Skip to comments.Romney Takes on Some Water
Posted on 01/08/2012 10:16:50 PM PST by neverdem
Romney had a tough start. Santorum had a very pointed question on his decision not to run for re-election in 2006, “Why did you bail out?” Romney responded with what Newt rightly called “pious baloney.” On this question, Romney simply can’t admit the truth—he didn’t run for re-election because he might have lost and, more importantly, he wanted to run for president. Romney absurdly characterized leaving office to run for another office as returning to the private sector. I’m not sure how much voters will be outraged by any of this. They probably assume every politician wants to run for office. But the exchange got to a certain falsity in Romney’s self-presentation that plays into more important doubts about his sincerity.
The other notable exchange came at the end between Romney and Newt on the Superpac ads. Here again, Romney was less than forthcoming. He said on the one hand that he hadn’t seen the ads and then immediately related some of the most damaging charges in them (carefully leaving out one of the most dubious ones, I believe). But he made the basic point that Newt has a lot of vulnerabilities and Newt came across as too whiny and peevish. One of Newt’s drawbacks as a debater is that his worst qualities come out when he’s on the attack; he soars the most when he’s not drawing any blood.
Romney was fine when not challenged and after the ferocious beginning that was the case for most of the debate.
Santorum continues to be strong—but is he standing out enough when the other candidates are performing well, too?
Gingrich is simply terrific when discussing policy and getting beneath the premises of the questions.
Perry may have gotten the best reaction of the debate in flawlessly naming the three cabinet agencies he wants to eliminate. He has benefited from being off to the side in these debates. There’s less pressure there and he can lump the field in all together without the need to engage with anyone in particular directly. His relatively strong performances last night and this morning may help him retain enough strength in South Carolina to play what I assume won’t be anything more than the spoiler role.
Is Huntsman showing enough movement that Romney finally feels the need to slap him down, or is it simply irritation? Huntsman acted as if he had been stewing all night over Romney’s attack on him last night for serving as Obama’s ambassador to China. With Huntsman, it’s all pious baloney all the time. He made out like he was hearing nothing but outrageousness, dishonesty, and hatefulness on stage all around him. His contingent in the audience either was extremely enthusiastic or under strict orders to clap at almost all his answers.
“pious baloney” = RLY Rich Lowrey?
Had to steal Newt’s line to describe Huntsman? LOLOL.
When the state party shrinks during your administration, and suffers losses two elections in a row, and you are leaving office at 34% approval, reelection is not open to you
After 4 Republican governors in a row, Romney turned it into a democrat seat ever since.
I’m going to park this here so maybe someone will respond/discuss. As the “newbie,” i don’t feel like dealing with the hassle that would be involved if i posted this as a thread. Hope you don’t mind. It’s related to this article.
I have a question for those here who are wiser than I. My question, “Why the rush to decide among the 3?” is based on several assumptions:
1. The IA caucus was an open primary, so there were crossover voters (dems and GOP-E) who voted.
2. The SC primary is also open, so ditto #1. (NH doesn’t really count; it’s a northern state where Newt & Perry won’t do well; it has gone Dem in 4 of the last 5 elections; and it only has 4 delegates anyway).
3. Since IA and SC are open primaries and therefore easily influenced by non-conservative voting blocs, these first 2 primaries do not reflect accurately the will of the 70-75% non-Romney conservatives.
4. The liberal media wants Romney because he’ll lose in the general election.
5. The GOP-E media want Romney because they want to retain their power & corruption, and in their egocentric state, they are incapable of realizing Romney will lose. (The more corrupt among them do not CARE if he loses.)
6. The Dems want Romney for the same reason as the media (see #4).
My question: Based on the above assumptions/presumptions, WHY is there such a frenetic rush to push 2 of the 3 remaining conservative candidates out and get behind 1 of them?
I know, I know... “We need to get together behind ONE PERSON!!!! If we don’t Romney will win!!!” But why? Is that based on emotion or rational intellectual thought?
Please do no answer with a rationale that includes any reference to polls, the media, or the opinion of the masses. That’s my point: The “masses” are being brainwashed into believing “Romney is our Savior.”
The way the rigged primaries are set up now, if we make this important decision based on the IA and SC primaries, then we are basing our decision on TWO OPEN PRIMARIES and LIBERAL POLLING DATA. Again... Why? There seems to be a concerted push here to make a premature decision. Why?
One more thing... An observation: It has been my experience in life that when people BEHAVE and ACT like a winner, they are more apt to win. Isn’t that what Democrats do? They ACT like winners. Look at the recent non-recess, recess (unconstitutional) appointment. They LAUGH at our weeping and gnashing of teeth and frenzied behavior.
If conservatives here and at other Internet sites would start ignoring the negative brainwashing by the media and start behaving with the quiet self-assurance that winners exhibit, then we would not be “stuck” with Romney.
“Please do no answer with” = “Please do not answer with...”
I think the only ones rushing are the media because they want more time to devise the plan on taking that person down with so many it’s costly to develop all of those plans. For the Rinos they want it settled to save their money.
My understanding is nothing is settled until st least March with the schedule as it stands. As such I see only a few willing and able to stick it out - Romney and Gingrich for sure - not sure about perry given his hesitancy after Iowa and Santorum I worry about cash flow. The other two aren’t worth discussing.
If it comes down to Gingerich and Romney by March then I see Gingerich coming out on top but hell have to hold on until then. The other two I’m just really worried about commitment and cash if they run into any bumps. I think newt is in for the haul just to spite mitt if need be...which I applaud.
Well, my advice is simple.
Vote for the most conservative dude.
Didn’t fail in Iowa, won’t fail in NH. I was impressed with the outcome in Iowa, and I suspect there are a few more surprises yet to come.
Because we are the stupid party so we let the enemy media pick our candidates.
I'm in Florida and I have already voted by mail for my favorite not-Romney. I voted for the guy I think is qualified, not the guy the media is telling me is the only one who can win. I guess I'm stupid that way.
Yes, it's that love/hate relationship with cash, isn't it? They need it to wage the war against romney (then obama), but if they receive it in large donated amounts, they get accused of being just another fat-cat, big-monied politician who's being "bought."
I do admire Bachman for dropping out, but i think she'd say "yes" to a VP nod from romney, which would REALLY muddy the waters.
I agree. This thing is just getting started.
Maybe after SC we won't have to look at Huntsman anymore. :)
You're my hero. :)
What’s that line from Forrest Gump?
Stupid is as stupid does? ;)
What about looking at Mary Kaye Huntsman? She looks younger than her daughters do. I wondered how much money that costs, and then I looked at her husband John Huntsman and I wondered how many face lifts HE had to keep up. Darn, is that catty? Couldn’t help it....
I don’t think it’s an accident that the first three events on the schedule allow Dems and Independents to help us pick our candidate, and I don’t think it’s an accident we keep getting the most moderate nominee as a result. The deck is stacked against conservatives that would upset the looting of the taxpayers.
Is Florida open?
It must come down to two people, Romeny and Newt
:)My fav is Santorum but if Newt or Perry get it that would be great.If Florida is closed then I will go by that as to which way the wind is blowing.
I think it may have to do with the ratio of primary states that are "winner take all" vs. proportional distribution of delegates. In the WTA states, Romney will grab the ring and if the conservative base is fractured among three candidates, then conservatives lose. If enough of the states are proportional, then I think the rush to unite everyone behind a single candidate becomes irrelevant. Just my two cents.
I've been looking out on the internet for information on how the states are set up, but if anyone has the info, that would be great.
Florida is closed, January 3rd was the last day to change party affiliation.
And the Colorado Caucus, Feb. 7th is closed, last day to switch affiliation was December 8th.
This is one of the sites where i'm getting that information: FairVote.org
I'd love to have a non-biased site that has all the information combined, so please let me know if you run across one.
Thanks for the link.
Not sure if this is what you mean, but it sure is fun to play with. FReeper xzins posted it the other day and i LOVE it. http://www.270towin.com/ You can see how the electoral vote has played out since 1789. One caveat: for the 2000 election, under "Election Facts," the website listed Impeachment and Presidential ethics. That SHOULD be listed on the previous election of 1996, under clinton.
According to that site, only Nebraska and Maine are set up to split their electoral votes. Not sure if that's accurate or not. I'm still looking.
One more thing: Wouldn't it be hilarious if someone would start collecting videos of Karl Rove and other GOP-Elites in previous elections contradicting their present-day statements about electoral voting? This morning i saw some "former advisor" to GHWB (on Faux News) saying that whoever wins NH tomorrow, it will be over. This idiot was actually claiming that the importance of NH could never be overestimated and that whoever won it would coast to victory. I have no doubt that Rove will be saying the same thing.
Well, GWB lost NH in '04 to Perry, according to that website above. I'd LOVE to see what that same schmuck was saying back THEN about the "importance" of NH!
If it makes you feel any better, i erased before posting what i’d originally written about romney. Twice. lol!
Perry Joins Rivals in Attacking Romney on Bain .He said that people in nearby Gaffney, S.C., in particular, would find his comments incredible, because it is where Mr. Perry said Bain shut down a plant and fired 150 workers.
That didnt happen until Mitt Romneys private equity firm, they looted that company with more than $20 million in management fees.
He also charged that Mr. Romneys firm took $65 million in management fees out of a steel company in a deal in which 700 steelworkers in Georgetown, S.C., and Kansas City lost their jobs, their health insurance and large portions of their pensions.
Theres nothing wrong with being successful and making money thats the American dream, Mr. Perry said. But there is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failures and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business. I happen to think that that is indefensible.
If you are a victim of Bain capitals downsizing, its the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain because he caused it, Mr. Perry said..
Romney won't know what hit him. And i can't WAIT until SC to watch it unfold. :)