Green Room

Video flashback: Romney was right about Obama. Again.

posted at 11:22 am on October 10, 2013 by

A few months back, Buzzfeed published a column provocatively entitled, “Was Mitt Romney Right About Everything?”  The piece noted how Romney’s predictions on a number of fronts — from Russia’s hostility, to the coming Obamacare implementation trainwreck, to Detroit’s bankruptcy — have been vindicated by post-election events.  As we sit mired in a government shutdown with insults flying over the debt ceiling, let’s go to another video tape.  Here’s Romney addressing an audience in Colorado just four days before he lost to Obama:

The Lefty site TPM seized on these comments, claiming that Romney was suggesting that Congress would block a debt ceiling increase under Obama.  He didn’t say that, nor will Republicans allow that to happen.  Romney predicted that Obama’s terrible leadership would fuel bitter dysfunction and gridlock:

“You know that if the president is re-elected, he will still be unable to work with the people in Congress.  I mean, he’s ignored them, he’s attacked them, he’s blamed them.  The debt ceiling will come up again, and shutdown and default will be threatened, chilling the economy.”

Bullseye.  Every damn word.

Recently in the Green Room:

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

Romney was defeated by his personal honor and belief in his mental skills. He didn’t know how to whore-himself to the LIVeral’s that infest the voting population. He was and is an honorable man.

Missilengr on October 10, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I have such a high regard for Romney; I wanted him to win, and Ann be our First Lady. Instead, we get the liar Barack “Paris Hilton” Obama, and a woman who wants to control our kids on a huge scale.

Paul-Cincy on October 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Yeah, one who will lose even more conspicuously than the previous candidate. But hey, you put him/her forward, that’s all that matters in politics after all :) …then you get to whine the next four years and ramble inanely about apocalyptic scenarios, disintegration of the fabric of society and other outlandish stuff…but then I guess whatever rocks your (otherwise off-the rocker) boat…and by ‘your’ I mean your generic type, not you in particularly…

jimver on October 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Golly, I wasn’t aware that when we lose we wanted to lose “inconspicuously.” A win is a win. A loss is a loss. I’m not about to start supporting “moderate” (read: liberal) candidates simply because they’re “inconspicuous losers”.

We should endeavor to put forward genuinely conservative candidates. Teddy Roosevelt makes a great case for doing so:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Stoic Patriot on October 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

He white an’ old skool. We new skool.

John the Libertarian on October 10, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Romney failed to exploit his opportunity after the first debate. He tried to coast to the win without offending any middle of the road people. He thought Obama’s support would soften at the very end based on the poor performance of the economy. That was a reasonable campaign strategy based on past history, but it didn’t work. It didn’t work because the country is more polarized, and there is a smaller sliver of the electorate that is really in play now than in, say, 1980. Romney knew that. That was what the 47% answer was really about.

Part of the reason some percentage of conservatives stayed home instead of working/voting for Romney was because of the disdainful attitude of Romney’s early supporters towards the Tea Party. You can see that in some of the comments above: “You people are so stupid. Why didn’t you vote for Romney?” Umm I don’t know, maybe because you keep calling them stupid.

Ted Torgerson on October 10, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I don’t disagree with you. He ran badly and didn’t deliver the “kill shot” (wah liberals) after the first debate and *win*

However, staying home because one didn’t get courted enough or didn’t hear the platitudes one wanted to hear is almost liberal in nature. Not directing this at you, but using your second paragraph as a soapbox, this shouldn’t come from conservatives. We should be the ones to assess a situation and choose the one that yields the best and most appropriate outcome and in no assessment does Obama winning do that.

We should not be reacting based on feelings or personalities – that’s for liberals and a lot of people behaved like liberals this election. We should have been on the Romney bandwagon after the primaries and then in no uncertain terms held him to his promises and watched him closely. That’s *our* job (watching politicians and holding them accountable) and we seem to have forgotten that. And now we are paying for it, very dearly.

kim roy on October 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Two words.

Third Debate.

Bmore on October 10, 2013 at 3:08 PM

kim roy on October 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Actually, yes Obama does do that. It is called allowing people to confront their consequences so that they learn from their mistakes.

The Republican party has been spending its time ensuring that people are not faced with the consequences of their actions.

They vote for welfare, but no one pays for it, it goes on the next generation’s credit card.
They vote for more government, but no one pays for it, it goes on the next generation’s credit card.
Evidenced by the fact that each time the Republicans cut taxes, it takes more low income people off the tax payer roles indicates that the Republicans are shielding them constantly from the consequences.

Why exactly is is upon the Republicans to make Obamacare digestible when they start talking about getting rid of small unpopular aspects of it? Let the forsaken people live with their consequences and at some point or another they will learn the lesson and actually change!

But of course Romney was planning to get rid of all the consequences if elected, leaving all the candy and joy joy parts in tact and figure out how to put onto the credit cards of the next generations. Same a Paul Ryan.

astonerii on October 10, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Every day I’m grateful Romney lost, because it gives us the opportunity to put forward a conservative in 2016.
Stoic Patriot on October 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Do you really think our Liberal Intellectual Betters will allow elections come 2016?

Maddie on October 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Do you really think our Liberal Intellectual Betters will allow elections come 2016?

Maddie

Yes, there will be an election in 2016. And if republicans don’t completely screw it up, they’re almost guaranteed to win. Not that it actually matters at this point though.

xblade on October 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

It’s just hard to accept that this country re-elected this America-hating con-man to a second term. For all Romney’s shortcomings, just having a decent person who truly loves this country as she is would have been an enormous emotional lift.

crrr6 on October 10, 2013 at 5:15 PM

kim roy on October 10, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I agree and after being reluctant initially I enthusiastically supported Romney. He would have been a fine president, not just for the economy, but also as a model of decency and rectitude in sharp contrast to or current president.

Ted Torgerson on October 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM

And yes, I think he would have been a much better president than the man in there now. If that’s a “leg tingle,” fine.

Guy Benson on October 10, 2013 at 1:20 PM

+ 100..Agreed..:)

Dire Straits on October 10, 2013 at 6:17 PM

It would be nice to have a President that is Pro-American, Pro-Constitution again.
.
Unlike this Marxist place-holder of the Govt. ruling class- where they LIE to the American people and trounce on our Freedoms.
(Make sure you log this “complement” of your Dear Leader, Mr. NSA monitor person.)
.
Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie……..

FlaMurph on October 10, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I can’t read this website anymore due to all the ads blocking the text. So irritating!!!

HellCat on October 10, 2013 at 8:06 PM

Every day I’m grateful Romney lost, because it gives us the opportunity to put forward a conservative in 2016.
Stoic Patriot on October 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I respectfully disagree. Better a mostly-conservative now than a real conservative after four years of destructive lefty policies.

Johnny 100 Pesos on October 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

…Candy the Cow Crowley…is ecstatic!

KOOLAID2 on October 10, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Every day I’m grateful Romney lost, because it gives us the opportunity to put forward a conservative in 2016.
Stoic Patriot on October 10, 2013 at 1:44 PM

This. Under mittness clambered would be fixed and made permanent. The problem with moderates is that they’re still statists just not as much as progressives. All the scandals that came to light since the election would have been swept under the rug because bipartisanship! And instead of us fighting moderates within the GOP as we’re seeing now, we’d be fighting off attacks on the conservatives led by the de facto head of the GOP, mittness himself. thank God he lost so that more will realize the error of the progressives and moderates.

AH_C on October 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM

I respectfully disagree. Better a mostly-conservative now than a real conservative after four years of destructive lefty policies.

Johnny 100 Pesos on October 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Well said.

GOPRanknFile on October 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM

thank God he lost so that more will realize the error of the progressives and moderates.

AH_C on October 10, 2013 at 10:18 PM

.
Sure, much better off with an Anti- American Marxist Raised President. We don’t need no stinking moderates pretending to Conservatives. Lets hope King Barrack gets to replace SCOTUS Justice Kennedy in the next 3 years, with one of those leftist nut jobs from California. Yeah that would show these Mitt people why progressives suck. A liberal 5-4 SCOTUS could rewrite the constitution and finally throw out that pesky 2nd amendment.
. Thank God Mitt lost, so we get can get a front row seat of the now acceptable corrupt and dictatorial train wreck of the Executive branch running this country.
.
Did we dodge a bullet with Mitt or what?

FlaMurph on October 11, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Sure, much better off with an Anti- American Marxist Raised President. We don’t need no stinking moderates pretending to Conservatives. Lets hope King Barrack gets to replace SCOTUS Justice Kennedy in the next 3 years, with one of those leftist nut jobs from California. Yeah that would show these Mitt people why progressives suck. A liberal 5-4 SCOTUS could rewrite the constitution and finally throw out that pesky 2nd amendment.
. Thank God Mitt lost, so we get can get a front row seat of the now acceptable corrupt and dictatorial train wreck of the Executive branch running this country.
.
Did we dodge a bullet with Mitt or what?

FlaMurph on October 11, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Your sarcasm would seem to imply that Romney would nominate conservatives to the bench. Aside from being the guy who signed $50 abortion into law and was the first governor in the history of the United States to implement gay marriage consider this:

Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.

“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”

“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.

Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”

Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:

“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”

Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was “diversity.”

“The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was ‘diversity.’ This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a person’s judicial philosophy,” he said. “Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romney’s lack of a coherent conservative worldview.”

Stoic Patriot on October 11, 2013 at 9:25 AM

Yes, there will be an election in 2016. And if republicans don’t completely screw it up, they’re almost guaranteed to win.

xblade on October 10, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Lots of people said that about 2012.

ElectricPhase on October 11, 2013 at 9:33 AM

I assume the lefties at TPM were hallucinating, or maybe just the usual nasty twisting of clear speech, or possibly another outburst of uncontrollable hate. Bingo, that’s the one.
God, do I miss Romney now. what a difference between these two men, one normal and intelligent, the other, ObamaTrash, despicable and bent on harm. And 3 1/2 years to go with this piece of filth.

arand on October 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM

We should endeavor to put forward genuinely conservative candidates. Teddy Roosevelt makes a great case for doing so:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Stoic Patriot on October 10, 2013 at 2:33 PM

LOL. First, T.R. is routinely savaged by people like Glenn Beck for being a RINO Progressive. Second, Romney WAS in the arena. Unlike, you know, Sarah Palin.

Buy Danish on October 12, 2013 at 1:53 AM

Comment pages: 1 2