I had an epiphany this afternoon.
In the midst of folding tidy stacks of dollar store dish rags, it occurred to me that the basement lit reason we all find Romney so nauseatingly off-putting is due to the harsh fact that he’s way too fucking normal.
Seriously, who’s this wholesome sane post circa 1965?
Not most of us, with our shaky childhoods, sordid pasts, weird relatives, insolvent finances, extended step-families, wrecked marriages, shitty jobs, addiction issues and screwed up kids.
We’ve never even met anybody this insanely successful or boring Wonder Bread normal in bed or out.
Mitt smacks of abnormally strange Leave It To Beaver episodes juiced on Technicolor steroids. An image not to be trusted as a tangible taste of modern reality in any squared corner of middle America.
Romney’s old school brand of lofty, patrician conservatism is very similar to our last president’s record of actual governance. George Junior successfully brandished the common man’s drawl stacked on top of a shallow thimble of naughty indiscretions, camouflaging the expensive sheen of his ruling class origins cloaked in a deeply held liberal mindset.
Most folks prefer a smudge of dirty, reflective sin in their ruling class. GW managed to sell a gritty brand of political deception that felt real enough for most red-collared voters.
Mitt Romney is way too fucking, neck-tie perfect to offer up that rich sauce of delusional, primal comfort.
Yep, if he were any more straight-laced, he’d have a midwestern accent, living in Alaska with his husband Todd.
You ought to give some thought to kicking that snow billy addiction, Morgan.
I like that :D
Maybe. But you’ll admit, substituting her name in place of Mittens’, your epiphany would then make just as much sense. The hatred against her was volcanic, even most of the people who oppose her agree it was way out of line, and it wasn’t based on much of anything besides the fact that she’s wholesome.
I see there’s starting to be some buzz about Michelle O’s expensive dress last night…bound to blow over in the blink of an eye. Hmmmm, someone else got in quite a spot of trouble for that kind of thing — lies going around about her keeping the clothes, et al, and meanwhile as far as the gentlemen are concerned, nobody’s even asking what their clothing budget is.
Barney Frank’s boyfriend runs a brothel out of his house and…aw, that’s okay.
I’m sharing in your epiphany, been noticing it for awhile. And you know, I’ll go along with the idea that Romney is one of the victims here. We seem to have settled in on this cultural meme that says you have to be a little bit screwed up or else you don’t know anything.
Thanks, Nick.
Morgan, your girl Palin is a political nonentity. Time to move on if you care discuss actual reality.
Sure, but you’ll admit your paragraphs could have applied to her just as much to Mitt. Since we’re talking reality. Right?
Millions of guys don’t want to bed Romney, Morgan. Palin isn’t white bread by any means.
Morgan, have you lost your sweet mind?
Your boner fantasy of a Palin presidency seems to have left you mentally unhinged.
So you won’t admit it?
It’s like the “Who’s naive?” scene in The Godfather. Who’s unhinged here?
Mittens is the very definition of a RINO. If he wasn’t, the MSM would have already brow-beat him worse than anything Palin received. The Left is desperate for Romney to be the nominee. He is Obama Lite.
Newt has all the faults that many Conservatives claim he has, plus more. But when it gets real nasty, and everybody knows that the Race Card will played in this election like no other, he can verbally kick Obama to the curb in a debate like no other.
And when it gets real nasty, I want Newt. Mittens would be a Deer In The Headlights. Sort of like a Bob Dole and John McCain combined, but without the testicles.
She’s made herself irrelevant, Morgan.
Mahtomedi – Yes, Mitt’s a RINO but Newt can’t win.
Romney can beat Obama. That’s all I care about. That’s all that matters.
Call him “mittens,” btw, parrots Maureen Dowd and other liberal commentators. That’s something I’d prefer not to do, myself.
So I can’t get Daphne to admit Palin was criticized for her decency, just the way Romney is.
gedaliya, are you stating for the record you think there is a significant number of voters who would vote for Romney over Obama, but would vote for Obama over Gingrich (or stay home), in the battleground states where such things matter? If you do think this, we don’t have a quibble necessarily; but I’ve not seen any firm evidence of any such thing. It would start with some plurality of people stating for the record — “Yes. Romney would inspire ME to get out there and vote, and other GOP candidates would not.”
In other words, people talking about themselves. Not about what other people would do, like you just did.
I would further note that the would-be candidate Daphne just called irrelevant, did manage to pass this test with flying colors.
are you stating for the record you think there is a significant number of voters who would vote for Romney over Obama, but would vote for Obama over Gingrich (or stay home), in the battleground states where such things matter?
I am.
Very odd then, that so few people have actually said so. It’s all people talking about what strangers would & will do.
Over that way, lies a very poor track record of success.
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to assume that independents in the swing states will prefer Romney over Newt Gingrich. Even if you had no hard data supporting the contention, the odds are better.
However, there is hard data, as shown here.
Excerpt:
Independent voters are the key to Romney’s stronger showing against Obama in the poll. Romney is backed by 42 percent of Florida’s non-aligned voters to 41 percent for Obama, while the president leads Gingrich among this bloc, 50 percent to 33 percent…
And yet, there are good reasons for doubting that.
Doubting what, the veracity of the poll?
Not necessarily that, just everything else.
The are the results of the ’08 elections, for one thing. McCain managed to achieve a slight lead at some points, which he then lost by doing stupid things a determined and bold conservative would not have done. Refusing to discuss Jeremiah Wright. Suspending campaign activity to put the good of the country first, and resolve the financial crisis. Thinking people would fall for that kind of stunt…just dumb.
The evidence overwhelmingly shows that voters want to know what a Republican is going to do after he wins. We can debate whether democrats are held to the same standard, I’m inclined to think the answer is no.
But we all know what the independent voters say when the Republican is mushy; it isn’t “hooray, he’s mushy I can’t wait to vote for him.” They stay home, or they vote for the dem. And they do a lot of whining about “What’s it matter there’s no difference between the two anyway.”
And then there are all the points explored in this:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/dec/28/independent-voters-dont-decide-close-elections/
It’s a bigger thing than just politics and voting. Generally speaking, when people say things like “I haven’t got my mind made up between A and B” you’ll find this is an extraordinarily false statement, for whatever reason, and their mind has been made up for quite some time.
But we all know what the independent voters say when the Republican is mushy; it isn’t “hooray, he’s mushy I can’t wait to vote for him.” They stay home, or they vote for the dem.
We don’t “all know this.” You don’t have any data to back this up. This isn’t 2008. This election cyle won’t be the first time a half-white guy is running for the presidency. Conservatives hate Obama. Liberals are disappointed in Obama. Independents are sick of the status quo. There is ample data out there that Newt doesn’t appeal to independents, and that Romney does.
I don’t agree with the conclusions drawn in your linked piece. I think this election will be decided by independents in the 10 or so states that Obama won last cycle but have been trending Republican for decades. Newt is a loose cannon who can’t stay on message. He is far to risky a bet to make on an election with such important, even monumental consequences.
In other words, I do have the data to back this up, it’s cost us 4 trillion dollars in public debt to get it, but you don’t want to pay attention to it because, hey, this isn’t 2008.
Are you saying that when independent voters see a mushy candidate, they like the mushiness? So Ford and Dole and McCain won, and Reagan must have lost…what did Santayana say about history…
Not one candidate has put forth a program to address catastrophie (except the gadfly). What does it take? We are back to jimmy carter’s “trust me” method of selecting a President. Without a clear and comprehensive vision laid out for voters to accept or reject, the man who would become King will have no mandate to overcome the overwhelming inertia of Washington. Reagan got what he campaigned for, and not one thing more.
But they don’t have a plan. Of what money is, what government is; they have no new ideas and they have lost the old ideas. They just want to be President. Sure, I’ll vote ABO. Spare me that crap sandwich. A conservative base will be more energized and more useful it it openly hates its own candidate than pretending once again that he is something other that a fool and a tool.
Are you saying that when independent voters see a mushy candidate, they like the mushiness?
No. I’m saying that in this election cycle, it won’t make a difference because the alternative is Obama.
But they don’t have a plan.
“I’m not Obama” is enough of a plan for me.
“I’m not Obama” is enough of a plan for me.
On this point, I’m more inclined to see things your way because history sides with you. We elect the youngest guy running, a new generation occupies the White House, it’s a democrat. Which means it’s the most extreme-left democrat, axiomatically, because the power-brokers on the left side will use that candidate’s female-appeal to press their agenda as much as they possibly can. It happens every 16 years since 1960, reliable, like a comet-of-stupid. And then in four to eight years, we wake up from it because we can’t afford any more of it.
None of that makes Romster any more electable than Newt though. The reverse, if anything.
I am very worried about Romney. Your own data is a single poll in Florida, if you have been following this you know the Gingrich-against-Romney thing has been all over the map, the only consistent outcome is that Romney cannot push his approvals up beyond a certain ceiling, and it’s a hard ceiling. Just for him. Doesn’t apply to Newt, and it doesn’t apply to Obama.
I’m worried about things like this. Stuff like that makes people want to stay home. Even worse, it has me wondering if I really blame them for staying home. Makes me seriously wonder why I bother.
I’m worried about the the supposed “Walter Williams piece” as well. Although it was incorrectly attributed, the points it makes are right on.
But it’s all an open question. Maybe you’re right, maybe the Republicans can nominate a squish this time, and see it pan out for them…for the first time in many, many generations. Maybe this time, the people on your side of this open question, won’t let us down like you did back in ’08.
I’m reminded of something John Hawkins posted last month (paraphrased): The history of American politics is conservative politicians struggling to make it clear to people what they’re all about, and liberal politicians struggling to hide it from people what they’re all about. Nominating a squish seems, to me, an exercise in hiding what the movement is all about. I just don’t see how it’s necessary or called-for.
I am very worried about Romney….I’m worried…I’m worried
I am confident Romney can beat Obama. My only worry is that he’ll somehow (very unlikely at this point, btw) lose the nomination. Obama is hated by a significant part of the population. He’ll never get the black vote out in the numbers he did in 2008. He’ll never get the youth vote in the numbers he did in 2008. No who voted against him in 2008 is going to vote for him in 2012. Liberals are angry with him, and they won’t come out in the numbers they did in 2008.
His only hope, as Ann Coulter is not shy in saying, is Gingrich. Let’s not give him his most ardent wish.
If he’s the nominee, he has my full support.
But like I said, if this vision of yours comes to pass, it will be for the first time in…well, about a century or so, depending on how you want to define a squish.
Look at it this way: If you want to prove that wrong, so you can find a squish who actually won an election and demonstrate a precedent for the victorious squish, who ya gonna pick? Ike in ’52? Harding in ’20?
I don’t know what you mean by “squish.”
Like Bill Clinton. Here’s my technical litmus test for the term:
By way of spoken and written word, the candidate convinces you that he has reached a conclusion on an issue that you can support. Then, he goes into a room, to which you do not have admittance but he does, to meet with interested parties who are more powerful than you are…people who do not agree with you about the selected issue.
Do you have faith that the candidate will stick to his knitting in that room? No you do not. That’s the definition.
So Clinton’s a squish, McCain’s a squish, Obama’s a half-squish…except viewed from the perspective of rabid leftists, Obama is *not* a squish since He can be counted on, on most issues, to stick up for them (more than He sticks up for America, certainly).
Ron Paul’s not a squish. Code Pink can count on him.
I would say Newt’s something of a squish too. But Romney’s much worse. I can’t think of a single issue on which I can rely on a Romney position, over a long term.
In sum, it means the person cannot be counted on to fight for what’s right, because you know he isn’t really carrying the argument down to the marrow of his bones. The ones who pride themselves on their ability to “forge compromises,” are especially bad squishes. Jello has more bones than they do.
In sum, it means the person cannot be counted on to fight for what’s right…
This doesn’t sound like a squish’s speech to me.
And if just about everyone’s a “squish,” the term quickly loses it’s punch.
My oldest son, who is more radical right than I, watches these debates. He is texting me tonight that Romney is blinking his eyes to distraction, which puzzled my son. It turns out this is a tell. Romney apparently was ferocious in his counterattact to whatever was being said at that time. This surprised my son and impressed him, for the first time. But as he also said, the man will need to script two dozen more responses before he “debates” Obama. An Alinskiite will answer a question you never asked and accuse you of an opinion you never made three times before you begin to gather your wits back around yourself to address the first lie.
Not everybody. Your guy is, though.
What was his position on the issue in that speech, g? Any issue; pick one. What’s his position? Going to count on him keeping it through January 20, 2021? Even if his poll numbers drop by a point? Or two?
See, I wouldn’t call George W. Bush a full-fledged conservative; I didn’t even agree with him on most things. The compassionate-conservative thing was a McCain-style gimmick. But he was no squish. His poll numbers got buried in the basement, and he stuck to his guns, not because he was dim or stubborn but because he’s already thought things through, and knew why he was doing what he was doing. So no, not everybody is a squish. It’s a matter of character.
If a candidate doesn’t even have the character of GWB, there’s a real problem.
The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll today notes Gingrich polls better among Republicans, but greatly trails Obama among the total public.
Also, my son lives in Florida, and said that the adds have been back to back all night, Romney-Gingrich, never saw anything like it. But with an hour left in the debate (and he has no dog in this fight) he tells me it is all over for Newt. So it’s Romney after all. Guess we’re not going to colonize the moon.
What’s his position? Going to count on him keeping it through January 20, 2021?
Who cares? I only care about one thing. Who has the best chance to beat Obama and his billion dollar campaign war chest in 2012. Stop wringing your hands like some kind of pansy. Man up. The job at hand is to smash the Obama agenda by any means necessary.
If a candidate doesn’t even have the character of GWB, there’s a real problem.
This is a ridiculous slander. A slander against George Bush and a slander against Romney. Romney is a professional politician seeking to assemble a broad coalition of support to take the biggest prize in world history, the presidency of the United States. He has a good chance of winning. He’s not some kind of cheap con-man you easily dismiss with a casual wave of your hand.
Frankly, if I felt the way you do I could never vote for Romney.
He has a good chance of winning.
If he can upset over a century of American history. Otherwise, no.
People just don’t vote for Republicans who are bound to do any-ol’-thing. It’s just not in the cards. Look, if you really think I’m wrong about this, you’re welcome to point out a (White House) example. Good huntin’.
People just don’t vote for Republicans who are bound to do any-ol’-thing
Oh please. Romney doesn’t sound like he’s “bound to do anything” to me. Did you read the speech I linked to? I listen carefully to what he says. Perhaps you should too. It’s clear you don’t hear Romney; you only hear your own voice.
Again, I could never vote for Romney if I felt the way you do about him.
Yeah, I read it. He says stuff about (in order) Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Russia and Venezuela. Does a great job pointing out the problems, which is easy, but what’s the position? Where’s his “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” guardrail?
I only hear the sound of my own voice, so you’re going to have to look it up and point it out to me. I’m sure a bright bulb like you can find it.
Romney’s position is to maintain an invincible fighting machine capable of deterring our most ardent enemies from attacking us, and to reverse the Obama policy of appease, apologize and retreat. And did you read to the end?
Among these actions will be to restore America’s national defense. I will reverse the hollowing of our Navy and announce an initiative to increase the shipbuilding rate from 9 per year to 15. I will begin reversing Obama-era cuts to national missile defense and prioritize the full deployment of a multilayered national ballistic missile defense system. I will order the formulation of a national cybersecurity strategy, to deter and defend against the growing threats of militarized cyber-attacks, cyber-terrorism, and cyber-espionage.
I will enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the Eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable.
I will begin organizing all of our diplomatic and assistance efforts in the greater Middle East under one official with the authority and accountability necessary to train all our soft power resources on ensuring that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter.
I will launch a campaign to advance economic opportunity in Latin America, and contrast the benefits of democracy, free trade, and free enterprise against the material and moral bankruptcy of the Venezuelan and Cuban model.
I will order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military to secure that nation’s sovereignty from the tyranny of the Taliban. I will speak with our generals in the field, and receive the best recommendation of our military commanders. The force level necessary to secure our gains and complete our mission successfully is a decision I will make free from politics.
And I will bolster and repair our alliances. Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I will count as dear our Special Relationship with the United Kingdom. And I will begin talks with Mexico, to strengthen our cooperation on our shared problems of drugs and security.
This is America’s moment. We should embrace the challenge, not shrink from it, not crawl into an isolationist shell, not wave the white flag of surrender, nor give in to those who assert America’s time has passed. That is utter nonsense. An eloquently justified surrender of world leadership is still surrender.
I will not surrender America’s role in the world. This is very simple: If you do not want America to be the strongest nation on Earth, I am not your President.
I think you know where I’m going with this: Is he going to do what is needed to stop Iran from getting hold of a nuke?
C’mon, it’s not that high of a bar. In my lifetime we’ve seen Reagan say Mr. Gorbachev Tear Down This Wall. And then we saw GWB say we will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.
Romney’s going to have talks with generals? Hey, I’m willing to be fair, the 15 ships a year is a specific goal, at least, and better than nuthin’. And I like the part about bolstering alliances, being a friend to friends…but then, it’s rather sad if that’s worth some applause, like it isn’t the very least we should be demanding. But you can tell the difference between a general direction and a specific point, right? He’s gonna order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military? Wow, good fer him.
But where are the lines in the sand? If you don’t think the foreign-policy situation demands them, you’re just not paying attention.
But where are the lines in the sand?
I have absolutely no idea what this means.
I think you all should take a look at this TED viddy and think about which candidate has the stuff to make a majority get this body chemical to rise. Romney just doesn’t have it, but then none of current field does.
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html
Why all the dishrags???
Where are the kittens?
[...] soldiers Surprise Their Families In a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World-The Friday Pin UpJaded Haven-Conservative KittensLazy Farmer-There Are No Atheists in a FoxholesLeft Coast Rebel-L.L. Bean Heiress Endorses Ron [...]
Hey g, I gotta question. What’s the point in quoting what someone says he’s gonna do, when it’s known that he’ll say anything to get elected? For governor of Mass., he was “progressive” (his term); for president, he’s “conservative” (his term). Here he wants mandatory health insurance; there he doesn’t. Today it’s this, tomorrow it’s that.
Don’t get me wrong. They’re all brutal, and I’m quite sure he’s less brutal than Newt. I guess that means a few less million will suffer and die, so I suppose that’s a relatively good thing. What I don’t get is how any quote of intentions could possibly reveal anything. Do you have some magic wand or something, that distinguishes the lies from the truth?
What I don’t get is how any quote of intentions could possibly reveal anything.
It seems to me that Romney is good at keeping his campaign promises. When running for governor of Massachusetts, he promised policies and he delivered on those policies. I suspect he’ll do the same as president.
But, besides all that, Romney has one gift that for me renders all of his deficiencies irrelevant: He’s not Barack Obama and he can win the presidential election of 2012. I frankly don’t care about anything else.
G, there is one thing I truly admire about your sense of politics – you never deviate.
And in that last thing you said, you’re certainly 50% right.
My good friend Bob Weissberg has written a thoughtful piece on why Romney is in the mainstream as a major party presidential candidate. It’s worth reading:
Settling for Mitt Romney
That criticism misunderstands the design of American politics. The system is supposed to produce moderation, not “full-strength” candidate such as Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.
The theory has been tested against reality. Moderate Republicans have lost every presidential election for over a half-century now, and, met with this unkind truth, those who are emotionally wedded to the theory respond by…reciting the theory all over again.
I know exactly where I saw this before. I pointed out Obama’s stimulus program didn’t work, to a bunch of harebrained liberals, and right on cue, they replied by going back to square one and telling me how it was supposed to have worked.
Quite bizarre.
When you end up arguing the same way the proggies do their arguing, that’s all that’s needed to prove something is gunnybags-busted and it isn’t something that can be overlooked, I’m afraid.
So, my dear man Morgan, why aren’t you supporting Ron Paul or Rick Santorum?
Funny, I’ve spent the last couple of days writing about this strange disconnect between the wild strains of conservative thought.
Moderate Republicans have lost every presidential election for over a half-century now…
What are you talking about? Moderate Republicans won in 1988, 2000, and 2004.
That fact blows the top off your carefully crafted argument.
And Morgan, don’t give me that “proggie” crap. It’s a weak ploy and makes you look bad.
Ron Paul does support things I support, like states rights for example, but it’s a funny thing Daphne: These issues never seem to make it to center-stage with him. He’d much rather spend his wind on syllables that gratify the Code Pink fascists. I don’t know why, or if, he thinks we need a military at all.
Please don’t tell me he needs more opportunity to get his message across to get things clarified.
Santorum, I’d support, if he managed to make a long streak out of his Iowa win. But I share G’s opinion there as far as a comparison between Romney and Santorum. Sadly, there are way too many one-issue females who want to butcher babies, and they will brave the November winds to make sure Santorum is never elected. That’s the sort of reality your friend thinks I can’t face.
But there’s more reality: Romney hasn’t got much more of a chance. They’re about equal in terms of electability. If you don’t believe me, all you have to do is wait until one or the other is nominated, and the democrat attack machine starts making ads. At that point gedaliya‘s wishful thinking will be exposed for what it is, which is that, and nothing more.
if that shit didn’t work, they wouldn’t be doing it, and they damn sure wouldn’t be paying massive amounts of money for it.
What are you talking about? Moderate Republicans won in 1988, 2000, and 2004.
Against…who? In ’88, the most conservative guy won the election. Ditto for 2000 and 2004. What’s your point now?
I get the impression you may be a bright guy, but it doesn’t count for squat because you’re a grappling-hook-head. You know what conclusion you want to reach before you reach it, and as a direct result, you have these convenient failures of comprehension where anyone of average intellect would find it simple to figure out what’s being said, and why.
And then you want me to think something is so just because you, a compete Internet stranger, says it’s so. Oh yes. I do find your failures of understanding what you don’t find agreeable, to be MOST persuasive.
What’s your point now?
You seem to forget that in 2000, there were far more conservative Republicans running for the nomination. Remember Gary Bauer? Alan Keyes? Steve Forbes?
In 1988, Pat Robertson, Alexander Haig, and Jack Kemp announced presidential runs. All were more conservative than Bush senior.
Remember 1992? Bush senior lost largely because that nutcase Ross Perot split the Republican vote (Clinton getting only 43% of the popular vote).
1996? There wasn’t any Republican who could have beaten Clinton.
Your entire thesis rests on this silly notion that Republican moderates lose elections. Well, yes, they do lose some. But, they also win some. In other words, your thesis is completely without merit. It will not portend the results of this year’s election.
And then you want me to think something is so just because you, a compete Internet stranger, says it’s so.
That’s not it. I simply want you to make a convincing argument. So far, I’ve been sorely disappointed.
Morgan, you do realize that you’re attacking Vanderleun’s presumptive ideological premise when you assault Gedaliya’s point of view?
Those two are walking in lockstep on this messy conservative debate.
Addressing your earlier response; So, you haven’t bothered to inform yourself of Paul’s actual views and couldn’t really give a shit about Santorum’s so-con issues.
So your argument that Romney, who hasn’t been able to crack a ceiling of 34 points since this thing began, is…I have not been able to convince you otherwise.
Alan Keyes and Steve Forbes did not win the election in 1988 because they were not nominated. We can only speculate about what would’ve happened, had they been. We do know that in ’92, the elder Bush’s notorious “read my lips!” pledge was an issue…and in ’88, it was not. Yeah I know it doesn’t convince you because you won’t pay attention to it, and you won’t pay attention to it because of what it proves: Conservatives govern like liberals, and get sent home. There are more examples than just that. None of them will impress you, because you won’t acknowledge them.
President Bush won in 2000 because he was more conservative than Al Gore; he won the primaries against John McCain because he was more conservative than John McCain. He managed to pull it off in 2004 against Kerry because he was more conservative than Kerry. By 2008, had he been eligible to run for a third term, he would have been sent home toot-sweet…because he’d been governing, by then, like a liberal.
Again, you won’t acknowledge it, because you don’t like what it says. But it’s all true.
Daphne, the “General Wesley Clarke” rule applies: If I have to go to his web site to find out what he thinks about something, he doesn’t really think it.
President Bush won in 2000 because he was more conservative than Al Gore
So by your logic Romney is going to win because he’s more conservative than Barack Obama, right?
What is the point you’re trying to make here? I think you’ve forgotten it.
So by your logic Romney is going to win because he’s more conservative than Barack Obama, right?
Is he?
If I have to go to his web site to find out what he thinks about something, he doesn’t really think it.
President Bush won in 2000 because he was more conservative than Al Gore; he won the primaries against John McCain because he was more conservative than John McCain.
Morgan, are you mentally retarded?
See, that’s how you can tell a candidate isn’t really electable. The people who insist he is, can’t argue the point, once they’re cornered they have to call the other person stupid.
Mitt Romney’s electability is very likely a pure mythology. And by very likely, I mean there really isn’t anything to suggest it isn’t one.
He’s had ample time to get more than 34 percent of people to like him, and he has ALWAYS failed at this. People just don’t like him. If he’s nominated, that will become an issue, and you can call me retarded all you want — it’s still true.
He’s had ample time to get more than 34 percent of people to like him, and he has ALWAYS failed at this.
Let’s see if this holds up after the Florida primary today.
I’m kind of glad that I missed most of this discussion. I’m waiting to see what happens in the general election season, once the primaries are over and done with. Frankly, I think that a tough primary season only helps the eventual GOP nominee. Better to hash this stuff out now than have the MFM go “Hey, look at what we just found!” the Sunday before election night. Not that they won’t, of course. After Dan Rather, I fully expect something completely made up to surface right before the first Tuesday in November and then get magically swept under the rug as soon as the votes are counted.
Back in 2008, I supported Mitt (and pretty much everyone else) over McCain, because I despised- and still do- that little turd. However, I kept seeing stories in the papers and interview/videos on the web that “McCain was the Republican Democrats fear most/most electable Republican” candidate out there. Turned out to be arrant bullshit, of course. My fear is that the “Romney is the most electable” argument will turn out the same way. I will hold my nose and vote for him (and would do the same for any of the other candidates) against Obama. However, and I realize that this is purely anecdotal evidence, a fair number of my libertarian and conservative friends have stated that they will NOT vote for the GOP candidate if it happens to be Mitt. Things may change between now and November, of course, especially with our current Marxist in Chief doing whatever it is he does outside of golf. However, I live in a borderline swing state (Virginia) and if this holds true, Barry will win the state again. My fear is that this will happen on a much larger scale come November.
I fully support ousting Obama. However, I do worry that the GOP is shooting itself in the foot while the foot is in its mouth. If you keep pissing on conservatives and small-L libertarians because your only objective is “winning”, then I will opine that people will rightly decide that it’s time to start over with another political party, consigning the GOP to the same dustbin where the Whigs reside.
In any event, my greater concern is keeping the House and grabbing the Senate.
In any event, my greater concern is keeping the House and grabbing the Senate.
Mine too.
I’m not sure that Mitt or Newt have any coattail’s worth riding.
I’m not sure that Mitt or Newt have any coattail’s worth riding.
Sure they do, so long as your final destination is Hell.
That made me laugh.