Top Romney strategist: No, I wouldn’t say the media’s “in the tank” for Obama

posted at 5:21 pm on February 25, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via Mediaite, I’m going to cut this guy a bit of a break, for two reasons. One: He’s not denying that the media’s on Obama’s side. He’s quibbling with the phrase “in the tank,” which he seems to define, roughly, as being unwilling to ask uncomfortable questions under any circumstances. By that definition, he’s right — why, just this morning the White House press corps got Jay Carney to skedaddle from the podium by pressing him a bit too hard about OFA influence peddling. It’s not that they categorically refuse to report stories that are “unhelpful” to the administration, it’s that they pull their punches with The One in ways they never, ever would with a Republican. The tone of their coverage about the DOJ’s “white paper” memo on targeting U.S. citizens is a classic example. So is Benghazi. In both cases they covered the story, but their coverage was more circumspect and incurious than it would be under President McCain or President Romney. Partly that’s because O’s on the same side of the Cause and partly it’s because they’re starstruck by him. When their professional interest in exposing abuses of power aligns with their political interest in promoting liberalism and its standard bearers, they’re far more formidable than when those interests are at cross purposes. That’s what it means to be in the tank.

Two: Stevens just came out with an op-ed running through the familiar post-election verse-chorus-verse about how the GOP’s problems can’t be attributed to any one factor but require a total yadda yadda yadda. When you’re making that argument, obviously you want to do what you can to downplay the effects of media bias on Republican chances. Otherwise, the energy to undertake needed reforms will be channeled into carping about the press and the GOP rehabilitation project will suffer. In Stevens’s case, the one factor that we supposedly shouldn’t attribute Romney’s defeat to is the technological gap between his campaign and Obama’s. That’s fine — even had Project ORCA gone swimmingly, there’s no reason to think it would have affected the election’s results — but what Stevens conveniently omits is that Romney wasn’t supposed to get beat on organizational nuts and bolts. That was his big selling point: He was a managerial genius who’d make up for his ideological heresies by running a ship as tight as the one he ran at Bain. Except he didn’t; he got crushed by the other guy’s consultants and data-crunchers, which undermines the whole argument for electing him technocrat-in-chief. That’s a big deal, even if it’s not an all-purpose explanation for the GOP’s problems.

Exit question via Charlie Spiering: Why, when the party’s busy trying to remake itself, won’t Romney and Stevens go away?


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

Another example of why we lost.

Warner Todd Huston on February 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Oh, b.s. In the tank doesn’t begin to cover their boot-licking behavior. Like a dog neglected and abused, they roll over for the proverbial tummy rub the minute the master shows them some attention. It’s pathetic and he’s an obfuscating shill.

totherightofthem on February 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Poster boy for the consequences of gutlessness.

novaculus on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Romney was so ill-served by his top advisers that it’s almost political malpractice.

But then again, in the election cycle of Mark Block and Ed Rollins, maybe Romney got off easy.

KingGold on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

No, I wouldn’t say the media’s “in the tank” for Obama

Translated:

“I’m currently available as a strategist for any political leaning”

Philo Beddoe on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

http://tinyurl.com/6bwh4gj

Good Lt on February 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Why Romney lost, 101. You refused to call it as it was and be bold.

Philly on February 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Exit question via Charlie Spiering: Why, when the party’s busy trying to remake itself, won’t Romney and Stevens go away?

The party is trying to remake itself to be more like Romney. The leadership seems to genuinely believe the reason they lost is because Romney was “too conservative.”

Doomberg on February 25, 2013 at 5:24 PM

With friends like these who needs friends

Steven McGregor on February 25, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Sure, because Obama’s shit is Beluga caviar, fool.

Schadenfreude on February 25, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Exit question via Charlie Spiering: Why, when the party’s busy trying to remake itself, won’t Romney and Stevens go away?

Romney is likely bored out of his mind. I’m sure that Ann is probably tired of him following her around the house. Guy really just needs something to do.

Stevens needs money from TV appearances and consulting fees. He needs to either sign a TV deal or rehabilitate his reputation enough that he’ll get hired to run another campaign.

Illinidiva on February 25, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Romney was so ill-served by his top advisers that it’s almost political malpractice.

But then again, in the election cycle of Mark Block and Ed Rollins, maybe Romney got off easy.

KingGold on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Are there any really good, top tier Republican political advisors out there? I haven’t heard of one since the Architect.

Illinidiva on February 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I’m with Charlie Spiering on this thing, too. Why are they still hanging around??? Just go away, period.

Bob in VA on February 25, 2013 at 5:29 PM

It’s not that they categorically refuse to report stories that are “unhelpful” to the administration, it’s that they pull their punches with The One in ways they never, ever would with a Republican.

Remind me how that gets the media outside the tank again?

That was his big selling point: He was a managerial genius who’d make up for his ideological heresies by running a ship as tight as the one he ran at Bain. Except he didn’t; he got crushed by the other guy’s consultants and data-crunchers, which undermines the whole argument for electing him technocrat-in-chief. That’s a big deal, even if it’s not an all-purpose explanation for the GOP’s problems.

Aside from the repeatedly-listed failings of Mitt’s gubernatorial record, the GOP probably should’ve known that Mitt wouldn’t live up to his billing as “best manager ever” after Fehrnstrom’s “Etch-a-Sketch” remark and the spokeswoman he had that was defending the awesomeness of Romneycare. There are plenty of folks out there that can represent a campaign that would never say anything so stupid.

Stoic Patriot on February 25, 2013 at 5:29 PM

He’s quibbling with the phrase “in the tank,” which he seems to define, roughly, as being unwilling to ask uncomfortable questions under any circumstances. By that definition, he’s right — why, just this morning the White House press corps got Jay Carney to skedaddle from the podium by pressing him a bit too hard about OFA influence peddling.

Stopped clock reporting should not be tolerated but it seems now we are nitpicking of what the meaning of “is” is.

Of course they are in the tank. Once in a while they ask a few questions to look like they are still somewhat sentient and then go back to sleep for a while.

Let me know when they fully investigate F&F and Benghazi. Then we can have discussions over “in the tank”.

kim roy on February 25, 2013 at 5:32 PM

This babbling dolt explains a great deal about why Romney lost.

pat on February 25, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Romney was so ill-served by his top advisers that it’s almost political malpractice.

KingGold on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Who hired these top advisers?

Who decided to pay them more than their counterparts in the Obama campaign?

Who uncritically accepted their horrible strategies for dealing with the media, the Obama machine, the base, and the electorate as a whole?

The. Most. Competent. CEO. Evah.

That’s who.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Two words: Candy Crowley

Colbyjack on February 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Warner Todd Huston on February 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Dingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingdingding

RealMc on February 25, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The problem is that we are paying attention to dopes likes this ( even making rationalizations for his thought process and choice of word as the author of this article does ) but all the people that didn’t like Mitt are ignored. Where’s the interviews with Molinari and Talent etal. about how wrong they were. Now we are giving the time of day to complete moronic Mittwit. Can’t these people find a hole somewhere to crawl into.

rik on February 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Top Romney strategist: No, I wouldn’t say the media’s “in the tank” for Obama

Wow,cut from the same cloth as those McVain advisers who betrayed Sarah Palin.

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Stevens and his idiocy are more proof of Romney’s ineptitude and the fact that Mittens surrounded himself with morons. He never got rid of the etch-a-sketch idiot and went on to build the most incapable team around, achieving the near impossible of losing to Barky, all while Barky had destroyed the economy, illegally gone to war in Libya, had our embassies under attack around the world, covered up for his culpability in the death of 4 Americans, including the ambassador, …

It took a real loser of world caliber to throw the election of 2012 but the Vichy Right showed their world class loser nature by forcing a candidate on us who was even worse than that miserable POS McShame. And now they’re pushing treasonous amnesty+ … again. Friggin idiots.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Stevens, Ed Gillespie, Kevin Madden, Mike Murphy, Alex Castellanos, Andrea Saul, “Mr. Etch-A-Sketch” – is it any wonder why Romney lost? Having a team like this is like trying to win the World Series with a team of .125 batters that can’t field and a pitching staff with a 14.85 ERA.

At least Romney didn’t pick up Steve Schmidt and Mark and Nicolle Wallace who, in my opinion, purposely tried to sabotage the 2008 campaign.

These “gracious losers” have been wrong time after time, yet, for some strange reason, the GOP and its presidential candidates still listen to them and hire them to destroy campaigns.

These so-called “strategists” are far more interested in maintaining good relationships with their liberal friends and being invited to the best Beltway cocktail parties than winning elections.

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Regarding the exit question, I’ll pass along this information for those who might be interested:

Chris Wallace will have an exclusive interview with Mitt and Ann Romney next week on Fox News Sunday.

The interview will be Romney’s first since his embarrassing, career-ending, Obama-enabling, yet entirely predictable electoral loss.

bluegill will be throwing a viewing party in honor of the non-conquering hero.

All are invited (except the Alaskan chillbilly, of course).

Cucumber sandwiches and weak tea will be served.

Jarred baby food will be available as an alternative for the supposedly toothless Palinistas.

bluegill requests that moderately formal attire be worn.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Well, now, I wouldn’t say that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXIc3ByhSxA

The Rogue Tomato on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Flaming nitwit. Un-effing-believable.

Glad Romney lost … he’s too stupid to represent conservatives. Press the RNC to make sure that this imbecile never works another Republican campaign as long as he lives.

Jaibones on February 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Semantically, he is correct.

“Wearing kneepads” is not the same as being “in the tank”.

“Wearing kneepads” is an order of magnitude beyond being “in the tank”.

Translation of his remarks:

“If I grovel enough, will someone give a job?”

PolAgnostic on February 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM

He’s quibbling with the phrase “in the tank,” which he seems to define, roughly, as being unwilling to ask uncomfortable questions under any circumstances. By that definition, he’s right — why, just this morning the White House press corps got Jay Carney to skedaddle from the podium by pressing him a bit too hard about OFA influence peddling

Yeah, they really were on top of that Benghazi story before the election. They are indeed willing to ask uncomfortable questions but the circumstances include beneficial timing so that the rat-eared wonder or one of his flying monkeys being able to say-

At this point does it really matter?

Happy Nomad on February 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Two words: Candy Crowley Cowley

Colbyjack on February 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Fixed it for you.

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Romney was so ill-served by his top advisers that it’s almost political malpractice.

But then again, in the election cycle of Mark Block and Ed Rollins, maybe Romney got off easy.

KingGold on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

So your saying Mitt could of won with different advisors. While your up mix me one too.

rik on February 25, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Brain death is a terrible affliction.

VorDaj on February 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM

So THESE are the USELESS IDIOTS the MittBots were/are in the tank for? No wonder the GOPe keeps losing elections. Their followers remain as clueless as the typical liberal.

IF it weren’t for the TEA Partys across America I would see no reason to vote at all.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors“. Plato

“One of the penalties of having lethargic voters is we end up with the lousiest candidates imaginable”. Danno

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Are there any really good, top tier Republican political advisors out there? I haven’t heard of one since the Architect.

Illinidiva on February 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM

You’re talking about the man who was responsible for Bush43 barely winning a race in which he should have totally blown Kerry away and the debacle of 2006.

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Brain death is a terrible affliction.

VorDaj on February 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Well, on the positive side, at least he never has to worry about Zombies…

SWalker on February 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Two words: Candy CrowleyCowleySowley

Colbyjack on February 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

FIFBY

rik on February 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

And Mitt was so stupid he believed him!McCLame in ’08,then Mittens in ’12-we deserved to lose.

redware on February 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

What an put of touch moron.

jawkneemusic on February 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

How an intelligent man can spend six years of his live and $50+ million of his own money trying to become President and hire these bumbling idiots to mis-manage his campaign is beyond me,

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM

I agree there was no excuse for Romney to be outdone on the nuts and bolts in a campaign from a managerial perspective but I am not sure that explains Republicans’ problems this election. I think Allahpundit hit it early on in realizing enough voters didn’t blame Obama for our current economic conditions.

Granted, Romney could have done a better job explaining but his campaign did have a predominant theme, “It doesn’t have to be this way.” Clearly this wasn’t enough. Republicans have allowed the message “George Bush economic positions got us into this mess” to fester and take hold. There was plenty to dislike with Bush but allowing blame for the economic meltdown to stay at his feet is absurd.

I sense a hopelessness among younger folks about the state of the economy. Older voters who believed it doesn’t have to be this way voted for Romney. Younger voters seem to think neither party has the answers so they might as well grab the free goods while they can. When you have polls showing 70% think it is a great idea to increase minimum wage while folks like Matt Yglesias resort to feeding Republicans ideas to fight against that idea we have major problems. The general electorate just doesn’t seem to understand there are consequences for these things.

msmveritas on February 25, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Are there any really good, top tier Republican political advisors out there? I haven’t heard of one since the Architect.

Illinidiva on February 25, 2013 at 5:28 PM

The Architect of what, exactly? The Republican Party’s destruction?

Just so everyone’s clear on Rove’s record:

2000: Bush wins with 271 electoral votes, one more than needed, and loses popular vote by 0.5%. Everything comes down to Florida’s 25 EV.

2004: Bush wins with 286 electoral votes, 16 more than needed, and wins popular vote by 2.4%. Everything comes down to Ohio’s 20 EV.

Compare to Obama’s decisive electoral wins and the fact that he carried the popular vote by 7% and 4% in ’08 and ’12.

To say that Rove won big in 2000 and 2004 is just factually wrong. Seems more like dumb luck.

Add to that the GOP disasters of 2006 and 2008, brought about largely by Rove’s guiding hand, and it becomes clear that Rove is no Great Architect. A little more detail about what led voters to reject Republicans in those years:

Now to the point, the guidance of Rove and his partners led Bush and Congressional Republicans to squander every bit of political capital they had accumulated since 1994.

The handling of Iraq was atrocious, with no one stepping up to offer a proper defense and push back against the media lies and distortions. Rove has admitted his own guilt in this regard.

No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the push for Amnesty, l’Affaire Abramoff, urging Mark Foley to run for reelection — Rove’s fingerprints are all over the place.

steebo77 on February 18, 2013 at 2:17 PM

steebo77 on February 19, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Add to that the abnormalities surrounding the 2002 midterms (1 year after 9/11, the Dems having their “Wellstone” moment) and it’s obvious that Rove’s record really is awful.

Myron Falwell on February 19, 2013 at 1:08 PM

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:51 PM

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Will this be before of after President Romney’s inaugural address? I understand he is considering Stu Stevens for Secretary of State.

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:52 PM

How an intelligent man can spend six years of his live and $50+ million of his own money trying to become President and hire these bumbling idiots to mis-manage his campaign is beyond me,

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM

What frightens the heck out of me is that this might actually be the best out there. The other side has the deviants and liars. We have the incompetent and stupid?

Oooof.

kim roy on February 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Yep, nothing like putting blinders on and ignoring the blatantly obvious.

And you wonder why you lost.

Gothguy on February 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

From headline thread

Rombots? What say you?

gryphon202 on February 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM
“It was YOU! You Palincultist stay home communist troll! He could have been somebody. He could have been a contender. It was YOU gryphon.”

katy the mean old lady on February 25, 2013 at 10:43 AM

katy the mean old lady on February 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Well, McLame said that Obama would make a good president. Same stupid, different day.

RoadRunner on February 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

But then again, in the election cycle of Mark Block and Ed Rollins, maybe Romney got off easy.

KingGold on February 25, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Romney probably would have been better off with Mark Block and Ed Rollins.

Punchenko on February 25, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Another example of why we those idiots lost.

Warner Todd Huston on February 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Slight correction needed.

Kensington on February 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Republican Rats moving from ship to ship.

portlandon on February 25, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Yep, nothing like putting blinders on and ignoring the blatantly obvious.

And you wonder why you lost.

Gothguy on February 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Stevens is angling for a chair next to Schmidt on MSNBC. It’s a career move.

Punchenko on February 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM

“One of the penalties of having lethargic voters is we end up with the lousiest candidates imaginable”. Danno

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM

The opposite is probably truer. Lousy candidates make lethargic voters.

RickB on February 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM

The Romney campaign had so many arrows in its quiver (the economy, Benghazi, unemployment, Obama’s executive orders, Obama’s lies, etc., etc., etc. But, people like Stevens and the other Romney staffers refused to get tough because it might offend their liberal friends and harm their chances to get good paying jobs from the liberal media after the election.

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 6:05 PM

If Romney couldn’t recognize that the people he surrounded himself with were incompetent, self serving opportunists, Then I have serious doubts about how successful his Presidency would have been.

portlandon on February 25, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Denying the reason his candidate lost was the reason his candidate lost, there’s a clue.

So, if the media had been on Mitt’s side, he would have still lost?

Speakup on February 25, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Exhibit #564 of Why Romney Lost.

rrpjr on February 25, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I didn’t realize it was Stevens who said this until I read all the way through. This guy is a one-of-a-kind, stupendous and malignant idiot.

In any case, imagine having to put “top Romney strategist” on your resume. But I suppose in Washington, nobody cares.

rrpjr on February 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

I liked Romney. I voted for Romney. I still believe Romney would have been a better president than Obama.

But…

The real measure of an executive is the people he chooses to work for him. Obviously, Stevens was not a good choice. Gov. Romney failed on this one. Curiously, Sen. McCain had the same problem with his staff turning on his campaign. Sen. McCain failed on this one.

Hint to the next republican presidential candidate… Get the hell out of the North East for your staff choices. I don’t care how much experience they have, they ain’t on your side.

WestTexasBirdDog on February 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Top Romney Strategist: “No, I wouldn’t say that Icebergs in the Atlantic played any part in sinking the Titanic.”

portlandon on February 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Answer to exit question:

Because – the third times a charm. Romney wants another shot in 2016.

famous amos on February 25, 2013 at 6:17 PM

It took a real loser of world caliber to throw the election of 2012 but the Vichy Right showed their world class loser nature by forcing a candidate on us who was even worse than that miserable POS McShame. And now they’re pushing treasonous amnesty+ … again. Friggin idiots.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Not idiots. The other thing. They don’t want to win if the price would be having to, you know, actually change anything in Washington.

bofh on February 25, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Gee, I wonder why we lost?

AllahsNippleHair on February 25, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Top Romney strategist: No, I wouldn’t say the media’s “in the tank” for Obama

…he’s either banging Candy the Cow…or his brain against a beam!

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Exit question via Charlie Spiering: Why, when the party’s busy trying to remake itself, won’t Romney and Stevens go away?

I have this feeling Romney is planning on another run.

JellyToast on February 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM

JellyToast on February 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Why not? He’s probably got another $500 million to burn.

rrpjr on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

There are several reasons for Romney’s loss IMHO:

#1 Should have selected Rubio for VP and reached out to Hispanics

#2 Candy Crawley and a Press that isn’t in the Tank for Obama they are on their Knees

#3 Governor Chris “Benedict Arnold” Christie

But another very important one was Romney fought by Marquis of Queensbury rules while the other side went Medeival on Romney.
It is not surprising with advisers like this guy.

Natebo on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Stevens is not wanting to sound like a poor loser, however he only projects weakness. Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think they lost because of a weak candidate. The challenges are much more serious than the candidate.

Mitt Romney is a first class executive and manager. He was up against a campaign that had the support of 90% of the media and which had been organizing for 5 years.

He was also walking a tightrope as he tried to appeal to the disparate elements of the GOP without alienating Independents.

The clip below shows the kind of coverage he got for supporting Tea Partier Richard Mourdock, who is described as Romney’s favorite Senate candidate.

http://americablog.com/2012/10/mccain-mourdock-rape-romney.html

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Exit question via Charlie Spiering: Why, when the party’s busy trying to remake itself, won’t Romney and Stevens go away?

I have this feeling Romney is planning on another run.

JellyToast on February 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I have the feeling our field will consist of the following:
Jeb Bush
Ron Huntsman
Bobby Jindal
Chris Christie

And the Libertarians will still be stroking Harry Johnson.

AllahsNippleHair on February 25, 2013 at 6:26 PM

This just proves that Stevens and many other ex Romney hacks are cruising through life in permanent dumb-ass mode.

woodNfish on February 25, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Not in the tank, but on their knees, trying to earn a pair of White House knee pads.

ProfShadow on February 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Top Romney strategist: No, I wouldn’t say the media’s “in the tank” for Obama

More ‘irony’?

socalcon on February 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM

The opposite is probably truer. Lousy candidates make lethargic voters.

RickB on February 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Rick, how in the WORLD do you think we end up with LOUSY Candidates? Do you think someone waves a magic wand? Better yet, how did we end up with the few TERRIFIC representatives he have in congress today?

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”. Plato

Thus when Americans remain too lethargic to get involved with groups like the TEA Party Patriots they end up with another lousy government that immediately increases their taxes so as to say Thank You!

Get involved or stop whining because the REAL problem is staring you in the face every time you use a mirror. You get what you’ve earned. Nothing more.

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 6:31 PM

bluegill requests that moderately formal attire be worn.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Will she have plastic sheeting on the floor in case she gets too excited?

arnold ziffel on February 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM

“Why won’t Romney and Stevens go away?”

I hope they stick around! The more these losers talk, the less likely it becomes we do for a third time what lost the last two elections.

MTF on February 25, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

In other words, Romney’s loss had nothing to do with Romney.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Will she have plastic sheeting on the floor in case she gets too excited?

arnold ziffel on February 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM

The gown she had custom-made for Romney’s inaugural balls, and has been wearing ever since November 6th, was lined with shower curtain liners on the inside in anticipation of such eventualities.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 6:37 PM

If this guy doesn’t understand the media is prejudiced, it’s no wonder Romney lost. After Candy Crowley making Romney look like a liar in front of 65 million people, he was on CNN. If I were him, I wouldn’t give CNN the time of day, EVER.

bflat879 on February 25, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Mitt Romney is a first class executive and manager.

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

No he isn’t. The fact that he hired losers like Andrea Saul, Eric Fehrnstrom, and this Stevens idiot to run his campaign is proof. The fact that his team couldn’t even do something as elemental as put together a credible GOTV effort or ad-buying strategy is more proof. Tell me again, how much money did he spend on the miserable failure known as Operation Fail Whale? How many consultants got rich fleecing him?

He was up against a campaign that had the support of 90% of the media and which had been organizing for 5 years.

BFD. So is every other Republican candidate.

Walter Sobchak on February 25, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Stevens is not wanting to sound like a poor loser, however he only projects weakness being someone who wants to be on the MSM payroll.

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

While I don’t often agree with you, I will admit that you consistently believe in RINOism and aren’t a whack-job like bluegill.

If the RINOs that mis-managed the Romney and McCain campaigns believed in RINOism to the degree you do, either of these men might have won. In 2008, Schmidt and the Wallaces made sure not to alienate any of the liberal friends and pretty much bailed on the campaign in the final weeks. Team Romney also went out of their way to convince Mitt Romney not to get tough as it might harm their future employment opportunities,

bw222 on February 25, 2013 at 6:43 PM

In other words, Romney’s loss had nothing to do with Romney.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 6:35 PM

What is really sad is there are people clueless enough to believe that and that is why we need to have tests before allowing ANYONE to vote.

Yes, those tests will be in English.

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Stuart Stevens needs a new line of work. He ran a terrible campaign and wore too many hats doing it. Ultimately, Gov. Romney bears responsibility for that fact. IMO.

mubando on February 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Some day perhaps, maybe, possibly, in my lifetime, the Republicans will find a candidate who knows how to run a presidential campaign to win. A man or woman who thinks inventively and boldly. At that moment, it will be a joy to see journeyman detritus and losers like Stevens and the political flaks and hacks who surround him get tossed over the side. A nice dream anyway.

rrpjr on February 25, 2013 at 6:48 PM

In other words, Romney’s loss had nothing to do with Romney.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 6:35 PM

It’s easy to blame Romney, if you ignore all the other reasons the GOP lost. How did he compare with the GOP Senate candidates in battleground states?

Did you even look at the video to which I linked. Any of you?

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:52 PM

One thing is for sure.If Mitt had won the media would NOT be in the tank for him.They would have screamed about scandals before the ignauguration and everyday since.Another factor is in my district they only let you vote once.

docflash on February 25, 2013 at 6:54 PM

bluegill requests that moderately formal attire be worn.

steebo77 on February 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

…I said this “down under“…in other words…just our birthday suits…and then it is a question as to cotton socks being considered a little too casual!
…she may expect rayon or nylon!

KOOLAID2 on February 25, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Here’s more information you Romney bashers can ignore.

Ponnuru- The Party is the problem

An excerpt:

Romney was not a drag on the Republican party. The Republican party was a drag on him. Aaron Blake pointed out in the Washington Post that Romney ran ahead of most of the Republican Senate candidates: He did better than Connie Mack in Florida, George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Denny Rehberg in Montana, Jeff Flake in Arizona, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan, Deb Fischer in Nebraska, Rick Berg in North Dakota, Josh Mandel in Ohio, and of course Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana. In some cases Romney did a lot better. (He also did slightly better than Ted Cruz in Texas, a race Blake for some reason ignored.)

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

And to think, I donated money to the campaign. What a wus. If you’re not going to fight then let me know and I won’t waste any money or energy on the campaign.

rjoco1 on February 25, 2013 at 7:01 PM

It’s easy to blame Romney, if you ignore all the other reasons the GOP lost. How did he compare with the GOP Senate candidates in battleground states?

Did you even look at the video to which I linked. Any of you?

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Those GOP Senate candidates weren’t running against the Worst President Ever and they didn’t have four years’ worth of “he’s the only one who can win” propaganda behind them. Or what was supposed to be Romney’s second-to-none organizational genius. I am sick of hearing this “but Romney got more votes that Mike Pence ion a red state” garbage. So what. That’s not much return for that six-year-long pathetic “campaign”.

ddrintn on February 25, 2013 at 7:06 PM

It’s easy to blame Romney, if you ignore all the other reasons the GOP lost. How did he compare with the GOP Senate candidates in battleground states?

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Remember the good old days when a candidate for POTUS had coattails? In this case Romney, hand in hand with the GOPe, flipped off Conservatives, Ron Paul supporters, and enough in the TEA Party to guarantee voters would stay home.

I KNOW what happened because I WORKED in that election cycle. I also correctly predicted that Romney would go back to his liberal roots when running, another reason Romney cost us elections.

BTW, TEA Party candidates won while GOPe candidates lost. Want to hear all about that?

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Mitt Romney is a first class executive and manager. He was up against a campaign that had the support of 90% of the media and which had been organizing for 5 years.

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:25 PM

And Romney had been campaigning for at least six years. And had had pretty substantial media support, given all that positive polling that was constantly highlighted.

ddrintn on February 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

This guy, Buy Danish, and joanna hardest hit…

Kleenex?

Nom de Boom on February 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

If this guy doesn’t understand the media is prejudiced, it’s no wonder Romney lost. After Candy Crowley making Romney look like a liar in front of 65 million people, he was on CNN. If I were him, I wouldn’t give CNN the time of day, EVER.

bflat879 on February 25, 2013 at 6:42 PM

In the world I come from, constant attacks on my character like Romney endured and the stacked media deck would ensure that a vigorous response was necessary. He missed so many damn opportunities to bury Obama with truth, facts and ridicule.

arnold ziffel on February 25, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Romney with all his management skills and accomplishment sure hires dumb and dumber assistants. they are qualified to work for Obama

Obamatrix on February 25, 2013 at 7:10 PM

This is exactly why Romney lost. He and his advisers could never manage to convince themselves they were in a fight. David Horowitz’s plan is better than anything the consultant class will ever pull out of its collective posterior. How Republicans Can Win

Nom de Boom on February 25, 2013 at 7:12 PM

they are qualified to work for Obama

Obamatrix on February 25, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Well, they were, for the most part.

ddrintn on February 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM

This guy, Buy Danish, and joanna hardest hit…

Kleenex?

Nom de Boom on February 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

And ironically, this Basilsbest person was telling us all summer and autumn how “magnificently” the Romney campaign was going. And just like that, as soon as the Ohio results came in, the predicatble excuses from the ‘bots. It was Sarah Palin. It was TruCons. We was robbed. The voters are idiotic socialists.

ddrintn on February 25, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Here’s more information you Romney bashers can ignore.

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 6:59 PM

And YOU can continue to ignore how Romney CREATED 0BAMACARE the SINGLE ISSUE that WOULD HAVE WON us the election!

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 7:15 PM

One more reason why Romney lost. Destroy your fellow Republicans, but don’t recognize the media as a fifth column.

INC on February 25, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Reading the comments on here and listening to everyone just denigrate a decent man (not perfect, certainly not conservative, but decent) like Romney is it no wonder no GOOD candidate will run.

Would YOU put yourself out there? To have the media give you and your a colonoscopy and then the people supposedly on YOUR SIDE do exactly the same?

And before anyone takes this as a defense of Romney in particular (because this sh1t goes one for every failed candidate in whatever house), it isn’t. It’s a rebuke of every complainer out there.

This is great advice:

Thus when Americans remain too lethargic to get involved with groups like the TEA Party Patriots they end up with another lousy government that immediately increases their taxes so as to say Thank You!

Get involved or stop whining because the REAL problem is staring you in the face every time you use a mirror. You get what you’ve earned. Nothing more.

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 6:31 PM

and until people get off their &sses and do something then you will get McCain and Romney as your candidate. Where were YOU when people like Palin, strong social and fiscal conservatives with no allegiance to any special interests, were crucified?

kim roy on February 25, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Remember the good old days when a candidate for POTUS had coattails? In this case Romney, hand in hand with the GOPe, flipped off Conservatives, Ron Paul supporters, and enough in the TEA Party to guarantee voters would stay home.

I KNOW what happened because I WORKED in that election cycle. I also correctly predicted that Romney would go back to his liberal roots when running, another reason Romney cost us elections.

BTW, TEA Party candidates won while GOPe candidates lost. Want to hear all about that?

DannoJyd on February 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM

I remember the good old days when the media was not 90% in the tank for the Democrats. Romney ran ahead of the Party. He paid a big price for supporting your Tea Party candidate Mourdock.

He didn’t flip you off. You flipped him off.

Basilsbest on February 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

William Hurt was ‘less in the tank’, of course, how did ‘he’s just in over your head’ strategy work,

narciso on February 25, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2