Skip to comments.Mitt Romney's Rivals Don't Have Time On Their Side [Reality Check for Romney Challengers!]
Posted on 01/14/2012 9:54:48 PM PST by Steelfish
Mitt Romney's Rivals Don't Have Time On Their Side The front-runner has spent years and plenty of money firmly setting his national infrastructure in place. If a serious challenger emerges, that candidate would have to build a national campaign operation on the fly.
By Michael Finnegan January 14, 2012
Five Republicans are fighting mightily to deny Mitt Romney a quick coronation as the party's presidential nominee. But if one of them emerges as his top challenger, a monumental task lies ahead: building a national campaign operation on the fly.
For Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or any other successful insurgent, the state-by-state scramble for delegates would require quick hiring of staffers scattered across the country first and foremost in Florida, where Romney could essentially lock up the nomination in the Jan. 31 primary.
Offices must be rented, cellphones purchased. Endorsements must be lined up and scores of surrogates deployed. A deluge of media inquiries will gush in not just from the national media, but also from far-flung local news outlets, many of them in strategically vital regions that cannot be ignored.
Simultaneous challenges abound: new TV ads to be produced and tested with focus groups, polls to be taken, brochures to be printed, and databases to be culled to target voters susceptible to persuasion through phone calls and mail.
Seasoned advance staff must navigate the candidate through multiple events a day in diverse and unfamiliar towns. Trivial missteps can escalate instantly into YouTube nightmares.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Hey! Mike!! Yada, yada, yada!!!
Yes, and all that organization and planning comes with leadership and vision which apparently the others do not have.
My Grandmother, bless her soul, did not know but three or four words in english. She did, however, love to watch Jack Lord. She referred to the show as Bokuom.
People sure do forget quickly.
Sarah Palin’s old network is still in existence, I bet. She throws in with whoever finally gets the Conservative brass ring and smashes Mitt flat, then that network can be activiated.
Bachmann leads, attacks...
Cain leads, attacks...
Perry leads, attacks...
Newt leads, attacks...
Santorum Leads, attacks...
Romney leads, time is running out for the others...
Thank heaven we have a free press unlike Pravda in the U. S. S. R. /s
It has become a real toss-up which is worse Pravda or the U. S. Press.
For the U. S., the U. S. press being corrupt as it can be is definitely more dangerous for the well being of the U. S.
That reminds me of my great grandmother from Austria. She used to sit on top of her set like it was dyeing out.
Forget it. People around here are no longer interested in reality. If you don’t subscribe to what they really, really WANT to be true, then you must be a Romney supporter.
This should be a warning to us, and a lesson learned. THIS time around we should have found our conservative candidate and rallied behind him before the game started. We believed we had the luxury of a primary that would give us all a say in OUR nominee.
How can we have countless posts about ‘they’ choosing ‘our’ nominee, and not realize the race was being decided on the ground before the first vote was cast in Iowa?
What’s even loonier is that people here have been MOCKING Romney for “living in Iowa and NH”—uh, yeah, THAT’S why he won there. That should have woken us up and gotten us going.
I hate to say this (really) but my respect for Sarah Palin has dropped like a rock these past few weeks, because we have seen the damage she did by leading on her supporters for so long. As late as September, FReepers were posting ‘Keep your powder dry, Sarah’s going to announce by the 14th” or whatever. While we were standing around checking our watches and she was flirting with the idea of running, Romney was doing the on-the-ground hard work WE should have been doing to stop him.
Facts are stubborn things. Too bad people here are starting to get like Obamaniacs, thinking they can still wish away Romney’s march to the nomination by damning facts they don’t like.
I’ll have to agree with you on this. Groundwork for a serious candidate should have begun last June at the very latest.
Sorry, Laz, but no sound on the computer. We don’t know why - it only fails when I’m on. (Stupid machine!)
Romney better realize he doesn’t have the conservative vote.
Somehow I don't forsee anything until someone has it locked up.
Whatever happened to Cain by the way?
What is he waiting for?
And they don’t have the deep pockets of LDS inc either.
Sandy, all other things being equal (Romney’s record) would you still be backing him if he wasn’t LDS?
.....and TONS of money.
Problem with your theory is that, IIRC, Reagan didn’t get the nomination in ‘76 ;)
This is the problem with so many non-Romneys instead of one. Until such time, if ever, there is ONE, there won’t be the money or organization without which there is just no way to get the nomination, much less win the general election. That’s true even with as vulnerable an incumbent as Obama who, if nothing else, has money and organization. And anyone who doesn’t think that’s important doesn’t know bupkus about national elections.
True- Palin screwed the primary entrants.Bachman did not have a chance in hell and nor does Perry who should have dropped out after NH.
I have sadly concluded that everything you write is true. I wish it was not so, but Romney will be the nominee. I don’t like it one bit, but facts are a stubborn thing.
So is math and it lines up for Romney no matter how much we on FR don’t like it. Romney will win SC and FL, then it will be brutally evident to all of us then.
Rick Perry had the best chance and his “heartless” remark dropped him like a stone, from which he never recovered.
I thought Perry’s ‘heartless’ comment would fade away, but it really got to people. I’ve been all over the place on who to support since Palin didn’t get in, and I am stymied.
To let you know how I feel about Romney, all I need say is that I live in Massachusetts, and was living here when he was governor.
I don’t know whether she’ll become directly involved. But I can not see her supporting Mitt Romney at all.
It’s pretty much universally agreed among all Romney-haters and Romney-endorsers alike that he doesn’t have “the vision thing.”
We conservatives have got to get hold of the nuts and bolts of politics if we are going to survive.
I would add one thing, there is a lamentable tendency among us to blame politicians for giving the people of a democracy what they want. Politicians are not fools, they know that entitlements are bankrupting the country and they also know that the country demands entitlements. If they deny the people their entitlements they will no longer be politicians.
It requires the rarest and most charismatic of individuals on the level of Ronald Reagan to break through this mindset which the Democrats so easily demagogue. Most politicians, even Republican and so-called conservative politicians, spend their efforts finding the rationalizations which will keep the music playing.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Good post. Sad post, but I think you are seeing things clearly. I was hoping someone other than Mitt would rise up. Gingrich gave me some hope, but I think he blew it or it was blown from under him. Still hoping a little bit, but reality is reality.
Yep, Perry went off into Hispandering and dissing the people he wanted to court. Not a good move.
Not a chance. For many of us, stopping illegals is one of the top problems. He could have said that the tuition thing was a mistake or he could have made some other excuse, but instead attacked US citizens as heartless for not supporting illegals and the destruction of the country.
He showed that he was a part of the problem and someone we could NOT count on. There is no way anyone can seriously think he wouldn’t support an amnesty after those comments. Maybe he wouldn’t but all trust was gone.
He NEVER recovered and he never will. I seriously doubt he could win re-election as governor at this time either.
People just believe what they want to believe. Another misplaced belief that some Freepers hold and I think is dangerous is that no matter what Obama is guaranteed to lose. Scary attitude, IMO.
What’s really stupid and to show how really tone-deaf the beltway can make you, was Newt’s illegal lovefest shortly after. He was starting to get traction as the anti-Romney after the press hounded Herman Cain out of the race, when he felt the need to state his support of illegals.
Coulped with his problems with global-warming and some other less than Conservative ideas, he felt the need to shoot himself in the head AKA Rick Perry.
The American people want illegals removed, the border sealed, and they want it overwhelmingly. Pandering to illegals is NOT a smart position.
See my tagline.
Eh, a lot of the anti-illegal sentiment is just scapegoating. People don’t want to admit their beloved entitlements are the problem that’s bankrupting the country. The analysis I’ve seen on whether illegals contribute to the economy or not comes out as a wash. They seem to add to the economy as much as they take.
The most important point is that without immigration, illegal or otherwise, in the numbers we have it, our endemic abortion and birth control would put us into a population and economic decline just as it does in Europe, Japan, etc. I’m glad we have a far better class of immigrant coming in than Europe does with their poisonous Islamic immigration. We need population growth via immigration or otherwise at the levels we have it if not more in order to grow the economy.
Immigration law is arbitrary. I believe we 100% need a sealed, controlled border and that should be done before considering what to do with the people already here. But there is absolutely no reason to kick out people who are working and have no criminal record. I fail to see what our country gains by kicking out law-abiding, working citizens. Plus it’s immoral by any standard of religion or morality to kick out people who were brought here as children through no fault of their own.
There are statutes of limitations on a whole lot of laws. The idea that there shouldn’t be one on illegal immigration is silly, especially since it’s an incredibly minor violation that does no harm to anyone. It is simply not practical to enforce millions of violations of laws going back decades, hence one reason why statutes of limitations exist.
I disagree with almost everything you said in that post. Illegals are a problem costing us billions of dollars a year and they kill 12 Americans a week.
We DON’T need them.
It is truly, deeply sad to see so many politicians making politics their life work. Look at the utterly corrupt, thoroughly hate-filled Barney Frank from my own state. Here is a man whose only jobs before entering government were TEACHING GOVERNMENT in school (nothing wrong with teaching at all, but it is only one component of what should be an expansive resume before getting in a position to tell other people how to live their lives) and pumping gas at his father's gas station.
That's it. That's Barney Frank's resume--pumping gas for awhile, working in the gas station for around a year after his father's death, some teaching about government--then government work for the past forty years.
In all of that, can you please find me the experience that informs his deciding how BILLIONS of our tax dollars should be used? (I don't want to spend anymore time on this depressing character, but "Freddie Mac" should tell you the rest.)
I bring this up to illustrate that someone like this is ONLY capable of getting into government in order to steer money from those who make it to those who don't. What does he know to do other than 'work' the machinery of government? He's precisely the kind of machine pol Chris Matthews loves, the guy who knows the names of the ward bosses and who to talk up to get so-and-so's nephew a public-sector job.
This is not a rare creature, but the most common kind of person who is a success in our government.
The kind of person you and I discuss, the ones like Reagan who LEAD, are TERRIFYING to these kinds of people. They hated and still hate Reagan because he didn't give a damn about that staff--and he didn't like the very things these guys dream about.
We need strong, conservative leaders who are not looking to just take over the machinery of government, but who are seeking to get under the hood and leave that machinery utterly changed after they have finished their job. And then these leaders should move on with their lives as an example of the kind of participatory government we need.
I think I'm just dreaming, though, if I think such a person could come along.
The problem with this set of challengers is that none of them except Mitt Romney and Ron Paul built the organization that could take a campaign through March. Their failure to plan ahead and build a team that could do these things is why each of these candidates has shown himself to be a poor choice for president.
Newt Gingrich has had a national organization for over ten years. He has had supporters in every state. If he had gotten those supporters organized and gathered volunteers to begin the ballot access process in the spring, he'd be ready with a 50 state campaign. In the spring of last year, he was still in double digits in many polls. If he'd announced then and started raising money to pay a staff in almost every state, he'd be ready to be a 50 state contender.
Rick Perry came to the campaign late, but the initial burst of enthusiasm could have been used to put together an organization and do the things necessary to win a 50 state campaign. Instead, he seemed to bask in his good poll numbers and keep saying "Texas" in every sentence. The time that he lost then is time that can't be recovered. Maybe he got more enthusiasm from people who like to posture rather than roll up their sleeves and do the dirty work. In that case, I'm not surprised that he failed to put together the needed campaign.
Rick Santorum came with a disadvantage. He never had the money or the poll numbers to build a big organization in every state. He's the only candidate who really has an excuse. He'll have some ballot access problems, but if his people can do all of these things in February, he could still make this a race in March. He probably won't win many states, but with proportional allotment, he could win enough delegates to have a chance in April.
Jon Huntsman can't be entirely blamed for not putting together his organization. He was serving in China until late in the spring. Supposedly, he had a group of people putting together a formidable organization for him. I guess they weren't putting together such a great organization after all.
He’s opened up a 21 point lead in SC. See how going negative works?
Hey, Good Morning, My Friend.
If you haven’t seen this, pour yourself another cup of coffee...grab the nearest and dearest person or animal next to you and watch this:
I think I might post this today as well.
Newt speaks for around 33 minutes. In that time, not one vocalized pause when he’s answering the question. people are spell bound.
He takes only a handful of questions that time. Each was in provocative and far ranging. I can’t imagine Santorum or Perry capable of doing the same thing. These men are good people, and we need them...but Folks, they are not in the same league as this man.
Just when you think there is nothing more he cas say that’s listening, he takes us back to Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and FDR on checks and balancing our judiciary, then brings in to the present.
BUT IT’S NOT UNTIL WE GET TO AROUND 23 MINUTES OR SO INTO THE TAPE, WHEN THE QUESTION IS ASKED OF HIM...”IN YOUR OPINION, DESCRIBE FOR US YOUR IDEA OF THE AMERICAN DREAM.”
I HAD TEARS IN MY EYES LISTENING TO HIS RESPONSE, AND THIS HASN’T BEEN THE FIRST TIME.
We must elect Newt. Please, Folks, give this man a chance. Before you dismiss him for this reason or that reason...listen to his message. It involves ALL Americans, not just the right...ALL of us.
PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS AND PASS IT ON.
How about a Day to Honor Team Romney's attack on the Palin
children on the eve of Election 2008.
The McCain/Palin ticket was up ++4 to 10 pts
in some polls, days prior to Election 2008.
So rather than helping the GOP, Romney and
TeamROMNEY and the RNME (Republican National Media Establishment)
decided to attack Gov. Palin to throw Election2008.
Romney, and the Van der Sloot RNME RINOs for Obama in 2008
Late in October, The American Spectator's The Prowler revealed:
"Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers
have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election.
'Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012,'
says one former Romney aide
'The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney.
"Some former Romney aides were behind the recent leaks to media, including CNN, that Governor Sarah Palin was a 'diva' and was going off message intentionally."
The Palmetto Scoop reported: "One of the first stories to hit the national airwaves was
the claim of a major internal strife between close McCain aides and the folks handling his running mate Sarah Palin."
"Im told by very good sources that this was indeed the case and that a rift had developed, but it was between Palins people and the staffers brought on from the failed presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain aides."
"The sources said nearly 80 percent of Romneys former staff was absorbed by McCain and these individuals were responsible for what amounts to a premeditated, last-minute sabotage of Palin."
aides loyal to Romney inside the McCain campaign, said The Scoop, reportedly saw
that Palin would be a serious contender for the Republican nomination in 2012 or 2016, which made her a threat to another presidential quest by Romney.
"These staffers are now out trying to finish her off .hoping it would ingratiate themselves with Mitt Romney."
"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the Diva leak was Nicolle Wallaces husband."
I note you have placed at the foot of your note the imperative to "pass it on". I quite agree.
The man is spellbinding and the audience was with him with one small exception the entire time. I know that speechifying alone and debating skills alone do not make a president, we have seen that to our sorrow with Obama, but those skills might make a candidate. And as John F. Kennedy said in this context, "first you got to win."
But Gingrich of course is more than a forensic robot, he is a man with a proven record and an encyclopedic knowledge of all issues foreign and domestic, with, above all, the ability to get to the root of an issue and to explain it to the folks in such a way that, first, they understand it and, second, they believe it.
Conservatism believes that society is quite capable of managing itself with minimal interference and guidance from the government. The government is there to outline the foul lines, call balls and strikes, and go home when the game is over.
Barney Frank is a very intelligent man, his sister is equally intelligent and very articulate just like Barney. Both of them, however, despite their uncommon intellects, have accepted a political philosophy which tells them that the government is a tool with which to work their vision of the world. Put another way, government is the clay which a God Player can mold to make man in any image he wants.
So when Barney Frank decides to reshape the way America provides itself shelter, he imposed his vision on hundreds of millions of Americans and we see the result.
Intelligence is no defense against the arrogance of a God Player anymore than it is defense against diarrhea.
Thank you again. YOur post makes me feel better. Are you in the military?
“But Gingrich of course is more than a forensic robot, he is a man with a proven record and an encyclopedic knowledge of all issues foreign and domestic, with, above all, the ability to get to the root of an issue and to explain it to the folks in such a way that, first, they understand it and, second, they believe it.”
Then tell me why smart people like Ann Couter with whom just about all of us here would swoon over her articles and ideas, has come out for Romney who is clearly another younger version of McCain, Dole etc?
Ann is a smart person. She knows history. She understands about the checks and balances of our govt esp that the Courts have the least power, yet when Newt states the obvious that the President and the Congress need to check the power of Supreme Court, Newt is deemed a radical.
As he eloquently points out, 1 person, (e.g. a Kennedy) on the Supreme Court has the power to rule this country? I think not.
I couldn't agree more, ditto with his sister. In both cases, I have seen them mold an argument around inconvenient facts, and their intelligence actually made me LOSE respect for them. I could SEE how they knew the truth, but were trying to keep the viewer away from it for their own political purposes.
Just as ignorance doesn't prove moral superiority due to some myth of being 'closer to the land/truth/spirit,' having the prestiguous degrees Barney Frank has doesn't mean he has learned WISDOM from all of the facts and data and personal stories paraded before his eyes over the decades. He clings to his philosophy and that is the sieve through which all information he receives must pass first, I'm afraid.
REad post #8:
I think there are many many people who will rally around Newt once it’s paired down to just Romney and Newt.
I know we keep hearing that you have to win SC and/or FL to win, but dammit who says!!!!???? I mean we’re talking abot a handfull of delegates.
I say Newt hangs in there come what may until Super Tuesday. ONce he’s toe to toe with Mittens people can decide. They’ll see the difference. He will win their hearts.
There’s a big MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OUT THERE ON OUR SIDE who have not listened to the debates, talked about the nomination and who haven’t listened to Newt.
Lastly, I am seeing a kind of inner peace with Newt when he speaks. He sees the big picture. This is a different man from who we’ve come to know over the years.
Many of us here, me included, were embarrassed at the man at first. I thought, oh know, here we go again. We all thought that SArah would put her hat in the ring. Then Newt starts to self destruct. Everyone counts him out and laughs at him.
YOU can’t laugh anymore, FOLKS. Newt is real. He is the man for the moment.
Sometimes you get hold of an idea, and then the idea gets a hold of you. Clearly, he is on a mission. UNLIKE ALL THE OTHERS I deeply feel that NEWT is in this because he can do the most good for this country.
All the others, I think are in it for vanity. Maybe at the beginning Perry was in it because he felt like HE WAS THE CHOSEN, but not now.
How can Santorum get up in front of a crowd and believe that he surpasses Newt? He can’t.
I quite agree. I came away with the same feeling and have felt this way for some time about Gingrich. This is a purely subjective reaction and I do not expect anyone else to come to the same conclusion. Everyone must judge the character of the candidate according to one's own lights.
As to Ann Coulter, she's highly intelligent, glib, and desperately wants to save the country by getting rid of Obama. I think she like many conservatives puts the highest value on electability and has concluded, like many conservatives, the Romney has a good chance to defeat Obama and Newt does not. I do not share that view for reasons I articulated long before I heard Gingrich talk about the need to drive the debate. As a matter of fact, I remember writing passionate posts four years ago screening for John McCain to go over to the attack arguing that rack Obama would inevitably win the election if he were not morally destroyed.
Romney is not in Gingrich's class in the debate but he is certainly above all the other Republicans and he makes almost no gaffes. He is a safe bet. There is a certain security in supporting Romney when the downside of a loss to Obama is unthinkable.
As the idea of Romney's electability becomes the accepted wisdom it takes on an element of inevitability and I think many conservatives want the strife to end and the attack against Obama to begin.
Newt nailed it in an interview this week saying that the "inevitability" and "electability" of Romney remind him of how Dole and McCain got the nomination. As far as I can see Newt's ads have been highlighting Romney's record in Massachusetts lately. I simply don't know what's wrong with the voters if they can just wave all that away. Of course the polls have clearly shown that a lot of women voters are voting for Romney based solely on his "good looks." The way that both Hilary and Newt have been "Borked" by their own parties, not to mention the way Marco Rubio is being "groomed," seems to show that the party leaders think "good looks" are the primary measure of "electability" these days. When your swing voters tend to be women who are totally ignorant about politics, government, economics, etc., the sad fact is they may not be wrong.
Republican weakness in recent years has been with women especially single women with children who, the theory goes, look to the welfare state as a surrogate husband.
Womens' reaction to Mrs. Gingrich will be absolutely critical. I know my wife reacts negatively to her but I don't know why and how much that can legitimately be extrapolated.
It seems to me it would be a stretch for a potential first lady to become a deciding factor in an election. Especially since I don’t think it’s typical for them to even give interviews in a campaign. But I guess it all depends if the media can succeed at spinning things that way. I have no doubt that
I actually think that STRENGTH is the most powerful superficial factor in deciding presidential elections. That comes from a stronger human instinct than an attraction to “good looks” and strength appeals to both men and women. It’s natural in any society going back to the beginning of civilization for people to want their leader to be the strongest person they can find. Strength is harder to quantify than appearance, but I think it comes down to getting the sense that a person has courage, tenacity and talent.
I almost have my doubts that even Reagan could get elected during this time. America has simply slipped further over the cliff. Moral degradation has come full circle.
The youth have clearly turned the corner into Socialism. Thanks to our Public Schools brainwashing system. It’s tragic that we have allowed this to happen.
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.