Do yourself and us `Republican crazies' a flavor, Mitt, and choose a conservative running mate. Then ask Sarah for her blessing. Then ask the Taxed Enough Already party for our votes. Then hold our hair. You're a smart guy. It ain't brain science.
Posted on 08/08/2012 5:44:46 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
After absorbing three months of negative ads from President Obama, the GOP challenger is raising his game in time for the nominating convention.
Wednesday's Gallup poll had President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney essentially tied, with Mr. Obama at 47% and Mr. Romney at 46%. That's good news for the challenger: Mr. Romney has absorbed a punishing three-month Obama television barrage that drained the incumbent's war chest. Historically, undecided voters tend to break late for the challenger.
Mr. Romney and his campaign have also raised their game. After Mr. Obama declared on July 13 that "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," Mr. Romney went on offense, saying the following Tuesday in Pennsylvania that the notion entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses was "insulting." Wednesday in Ohio, Mr. Romney attacked Mr. Obama for not having met with his Jobs Council for six months. Thursday in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney belittled the White House's explanation that the president had failed to do so because he "has a lot on his plate." The following Tuesday in Nevada before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Obama over cuts in defense and veterans care.
Each time, Mr. Romney's message was delivered in the morning and dominated the day's coverage. That change appears now to be standard procedure for Team Romney...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Not to mention the fact that if people looked at the internals of these polls they would see how corrupt the sampling is.
Rove says that picking the right running mate and presenting the selection will help.
OK, so I wonder if it will be Petraeus. While he has said he would not consider the job, I think he understands what a disaster Obama is to the country and our defense.
I bet he would do it to save the country. Petraeus is just about the most admirable leader in the nation.
While everyone thinks economic issues are at the forefront, I wonder if we will be in a war with Iran soon. Romney knows that Petraeus at the top would help blunt Obama’s October surprise of starting a war.
Both campaigns internal polling must be showing Mitt Romney with a huge lead over Barack Obama in multiple important states or Barry wouldn’t be flying around like a crazed woodpecker hither and yon.
Do yourself and us `Republican crazies' a flavor, Mitt, and choose a conservative running mate. Then ask Sarah for her blessing. Then ask the Taxed Enough Already party for our votes. Then hold our hair. You're a smart guy. It ain't brain science.
Chicago politics played on the national stage will not be well received. It is infuriating. It seems even mainstream media is beginning to smell the rat, but I wonder when they will turn on this type of slime. It can't continue.
What you don’t know about David Petraeus
Conservatives may think twice before championing CIA director for Romney VP
http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/08/what-you-dont-know-about-david-petraeus/
by Chelsea Schilling
The political world is abuzz with speculation about whether Mitt Romney plans to choose CIA Director David Petraeus to be his vice-presidential running mate on the GOP ticket – but Petraeus’ positions on a variety of issues could upset conservatives if he is indeed selected for the slot.
The retired Army four-star general, who has been lionized by many Republicans, led the charge to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military – more than a year before the Obama administration repealed the armed forces’ “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
In March 2010, Petraeus declared “the time has come” for the military to reconsider the rule. In the same month, Petraeus told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria he served with homosexuals in the CIA and didn’t believe troops would have difficulty adjusting to working with openly homosexual service members.
He has expressed support for Obama’s calls for shutting down Guantanamo Bay prison and condemned American use of interrogation strategies such as waterboarding.
Also, Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying the perception of U.S. favoritism toward Israel has fomented anti-Americanism. He told the committee, “enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility.
“Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region].”
Petraeus’ remarks came in March 2010, after a week of stressed U.S.-Israel relations following Israel’s announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem.
His critics have blasted him for being soft on crime, reconciling with the Taliban and supporting Sunni militias in Iraq’s Sunni Awakening.
“I think that you have to have at least an open mind about this because this is historically the way counterinsurgency efforts ultimately have been concluded,” he told CBS News’ Katie Couric.
Asked what the U.S. and Afghanistan have to offer the Taliban, he replied, “They can live is No. 1. No. 2, perhaps they could return to their country of origin. A lot of them are tired of, again, living their life on the run, of being pursued, of living outside the country and so forth. And so I think that those are all fairly powerful incentives for them.”
On the issue of Iran going nuclear, Petraeus told “Meet the Press” on Feb. 21, 2010, that he believes Iran is “a ways” away from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and agrees with continuing the “pressure track” the Obama administration is now on.
Many of Petraeus’ views on fiscal policy and social issues are unknown. Several pundits have questioned his political positions. Much like retired four-star Army Gen. Colin Powell, who served under President W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, Petraeus is often seen as a moderate who sometimes supports centrist or Democrat-backed causes.
A 2008 report in the New Yorker stated, “Petraeus is registered to vote as a Republican in New Hampshire – he once described himself to a friend as a northeastern Republican, in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller – but he said that around 2002, after he became a two-star general, he stopped voting.”
The most powerful word in all of politics is the word “reelect”. By any standards that word is worth at least a 5-7% edge.
Any incumbent that is even in the polls and those people polled all go vote, will lose by 5-7%.
In any reelection type campaign, there are always two decisions to the undecided before they can vote.
First the undecided have to decide to fire the incumbent. If they cannot they will vote for the incumbent.
If they fire the incumbent then they are intellectually free to vote for others or not vote at all for anyone else in that particular race.
Getting undecideds to fire the incumbent is the priority task of the opposition campaign.
Only when that happens can the challenger’s campaign tout the benefits of voting for the challenger.
No one ever gets elected on their qualifications, there are many more important factors.
The best campaigner and the best campaign always win.
The undecideds are the biggest target and getting your friends to show up and vote is next.
Mr. RomneyCARE could not even beat John McCain.
MORONS.
“Both campaigns internal polling must be showing Mitt Romney with a huge lead over Barack Obama in multiple important states or Barry wouldn’t be flying around like a crazed woodpecker hither and yon.”
I agree. What’s with the Obama ads running in California? Could there be a problem?
Petraeus is too untrained in scuffle-campaign politics and doesn’t bring any swing states. His base are the troops and they will likely vote for Romney anyway.
Rice is too academic and policy oriented, too classy for scuffle-campaign politics, and again doesn’t deliver many undecideds, blacks and latinos are going to largely vote for Obama anyway, even if Rubio is the VP.
Christie is too polarizing and, like Rubio, would take attention away from Romney. Pawlenty can’t deliver a swing state. Portman is the opposite, too boring.
The economy issue is the best way to get the undecideds to fire Obama.
The brightest and most articulate Republican on the economy is Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. He is an excellent speaker, thinks well on his feet, has a Johnny Carson-quality snappy reply in debates. He can deliver a big swing state. He is the class of the VP candidates.
Now, if you could find a woman from Virginia or Florida that had Paul Ryan economic smarts and a Margaret Thatcher personality, Obama would be packing his bags.
“What you don’t know about David Petraeus”
Thanks for posting. Based on this, guess Petraeus wouldn’t be such a good idea after all.
C’mon man, what did you have to go and diss woodpeckers for! They actually work hard!
Thanks for that link you posted. What a freakin’ surprise.... a very pleasant surprise.
He’s running ads in CALIFORNIA? When he is supposedly bleeding money and being beaten at fundraising by Romney? WTH?!
Hahahahahaha! [gasp] Hahahahaha!
Polls are tricky things. Sometimes they seem accurate and it gives the illusion that they are ALWAYS accurate. I think Liberal media outlets skew polls in Obama’s favor. I started my own Romney v. Obama poll online
We look for someone to lead the movement and sometimes we don’t vet our choices... infact it is a real problem in our government. I think that we should know something about a person before we declare them to be another Reagan.
LLS
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.