-warfare card would have been a lot more difficult against Gingrich and Newt would have forced the election to be a battle of ideas and wouldn’t have allowed the press to create a false narrative, all of which Romney did. If you asked the Obama voters what Romney stood for, all they would talk about is the 47% comment and nothing else. Sorry, you can’t win when that is the narrative.

Finally, the Republicans have a media problem and they’d better deal with it. It was the media, as much as the candidates, who drove the Republican candidates down. It’s one thing to say something stupid, any candidate can do that, it’s quite another for the press to play it up day in and day out. If, during the 24 hour news cycle, all anyone ever hears about you is your gaffe, you’ll never get to talk about what you stand for or against.

bflat879 on January 5, 2013 at 12:16 AM

Don’t worry Mitt Romney is about to take his gloves off and go after Obama’s lousy leadership record.

SparkPlug on January 4, 2013 at 7:19 PM

aaaaanny minute now.

/mine is a bitter laugh

rayra on January 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM

To the progressive retards running the GOP Establishment –
CLOSE the Primaries in these states -

Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
New Hampshire
North Carolina
North Dakota
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin

rayra on January 5, 2013 at 12:26 AM

There you go again.

Stating Propaganda as fact.

Fact is Mitt proved he was not electable by losing. Thus 100% we know he was the wrong choice. Only way to know if they others would have won it is to have run them. Opinion is not fact. It is Propaganda when presented as fact. Hitler would love you I do not.

I can not prove Santorum would have won. I am of the opinion he would have. You disagree but so what. I know Mitt could not win 100%. You lie if you say that about Santorum.

Steveangell on January 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM

Rucking fetard, Santorum dropped out of the primaries. I SAID that, IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, there was ONLY ONE CANDIDATE with A CHANCE OF BEATING OBAMA. That was the REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. That was for whom I voted.

Again, if you idiots had nominated a liverwurst sammich, I would have voted for said sammich even though I DESPISE liverwurst. I’m a libertarian. I didn’t choose your candidate. I only voted for and gave him money because he was the ONLY chance to beat Obama. My vote was, in actuality, NOT FOR Romney, but AGAINST Obama.

You stayed home. You did NOTHING to beat Obama. Now, STFU, assh0le.

Nothing I have said is propaganda.

Resist We Much on January 5, 2013 at 12:32 AM

At least until they go and back another Crist.

Um, no.

Good Lt on January 5, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3