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 ...
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."