Skip to comments.Romney says his campaign doesn’t need a ‘turnaround’
Posted on 09/23/2012 8:51:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Mitt Romney insisted his campaign is not in need of a "turnaround" in spite of polls showing President Barack Obama expanding his lead in battleground states.
In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," the Republican presidential nominee rejected criticism from conservative pundits who have called his campaign incompetent.
"It doesn't need a turnaround," Romney insisted, pointing to national polls that have him "tied" with Obama. "I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Romney is not stupid and he can afford and presumably receives the best polling and focus group data money can buy.”
This is the myth of the competent hope and change candidate, the assumption that Romney is doing all the stuff we want him to do in closed doors where we cannot see, since we KNOW or SUSPECT at least that he is competent and more conservative or a smarter politician than the open source evidence suggests. In fact, all the evidence suggests that he specifically doesn’t have any of the virtues we hope that he has. Even so far as business is concerned, there is still the yawning hole of contradiction from when he governed about as conservatively as any liberal democrat governor.
“SO once and for all Ansel, TELL all of us what your objective truly is in posting all of these ‘facts’ about Mitt Romney? Are you just trying to be a helpful, informative FReeper, raising our consciousness and awareness about that wicked man? I implore you, please PLEASE tell us who we should vote for, if not Romney & Ryan on November 6th. You don’t want anybody voting for him, so tell us Ansel, PLEASE tell us, who are YOU voting for, so we may all be enlightened and likewise walk in your path of conservative purity? “
You need to get it into your thick head that not everyone here is a committed demagogue who only cares about getting a guy with an (R) into the White House. Truth cannot survive in your world of group-think and mind numbing bullying to trick us into embracing something that is so utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney has an economic plan, that he is committed to the repeal of all the job killing things we hate, or even that he is a semi-honest and honorable man. It’s all assumptions, lies and mantras repeated over and over and over again.
Here’s the sad fact for ya:
The economy is going to collapse. There is going to be a reset. It is going to be painful. And neither party leadership has a plan to deal with it. Even Mittens endorsed the Stimulus and TARP before it was cool to be against it. They’re all in the same camp. They all get money from their big bankster buddies who are content on pushing debt and credit as the opiate of the masses to pad their pockets until, at last, they, and all the socialist governments on Earth, burn out because it was better than fading away!
And all of this is said not to promote Obama, or to promote anybody in particular. It is said for the same reason I might say that thunderclouds predict a storm, or that grass is green or that Republicans are the new Democrats, and Democrats are the new Commies. Welcome to Europe and all that implies.
My gosh, you really do NEVER even try to do politics, or factual discussions, it really is just attack and personal attacks with you.
This is just a bunch of angry women that have no idea of how to even participate in a political forum.
This is just a frenzy of girlish emotionalism on display.
Amazing, and not helpful to your man, you ruined any value to this thread and blocked any analysis of his campaign.
SO once and for all Ansel, TELL all of us what your objective truly is in posting all of these 'facts' about Mitt Romney? Are you just trying to be a helpful, informative FReeper, raising our consciousness and awareness about that wicked man?...Ansel....who are YOU supporting? It's time to show your cards, and I'm callin'.Come now, Ansel. It's not time to divert the topic or slither away. It's your real turn in the spotlight. We actually are interested in your thoughts, perhaps read something positive from you for a change. After all, there must be someone you have in mind or have been campaigning for all these long, arduous months that you've been persuading people to steer clear of Romney. Who is your superior alternative? As in any fiction, which requires a suspension of disbelief, assume you're right. For whom, then, should we vote? Enlighten us, do!
“WHO ARE YOU SUPPORTING?”
I’ve got a better question for Ansel: “How much is Rat Patrol paying you for your support of Obama on this site?”
If they’re paying by the word, Ansel is already a rich man, lol
That was the point.
You haven’t disagreed with me on a single Romney fact on this entire thread.
What is YOUR point?
Who do you propose should be voted for in the alternative?
Who do you believe will have a chance to oust Obama?
Let’s assume another fiction, which also requires the suspension of disbelief. Suppose ALL posters in FR ‘see the light’ and agree with all your posts about Romney, and the convert to your purity of conservatism. They all agree not to vote for Romney.
Whatever will you do with your time?
For whom do you propose all these converts should vote?
He doesn’t care. As long as he contributes to the failure of Romney, he’ll be happy with another 4 years of 0bama.
Whether it is because those Independents love Romney as a brother, friend, romantic interest, hairstyle, etc.; or whether they prefer his position on the economy is irrelevant, so long as they cast their vote for Romney this election.
However, I suspect most of these Independent voters apply a lot more intellect to their voting decisions than you demonstrate.
That’s become more than apparent.
What a fraud of a ‘conservative’.
We already know what Reagan would do. But ask the same about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln. Could you even imagine them willing the People to help elect, by default or otherwise, an evil anti-Christian marxist?
Uh oh, watch out for that comment about his ‘intellect’, that will be construed as a personal attack.
Otherwise, your observations are astute.
Good to see Romney fighting back and hitting back hard...wait! Ooops I see he is attacking conservatives once again, for a moment I thought he was fighting back against the RAT bastard commie pig 0dumb0. I guess that Romney will use the soft answer turneth away 0dumb0's wrath approach. Sigh! We are so screwed!
It is not at all clear that Romney is an effective politician, or that he is being prudently advised, or that he is open to what polling data might or might not be telling him respecting the trajectory of his campaign. Since we do not know we are purely speculating. And our speculations are fueled by an inescapable understanding of the consequences of losing this election. I might add, even if we win this election, we have no assurance that Romney will be our Paladin.
I am disquieted by the evidence of the Rasmussen polling and you are disquieted by Romney's biography. I share your unease, in fact I posted this yesterday:
"When an elected leader governs according to his ideology and succeeds, he is said to be governing according to his principles. When an elected leader governs according to his principles and fails, he is said to be governing according to ideology.
" If we look at the career of perhaps the most successful businessman and politician and certainly the man most qualified in the 20th century by virtue of his biography and accomplishments to be President of the United States, Herbert Hoover, we see a man who could not lead as president at the time of economic crisis but who could lead companies and entire nations as he did, for example, in feeding millions in Russia.
"I suppose the point is that a businessman might be a good leader in a business environment but not in a political environment and a politician to be successful in a democracy must be seen as a successful leader. Franklin Roosevelt confronted the same economic crisis, his results were no better than Hoover's probably because his policies were [not] much different, but Roosevelt fooled most of the people most of the time and therefore succeeded as a leader.
"Romney seems to have been successful in at least three disciplines, business, international sports (Olympics) and politics (Governor of Massachusetts). As a candidate he has a mixed record. Although he won the governorship of Massachusetts he lost the race for Senator and he lost the race for the nomination last cycle for president. It remains to be seen whether Romney is on the right path or not.
"Sometimes chaotic campaigns that revolt the button-down mind of corporate Republicans like Governor Dewey (and perhaps Mitt Romney) are not as effective as chaotic campaigns conducted by charismatic Democrats like Bill Clinton.
"But the point of my post is to clear the argument of underbrush and understand that there is a dichotomy between conservatives and Rinos, between those who want to stimulate the base and those who want to reach out to undecideds, between those who want an aggressive attack and those who want to conciliate women. These are different considerations from tactics, deficiencies, and professionalism. We ought not confuse the two but we certainly ought to understand that there is always an interaction between these two sets of considerations.
"I concede that a poorly run chaotic conservative campaign runs at a disadvantage. I have already conceded that Romney is undoubtedly privy to the best data that money can buy. The question is whether it is such data that is guiding his campaign or simply a Rino mindset."
Try to disengage from the obsession to get personal, and focus on the politics, the data, the facts, the reality of this campaign, of the election, of Mitt Romney, of the GOP, of conservatism, of the issues, of the down ticket, coattails, the strengths and failings of the candidate, not this childish personal stuff that doesn't belong here at all, and surely not to this extraordinary degree.
Look at this thread, this a thread of gossipy women, not of adult people on a political forum.
Maybe get off your ass, get off the internet, or at least FreeRepublic, and go campaign for Romney amongst "undecideds" and independents, maybe some "disaffected" unhappy Democrats, if Romney is so important to you. Take your amen corner with you, too, when you go.
I dare say your convert-to-hardened opposition ratio is counter-productive. Meaning, you do your own stated cause more harm than good, by your typical methodology. Did I already say quit insulting other freepers?
This is aimed at EVERY THREAD you have participated in in the last month.
Jim; Romney supporters were once given the zot here, when they were jerks about it. I realize there is good reason to allow some leeway, both months ago, and now. But this boy in particular could serve as an example of "how not to do it".
You needn't ping me if he gets the zot (for being a prick) for I'm not much of one to do the happy dance over zot-ee's accounts --- although there have been a few exceptions.
Perhaps a warning from you to keep a civil tongue in his head, would be enough. This thread isn't necessarily a prime example of the atmosphere jessup and few others have been creating...but they do FR's longer term goals no real favors.
Do we need this guy?
That is a response to post 55?
If you want to campaign for Obama, there are plenty of liberal websites for that.
Your constant Romney attack posts add nothing to any kind of discussion, nothing whatsoever. You are unwilling to state who you propose has ANY realistic chance of ousting Obama.
You are unwilling to admit, much less discuss, the damage that voting third party, or not voting at all, will cause and create, the mandate that would give Obama. You see what he’s done to this point, ruling by executive fiat, circumventing the Rule of Law, the concern of his appointing additional liberal supreme court justices, this after even Roberts ruled in his traitorous decision.
What REAL alternative do you propose? What REAL consequences can you imagine will happen with another 4 years of Obama?
That you think Romney could even come close to destroying this country as Obama has, is, and yet promises, is beyond belief.
Mr Soros and the President applaud your progressive evolution! You are a proud tool of Socialism!
He was quick to latch on to Obama blabbering something about not fixing things from the inside and also Libya. If he doesn’t immediately latch on to it, it’ll be weird.
Since the anti-Romneyites are posting on every thread THEY'VE participated in, I assume you'll want them to stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as well?
Do we need you, BlueDragon, who prefers fellow conservatives constantly being attacked by anti-Romneyites?
The man is right. You’re acting like a prick. Either knock it off or leave FR!!
Don't bet your sweet bippy.
And your candidate is any better?
Because that's what it comes down to. If you are against Mitt, you are for Obama! (With apologies to W for the rhetorical device)
Ok Boss. No problem.
LOL, still using the word “you” over and over, you want to interrogate me about my personal feelings, my personal vote, why won’t I personally embrace your candidate, all personal stuff, rather than respond to my posts.
Post 10 was my first post on this thread, your response to it was post 22.
The primary is over, moron. There are only two candidates with any chance of winning.
We see which one you favor!
I brought up sound questions and comments. But once again, you refuse to address them.
That you prefer to be disingenuous, that is your choice. So be it.
360 degrees? That’s all the way around!
Don’t you mean 180 degrees?
If you have an argument to make on a fact that I posted on Mitt Romney, then make it.
No one is here to answer your questions.
If Mittens is not a strong candidate as you say, and I tend to agree, then where were all the “strong” candidates hiding during primaries? Obviously they did not care or had no courage to run in primaries.
Now we are stuck with the nominee. At least he is not a radical socialist like Obama. SO I must support him with whatever I can do to help.
I already knew that with you nobody’s home.
The correct response would be to demand the resignations of the Bitch of State and Susan Rice for lying to the American people.
Then, once the foreign policy thing dies down, we can return to the ongoing questions of the Economy, the Decline of the United States, the Future of our Children, and what not.
Really? More personal attack?
Yes..... total disdain. I am sickened when he reacted to the deaths of 4 Americans so lightly - he doesn’t care at all. This is just a blip. He is the most evil person that has ever sat in our WH.
It would take too much effort to go through the whole Romney chosen for 2012 by the GOPe thing and how we knew in 2008 that his only threat was Palin.
Vote for whom you wish, but it won’t help conservatism to allow him to operate on his personal agenda, as though we don’t know who he is.
We do not have to create a fantasy Romney for people to vote against Obama, which is all that Romney has to offer anyway.
Romney should go to a prestigious forum like the National Press Club and give a speech outlining the failure of Obama's Middle East policy, the failure of appeasement, the fact that it is now in shambles, and emphasize the lies resorted to to conceal the extent of the failure which is Obama's personal failure alone.
He should accuse Obama of knowingly sending is Secretary of State and his ambassador to the United Nations out to lie to the American public to cover his own failures. Romney should carefully, repeat carefully, indict the media for its handling of the entire matter since Benghazi.
It should not be apologetic and tone but a full throated indictment of Obama personally.
Romney should make Benghazi the metaphor for the failure of the Obama administration across the board. The media did this to George Bush when it made Katrina a metaphor for the failure of the Bush administration, especially in Iraq. Romney who will not get any help from the media but he can go on the attack and change the entire trajectory of the campaign by getting off defense and getting onto offense.
If Romney makes Benghazi the metaphor for failure, he links it to Obama's failed economic policies and it will not send him back in his campaign but make across-the-board failures crystallize into a single metaphor.
Benghazi == Katrina! Gotta love it!
But of course, the Katrina response was a local and state mess, whereas Benghazi was a failure of foreign policy, for which the President has direct responsibility.
I agree, Romney should not let this one go to waste!
Whatever the polls say or the pundits say, or the lamestream media say for the next week is immaterial. The next judgment day will be the 1st debate, followed by the Ryan/Biden debate, and 2 more Prez debates. Then we will see what the polls say. Right now the polls are just not pertinent. The debates are where it’s at next. Also, I highly suspect that in the last couple of weeks, you will see all but the most crooked of polls tighten up considerably, within 2-3 points of each other, because none of the pollsters want to be caught with their pants down when the end result becomes self evident. They all will be hedging their bets. Of course the only true poll is on November 6th, and I suspect the silent majority will make their voices known on that day.
I cannot imagine conservatives permitting themselves any longer to be shackled to a Rino establishment which serves up one pathetic moderate candidate waging yet another pathetic moderate campaign.
Given the insanity of the left, that may be more of a realistic perspective than we'd like to imagine. If Mitt wins, he'd better have a massive buildup of SS protection.