Skip to comments.Romney adviser's game-changer (Will Mitt fire Drudge/Rhoades partner Fehrnstrom for gaffe?)
Posted on 03/22/2012 5:04:48 PM PDT by jimbo123
It is typical of Mitt Romney's luck that, on the morning after he all but secured the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign became embroiled in a controversy over a 1950s plastic toy.
On Wednesday, hours after Romney's 12-point victory over Rick Santorum in the Illinois primary silenced most of the remaining doubters, senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom went on CNN and gave new meaning to the term "game change."
(Excerpt) Read more at vcstar.com ...
Enquiring minds want to know...
Does anyone see a coincidence between Milt’s campaign making this really damaging Etch a Sketch comment and the GOPe all circling the wagons and calling for Santorum to drop out? I think the everyone knows this is really far more damaging to his campaign than they let on and they are in panic mode to try and mop up another Milt gaff.
I am of the opinion that the Fehrnstrom “gaffe” was intentional.
Rehnrnstrom is Matt Rhoades’ long-time partner and their loyalties go back to Ken Mehlman and the Bush RNC, not the Romney campaign. Drudge is part of that mafia. And Romney is their stooge.
The GOP-e wants a Romney loss and a Senate win in 2012. And Jeb Bush in 2016, not Sarah Palin.
It sort of tore down their carefully crafted image of Mitt as the conservative... sort of like a etch a sketch.
If that is true, then why are all the GOPe dope running to every outlet under the sun to call for Santorum to drop out and for the party to “come together”. For crying out loud, BOR is pushing that tonight for the sake of the party. They all think that Santorum as a very slim shot at victory anyway and have discounted him and Conservative voters already in favor of the inevitable Milt win. Why all the panic today?
I took the etch-a-sketch comment to be about strategy and tactics, not about policy or issues. And I’m a Ron Paul guy. It is interesting how each of us brings our own preconceptions to the comment.
The real issue is whether Mitt’s team has any smarter strategy and tactics than the clearly flawed campaigns of the others (including my favorite). A candidate or surrogate can say something innocuous. But if it isn’t carefully worded, the media will twist the meaning to suit their agenda.
Remember the crosshairs on Gifford? Absolutely nobody on the pro-2A side thought for a minute that it was about guns or violence. But the media was able to twist it that way.
Yes there is a double standard. And if we want to win, we have to find ways to overcome it.
So are you saying the Mitt is indeed a conservative and if he wins the nomination, he will not move so far left of the field those on the conservative side will not be able to see him.
The GOP-e want Santorum out and Newt out so they can stop spending money during the primary.
Then you’ll see them focus their money on the House and Senate and let the Ken Mehlman/Rhoades/Drudge/GoProud mafia take down Mitt in the general election.
Is he that DELUDED to think HE can win?
Another easily manipulated illuminati finger puppet is all he is.
The GOP-e wants Mitt to win the primary and to lose the general election. Mitt is their stooge.
What would be in it for Romney, under that scenario?
The GOP-e wants a Romney loss
The GOP-E’s that I know are slobbering over Romney. They actually think he’s going to beat Bam.
“....silenced most of the remaining doubters.” Wow.
You miss the story entirely. The etch-a-sketch comment was made by a staffer, not by Mitt. The staffer who made the comment does not deal in policy decisions so much as in how to package the policy decisions made by others.
If any politician (Obama, Mitt, Paul, or township clerk) changes his hair cut or color of clothing or lapel pin, it does not mean he has changed his position on issues. When a cynical politician on the other side does it, we see it for what it is...it is not a change in policy position.
But we are not as clear to see it for those who are on our side ... or pretend to be on our side. And what clouds our vision is thinking that for someone on our side, changing the packaging changes the contents of the package.