Posted on 07/23/2008 5:33:00 PM PDT by JRochelle
You've probably heard the story about the tycoon who wanted to bring out a new kind of dog food.
He spent lavishly. He hired the best marketing person, the top PR firm, the best ad agency, the No. 1 packaging expert, the most powerful distributor -- but the sales were flat after six months.
He summoned his consultants to a meeting and asked why the food wasn't selling. "The dogs won't eat it," was the answer that came back.
And so it is with Mitt Romney. Despite outspending his rivals by huge margins throughout the primaries, the dogs won't eat it. He lost Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and California. The only primaries he won were in Michigan, where Dad was governor; LDS states; and a few states on Super Tuesday in which his California-obsessed rivals couldn't spare the cash to advertise. Only John Connolly in 1968 had a worse cash-to-delegates ratio.
And John McCain rightly did not like Romney's tactics during the primaries. Using his gigantic money advantage to dominate television, he seized early leads in virtually all of the primary states, only to lose them later on. And, when they started slipping away, he resorted to unfair, distorted, scorched-earth negative ads, betting that his opponents couldn't afford to spend enough for the truth to catch up to his charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Rove would be a hoot, but doubt that will happen.
Ludicrous. Slick Willard was the best thing that ever happened to the rodent party. Enacted their agenda, killed the MA GOP and made sure the party won’t win another major office in the state again for the next 50 years. As President, he’d do exactly the same for the national party and our Congressmembers could caucus in a phonebooth by the time he was done. Let him run as Obama’s running mate. Two liberal rodent con men belong together.
And she is as classy as she is beautiful. How we’ve been blessed in this Country!
I would love it to be Rove, but he is too big of a story, himself.
I thought JC Watts had already endorsed Obama?
Absolutely not! He made a few comments about Obama addressing poverty and urban issues, and AP ran a smear piece saying it was tantamount to an endorsement. Likewise for Armstrong and Powell.
JC’s is in a great position to bully his way into the Veep nom slot, and I wish he would.
Watts or Palin or Blackburn would get my vote and my efforts to get McManiac elected.
Romney would outshine McCain, but then who wouldn’t? I really like Romney and he’s proved he will go all out in support of McCain. McCain even admitted that Romney does a better job of campaigning for him than he does for himself.
I’m a conservative Christian also and have no problem with Romney. He’s a good family man.
I’m a Palin fanboy, but you know, it does look,like a Pearle Vision ad. LOL
I like the one of her holding the head of the Moose she just bagged.
I like Palin but the only place I really hear her mentioned is here.
Is there any buzz about her from the McCain camp?
Again, a nice try at spin! Absolutely democratesque ... the evangelical-hating aspect was the condescension and the clearly implied ‘when the dumb evangelicals get edumacated they will vote for the Mormon and like it, or stand exposed as bigots’. You Romney flacks have been playing that ploy for months at FR, so can the spin, flack.
Interesting but I still like Romney ... a lot.
I was just trying to come up with some of of stature and national name recognition. Newt is a brilliant man but I just don't think John McCain would see Newt as a good fit.
Palin has done the job. She is the most effective Gov of Alaska ever. She is the most popular Gov. and elected official in the U.S.
Re: Myth Romney, it has nothing to do with his religion, the list of his weaknesses is too long, but suffice it to say he is a used car salesman RINO.
McManiac=RINO, Romney=Rino.
Haha yep you did
By the way I saw Jindal on TV tonight.
He ABSOLUTELY denied that he would be the VP pick.
He said I’m not going to be the VP.
That’s not something you can go back on.
Interesting ? I don’t think you read it at all.
Why do you like him ? Is it his killing the MA GOP you like ? How about his appointing liberal criminal-releasing judges ? Socialized medicine and $50 abortions ? His having no use for Reagan-Bush ? His flipflopping ? His “buying” support and bribery ?
Fact is, if after reading that post you still support him, you support the liberal cause. No Conservative can support Slick Willard, period.
Sometimes you just have to give some props to the Dems. A few years back, they also had a governor decide to to make the transition from state to national politics. And that governor was from Arkansas and had been pro-life and pro-second amendment and even signed a resolution honoring the Confederate flag. Then old Slick showed up ready to run for president and those conservative views had been put behind and he was pro-choice, favored restrictions and second amendment, and that little thing about the Confederate flag was just ignored, despite some Republican attempts to make it an issue. The Dems. didn’t care about his past, they just voted for the one they thought had the best chance to win the presidency. And they also forgot about some of those conservative things Gore favored running for office in Tennessee.
When the Dems. saw their best chance to win, they didn’t even think about tearing their candidates apart because of positions they’d taken in conservative states. They supported them, and they went to win the presidency twice and almost a third time.
But these purist Republicans. There will be NO overlooking positions taken to win office in the most liberal state in the union. No matter that Romney ran for president on very conservative positions. He’s tainted forever, no matter what he says when running for a national office.
And these purist Republicans, unlike the much savvier Dems., have done their best to trash the man who could be our best candidate and campaigner since Reagan, who also took some liberal positions as governor, including the signing of a bill expanding cases where abortion was permitted.
Good thing these purists weren’t around in such numbers in 1976 and 1980. They’d have done their best to trash Reagan and keep him from winning the nomination. - Of course, they’ll deny that, but I expect they would have been just as unforgiving then as now. Purity is purity.
None that I’ve heard. They are keeping a tight lid on things. What we are hearing, I believe, is just to throw Obama/DNC off.
I believe a very good Conservative, effective leader, and common sense case could be made for her. She’s been extraordinarily successful. Certainly she’s much more qualified than Obama, why couldn’t she make a great POTUS in training?
I also believe that we need the unique angle that a younger person, a woman or a black perspective offers us.
Powell and Rice would be really doltish choices.
There are zero blacks who are going to be moved by that. If their reason for thinking of McCain is because he has a black on the ticket, then this same thought pattern would have them look for the black at the top of the ticket.
Obama is getting 99.9% of the black vote even if he gets caught at 2 AM in a gay bathhouse in San Francisco.
It’s stupid to waste money and choices chases after a black vote that’s already sewn up.
If McCain chooses Liebermann, he’s going to lose the conservative base. Libermann is a flat out liberal. His ONLY redeeming quality is that he’s a middle east hawk. That’s it. (Another idiotic choice.)
Huckabee delivers Arkansas to the Republicans. Would you rather have that or Romney’s Michigan, Money, Organization, Experience, Expertise, Leadership, and willingness to be a hatchet man.
Morris is wrong again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.