January 24, 2012
— Ace Via Hot Air, Romney's fundamental lack of political skill is catching up with him:
Ya know, for a long, long time I was saying "Romney's not as electable as people seem to think." With Rick Perry out (bad call on that, GOP), I had to pick from the rest, and I thought that of the rest, Romney was the most electable.
But he's not really a good politician. Never has been. Someone more invested than I can spin that in a positive way ("Hey, that just shows he's not good at huckstering people") but it's a drawback in politics.
Huckstering people is, after all, what politics is all about. Some people are good at it; some people aren't. The ones who aren't we called "would-be candidates" or "former politicians."
Jonah Goldberg has been thinking about this.
As IÂ’ve been writing for a very long time, Romney has an authentic inauthenticity problem. In other words, he seems like heÂ’s faking things even when heÂ’s not. He may take positions he doesnÂ’t hold in his heart, but all politicians do that. The problem is that the vast majority of the time heÂ’s no more passionate or convincing about the positions he almost surely does hold in his heart.
On the Ben Howe podcast, a few weeks back, Ben Howe asked me if I thought Romney would get away with something -- some crude attack he'd made, or something. I said, "Of course not; Romney can't get away with anything."
By which I meant he always seems like he's hiding something -- even when he's probably not. I called this strange property of Romney's a type of "anti-charisma."
Bill Clinton had charisma. He could convince people he had their best interests at heart when he was actually just scheming how to deceive them.
Romney has a vibe where even when I think he's on the level, he seems like he's keeping something from me. I think it's a "seems" thing, most of the time. He just doesn't seem comfortable.
Maybe it's some kind of Winner's Guilt, where he's constantly aware of his own prosperity and success and possible resentments thereof, so that air of discomfort he projects is our sensing of him constantly analyzing his own performance and wondering how it's coming off-- which gets perceived as showing dishonesty, because that's what we usually attribute excessive caution and calibration as meaning.
I thought Romney had his best performance at that first South Carolina debate, though I didn't say so, because I still thought Rick Perry was our best candidate and didn't want to call out Romney for having done especially well.
But his best moment came, for me, when he admitted, pretty honestly, that SuperPACs were a scam the law was pushing everyone towards, and he would rather do without the scam.
Although, on a policy level, I agreed with him, about undoing this nonsense system that Mr. Integrity John McCain had insisted on, what I liked about that was that he seemed honest. He didn't seem like he was bullshitting me. He was saying, "Yes, I've got these people who formed this PAC, and I think it's a scam, but the law says I have to do this, so I'm doing it."
Another one of Romney's problems -- if I had to guess -- is that he's a very Type-A, very organized personality type, and he does most things very well. And sometimes with people like that, they wind up being excessively defensive -- they're not used to losing, or erring, or just screwing up, and don't have the ability to easily just acknowledge errors. (See Romney's defense of RomneyCare; he just couldn't admit it was an error.)
And the problem isn't restricted to the "has problem admitting errors" part. The problem goes deeper, because that sort of person becomes very uncomfortable in their bad moments, jangly and prickly with defensiveness and a controlled hostility, and human beings feel that, and have an unpleasant feeling themselves.
I don't even know what I'd advise him, because the advice I'd offer -- "You know how you are? Yeah, be someone else entirely" -- is just silly.
Eh.
A final problem is that no one seriously examines their errors and miscalculations while they are still limping along. A football team doesn't fundamentally re-examine its assumptions, for example, after a three-point loss, or after a 7-9 season.
Romney is doing just well enough to justify keeping on with the same basic act. Alas, for him, and for us.
I can see no possible solution to our problems except:
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
(I'm kidding about that; he's done.)
Posted by: Ace at
06:36 AM
| Comments (331)
Post contains 792 words, total size 5 kb.
***
What he needs to do is show a little bit of the type of person he is with his family and friends. I mean, Bob Dole is funny. Who the hell knew?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:40 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: dblwmy at January 24, 2012 06:41 AM (BvTwT)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 24, 2012 06:41 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: ReadyorNot at January 24, 2012 06:41 AM (ErUlJ)
Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2012 06:42 AM (Xm1aB)
I can see no possible solution to our problems except:
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: That Chicken at January 24, 2012 06:43 AM (6T8Ay)
Posted by: Bob Saget at January 24, 2012 06:43 AM (SDkq3)
Wait a minuteÂ… This canÂ’t be right.
WeÂ’ve been told that favorability ratings are etched in stone forever and canÂ’t be changed. How can this possibly be?
Posted by: jwest at January 24, 2012 06:43 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at January 24, 2012 06:43 AM (r2PLg)
Don't you... no, Hiccup! If you ever want to get out there to fight dragons, you need to stop all... this.
[gestures to all of Hiccup]
But you just pointed to all of me!
Yes! That's it! Stop being all of you!
Posted by: imp at January 24, 2012 06:44 AM (vm+Sm)
Posted by: Crape at January 24, 2012 06:44 AM (hqvZW)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 06:44 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: devilish at January 24, 2012 06:44 AM (3eTJD)
Posted by: deepelemblues at January 24, 2012 06:45 AM (lFU4D)
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
If we are going to switch in a Republican governor at the last minute, why not pick one that hasn't flopped as a candidate already?
Jindal could really take it to Obama on healthcare - and will make it hard for Obama to play the race card.
Or McDonnell could draw the most distinction from Obama.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 06:45 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 06:45 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2012 10:42 AM (Xm1aB)
Given the media's rectal exam of anyone with an R behind there name, is it any surprise? Who wants to put up with that crap.
I mean, good God, I now know who Rick Santorum's wife dated when she was 20! I could have gone my entire life without knowing that.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 06:45 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: Jean at January 24, 2012 06:46 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 06:46 AM (nj1bB)
Rick Perry is still on the ballot in Florida.
So is Herman Cain.
Nothing stopping anyone from voting for them. Other than no one else will.
Let it go man. Just because Mitt and Newt are bad, doesn't mean Perry isn't worse.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (RI0fC)
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (ALwK/)
We don't have a better candidate because we don't have a better candidate. A Bill Clinton or Barack Obama would never make it in the Republican party at a high level. We're too self-critical, too suspicious of power (which is what makes us conservatives).
Also, Romney suffers in comparison with the seemingly forthright Newt, who has no unexpressed thought. Compare Romney to Obama and suddenly he's warm and inviting.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (T0NGe)
****
He's good on stage, in a presentation type of way, and that probably comes from his business background. He can be coached into, if nothing else, a looser body language just as those who are too casual can be coached to more professional body language.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: dblwmy at January 24, 2012 10:41 AM (BvTwT)
Actually it is worse then that. Obama and co have been preparing to run against Romney for a long time now.
Expect to see the election played as "rich, stuck up, elitist Republican" vs "self made, minority, man of the people Democrat" if Romney is the nominee.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: Texan Economist at January 24, 2012 06:47 AM (TC/9F)
Posted by: Ian S. at January 24, 2012 06:48 AM (tqwMN)
Posted by: devilish at January 24, 2012 06:48 AM (3eTJD)
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
While your wishing for Perry, I'll wish for Ronald Reagan. Same chance of it happening, and if your gonna wish, wish for the best.
Posted by: maddogg at January 24, 2012 06:48 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2012 06:48 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: whatever at January 24, 2012 06:49 AM (O7ksG)
Posted by: Sen. John McCain at January 24, 2012 06:49 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 24, 2012 06:49 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Texan Economist at January 24, 2012 10:47 AM (TC/9F)
An interesting question - for the people arguing we should vote ABO - would you vote for Ron Paul?
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 06:49 AM (7BU4a)
****
Haley Barbour? The new Huckabee we-should-forgive-those-poor-murderers Barbour? That one?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:50 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 06:50 AM (7BU4a)
I mean, good God, I now know who Rick Santorum's wife dated when she was 20! I could have gone my entire life without knowing that.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 10:45 AM (X6akg)
The MFM will let us know every time a Republican picks his or her nose but Barry could be the next Caligula and the MFM wouldn't breathe a word of it
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 24, 2012 06:50 AM (1Jaio)
I like it better when you tell us your true instincts in real time. It's hurting your brand when you try to sell us, even, as it's often very obvious (I'm not sure how) when you are selling something and holding back to shade and shape.
Shading and shaping is partly what you do, but when you hold back your insider tips or your true gut impression it is somehow showing. And of course even if it weren't your reader are catching on to the practice, if only because you have openly confessed it a bunch of times now.
Perry is dead in the water because he can't make his own case for good ideas. Another four years of sloping forehead jokes and a stumbly inadequate articulation - the inability to persuade - matters. I'm sorry it didn't work out, I had hopes for him.
Posted by: SarahW at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (LYwCh)
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Political Correctness Czar at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (AJSjU)
Yes. And then promptly push for the Baker Act to be used against him.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (RI0fC)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (qwK3S)
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (YdQQY)
****
And Newt's a conservative?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:51 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 24, 2012 06:52 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: M80B at January 24, 2012 06:52 AM (d6QMz)
Tonight Obama will refocus things on himself again, and what we've got to do to get him gone. When he's off golfing or vacationing we forget.
After tonight, once again, the ring in the toilet bowl will look like a viable alternative.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at January 24, 2012 06:52 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 24, 2012 06:52 AM (h6mPj)
****
And Newt's a conservative?"
What Newt is or isn't has nothing to do with what Romney is or isn't.
Just sorta adds to the boneage, to be honest.
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (GBXon)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Dave at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Jean at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 10:51 AM (YdQQY)
And he doesn't really even try.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (X6akg)
Has anyone here ever studied the roots of Mormanism? To call it strange would be an understatement. It is downright laughable. However, despite it's silly premise, it does manage to turn out some good people and quality families.
So what's the take-away on that? The take-away is a religion's effectiveness has little to do with whether the things it teaches are actually true or not, it has to do with the fact that the followers base their behavior on the religion's tenants and therefore derive a positive result. Buddhism is not necessarily true but one cannot deny that it turns out some quality humans.
Ok, so all of his life, Romney has believed in a religion that in his intellectual mind he must realize is kind of silly. He knows the basis of his religion is false, and yet, he is so invested in it and likes the results of his faith so much that he cannot walk away. Therefore every waking hour of every waking day, he lives a lie. He contradicts his own intellect.
This eats at a man. And it may be the reason why there is something about Romney that seems as if he is not being honest even when he is - his entire existence is dishonest.
Posted by: Bill Mitchell at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (uVlA4)
Posted by: Slappy Squirrel at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (h6mPj)
What is this “charisma” thing you’re talking about? Is it a newly discovered element?
It certainly didnÂ’t seem to be a factor a few months ago when we were all examining the details of everyoneÂ’s resume. But now, the ability to pack a stadium or have crowds wait out in cold for a chance to hear someone speak seems to have entered into the mix of desirable attributes.
WhoÂ’d of thought?
Posted by: jwest at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: Jon at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (IFigw)
Posted by: The Robot Devil at January 24, 2012 06:53 AM (+hB3s)
I can see no possible solution to our problems except:
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
------Ha ha ha! I am a big Perry fan, but even I'm not that delusional.
These are the horses we're running, folks. If Dick Cheney were healthy, he could be the kind of person to step in, but other than that the only folks we're all variously enthusiastic about are appealing because they have not been beaten up in the primary (Rubio, Pence, etc) and/or we don't know much about them aside from in one arena (for example, Bolton). As soon as they got in, there'd be an anal probe that would probably lead to people freaking out about that candidate.
I think we need to learn a lesson here. I think we need to start handling the anal probes in a particular way. We can't ignore them, but we should cover them for what they are. The racist rock thing, Bachmann's headaches, the "revolting reverend" (not Perry's pastor), etc were ginned up non-scandals. There should have been one story about them, but there should not have been five stories a day about them. Even Cain's stuff should have been handled once here and then after that the coverage should have been his response to the media stuff. There was this feeding frenzy early on that most places contributed to... although in my opinion Romney escaped a lot of the early stuff because he was treated with kid gloves in the debates and by the big outlets.
Even if you disagree with the coverage aspects, I still think there was far too much focus on stylistic things and media smears and not enough on substance. As a result, I don't see that our party has gotten any closer to agreeing on what our nominee's platform should be. So, for example, I think both Mitt and Newt are talking about reforming or replacing health care stuff after repealing Obamacare, but as far as I know, they have not outlined what the replacement would be. That is really relevant to me. If Mitt is the nominee, I want to know exactly what the replacement is because I don't trust him. He clearly has a blind spot on this issue. I want him fenced in by our platform.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 06:54 AM (5H6zj)
****
I believe html coding has been turned off post-major eff up from yesterday.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:54 AM (piMMO)
The c-word.
Shut up, morons, I'm talking about "corruption".
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: Mitt Romney at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (h6mPj)
Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (RI0fC)
Posted by: SarahW at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (LYwCh)
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
You just had to poke the hornet's nest with that stick, didn't you?
I don't even know what I'd advise him, because the advice I'd offer -- "You know how you are? Yeah, be someone else entirely" -- is just silly.
I think that was part of Clinton's supposed charm (don't ask me, I've always had the visceral urge to smash him in the face with a rock), he could be whoever you want him to be and he could fake sincerity like no one's business.
Posted by: alexthechick - what's that spell METEOR! at January 24, 2012 06:55 AM (VtjlW)
Other than that, Mittens has been happy to take whatever side of whatever issue that he thinks will get him the most votes that day.
Posted by: really ... at January 24, 2012 06:56 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: devilish at January 24, 2012 06:56 AM (3eTJD)
No one who has non-adult children and a spouse they care about wants to see every difficult moment in their family history mocked and ridiculed on television every night for the next ten months. They don't want their kids to be the subject of rape jokes/death threats/Facebook bullying, they don't want their household garbage to be collected and analyzed, they don't want their churches set on fire with parishoners inside.
Posted by: HeatherRadish needs italics at January 24, 2012 06:56 AM (ZKzrr)
Let's get Rick Perry back on the ballot.
Posted by Ace at 10:36 AM New Comments ThingyBecause Perry's skills were so outstanding? I'm prepared to concede that Romney might turn out/is turning out to be a dud, too. Only prescription: KY Jelly. Lots of it. We're screwed. Unless... Santorum may turn out to be the answer. Don't underestimate him; he seems better each time I see him.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 06:57 AM (U+BDE)
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 06:57 AM (5H6zj)
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 24, 2012 06:57 AM (8y9MW)
I would bet he does not talk this way around his family.
My recommendation would be to seat Ann and the rest of the family front and center and have him talk like he was explaining this stuff to his older grandkids, who are teenagers.
That is about the level of much of the electorate, anyway.
And he has to get personal stories into his debates. I noticed last night he was approaching this by talking about all of the people who were in trouble with mortgages in Florida. But he stopped short of telling their actual stories, which he had heard earlier in the day. And that, I will bet, is because he hadn't asked their permission and is too darn polite just to use names without asking.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 06:57 AM (GoIUi)
not obscure to someone who has life-size animaniacs running across their family room ceiling, no.
I'm not saying that I'm blindly jealous of that, but I'm blindly jealous of that.
Hellllllooooo nurse!
Posted by: alexthechick - I eat your cupcakes! at January 24, 2012 06:57 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at January 24, 2012 06:58 AM (AQD6a)
Posted by: whatever at January 24, 2012 06:59 AM (O7ksG)
***
Oh dear, Lord. Now you propose to know that he questions his own faith? Guess what! Most Christians also examine their faith, it doesn't mean that they/we don't have faith.
To a non-Christian, our roots seem pretty fucking weird too.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:59 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 10:51 AM (piMMO
Well, he has a conservative bone in his little finger. Mutt has zero.
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 06:59 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (XBdI0)
Posted by: maddogg at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (OlN4e)
82 "Good gosh, how in the hell did we get stuck with this collection of idiots running for the nomination?"
Yeah, but see... what has Santorum said or done that is "idiotic"?
Yeah, he can come on strong with the social conservatism schtick, but hey, everyone knows no POTUS can really ban abortions or anal sex, so who cares? Other than that... I don't see what beef conservatives should have with him, granting that no one is perfect. He won't jazz the base, but doesn't OBAMA already do that for us? More importantly, he won't jazz the Liberal base, either.
If Romney continues his downward spiral, I think I'll wind up voting for Santorum if things are still undecided by the time the primary is held here in CT.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (U+BDE)
Posted by: Fritz at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 10:51 AM (piMMO)
***
Two differences between Newt and Romney:
1) Newt has actually fought for and achieved conservative goals as an elected official, Romney has not.
2) Newt started advocating leftist positions after leaving office, but Romney *enacted* them.
I'm not really happy if Newt is our standard bearer, BUT there is at least a chance he'd advance conservative goals. Romney? If he wins, we've already lost.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: whatever at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (O7ksG)
Posted by: whatever at January 24, 2012 10:59 AM (O7ksG)
Doubtful. No one who isn't already in the tank for the American-hating Indonesian piece of shit is going to be motivated to go run and vote for him. Either someone hates America now and will vote for Barky or they don't and won't. The GOP candidate will have no bearing on that, at all.
Posted by: really ... at January 24, 2012 07:00 AM (X3lox)
Two differences between Newt and Romney:
1) Newt has actually fought for and achieved conservative goals as an elected official, Romney has not.
2) Newt started advocating leftist positions after leaving office, but Romney *enacted* them.I'm not really happy if Newt is our standard bearer, BUT there is at least a chance he'd advance conservative goals. Romney? If he wins, we've already lost.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (GBXon)
We're boned. So very, very boned.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (Q33Iq)
I don't think so. It's really hard to inspire that many people *against* someone. You have to be enthused for your candidate.
Of course, that's where our real problem may be. People may look at the eventual nominee and think "meh."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Riker at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (upBZ+)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 24, 2012 07:01 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 24, 2012 07:02 AM (XBdI0)
That's it, I'm at peace!
I want a Papist in the White House, because no Pope can run the country worse than Obama! 
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 07:02 AM (U+BDE)
***
Prior to launching their much lauded Book of Mormon on Broadway, Parker and Stone did an episode about a Mormon family who moved to South Park. It was about just how incredibly nice and wholesome they are. In the end, those who couldn't accept them looked more like assholes for it.
OOOOHHH! Nice people. Blech!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (piMMO)
Romney looks, talks and acts like a phony. He would have done better to take some acting lessons all these years he has been prepping for this run.
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (6H6FZ)
Newt vs. Mitt in three rounds of rock-em sock-em robots. When you have to have a finger on the button, who's is strongest?
Posted by: Obi Wan Kenobi at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (5wsU9)
54 ....Romney obviously needs to work on .... displaying more passion.
------
Oh please, noooo. .....He's already creepy enough with that plastic smile of his. .....My stomach couldn't take "passionate Mitt". .....No one would buy it anyway. Not from a guy who is hardassedly repressive enough to deny himself taking a sip of beer or coffee.
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (ALwK/)
Neither candidate is particularly good (don't even pretend that the Freddie Mac Man is a free market candidate). Both are better than Obama. At this point, I don't care which one wins, just so long as this rather ridiculous internecine struggle comes to an end very, very shortly.
Posted by: Aaron at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (Tlix5)
Makes sense.
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 24, 2012 07:03 AM (GdalM)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 10:45 AM (nj1bB)
in 2008 bush wouldve waxed the floor w/ obama. the people that think otherwise forget how good bush is on the campaign, how he connects w/ people much better than most. and as further proof, i've never seen a billboard or bumper sticker lamenting not electing mccain but i've seen plenty expressing how much bush is missed.
Posted by: chas at January 24, 2012 07:04 AM (TKF1Y)
My recommendation would be to seat Ann and the rest of the family front and center and have him talk like he was explaining this stuff to his older grandkids, who are teenagers.
----
Actually, I think this is how Mitt is at home.
Look, they spend (or did spend) every Monday night together on family home evenings. I've browsed through the guides for those at Deseret book. They are very orderly and organized things. (It's a great idea, btw, I'm not criticizing it, just saying it's a cultural thing to be organized even in family things.)
This is Mitt's personality. For whatever set of reasons, he has a really hard time relating to regular folks. The stories he shares about himself provide a window onto that, imho. The dog story is bad not just because of what happened to the dog but because Mitt really thought that was a good story to tell about himself. Same thing with calling himself "unemployed" and talking about his mission and the bucket thing.
It's not a reason to not vote for the guy, but it is as inherent in who he is as Perry's accent is, imho.
My husband, who does not follow politics closely and is not a news junkie (but who is conservative), thinks Romney is just like Kerry. That's a problem for Mitt if it's a widespread opinion.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:04 AM (5H6zj)
The Undeniable Star Power of Newt Gingrich
***
Now see, this is where html could be applied to great effect. Just imagine it in flashing bold red font with a gold outline.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:04 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: garrett at January 24, 2012 07:04 AM (eM8UH)
but Romney *enacted* them
To me, you're making the opposite point. Newt's advocacy of liberal ideas is an unforced error. Romney's were in a hopeless liberal state. I'll give more of a pass on a politician following his constituents even if he disagrees than than on a pundit who is just trying to curry favor with friends.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 07:04 AM (T0NGe)
The Texas thing, so close to GWB, was never going to work. Never mind how magnificent teh Perry is.
The left are already showing signs of life now that Newt looks to be over-taking Romney.
Posted by: whatever at January 24, 2012 07:05 AM (O7ksG)
Hey, I knew. He was funny when he ran for VP. But, I'm that old. That's why I thought SNL was totally off in their lampoon of him, though it was funny in itself - of a spoof of a clueless notion of Dole.
Posted by: jeanne! with two N's and an E at January 24, 2012 07:05 AM (GdalM)
Along with the life size animaniacs we of course have tons of production art.
Hard to tell from the photo - they sit on a pot shelf about 12' with a 20' ceiling. We decorate them for Christmas too. Their ultimate fate is to be broken up in a dumpster. Honest.
Posted by: Clutch Cargo at January 24, 2012 07:05 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:05 AM (nj1bB)
BTW, Mitt's biggest conservative accomplishment = raising a family!
Barack Obama is now conservative!
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:05 AM (Q33Iq)
Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at January 24, 2012 07:06 AM (Ho2rs)
It would be nice to have seen the other candidates numbers, other than just Romney's.... perhaps they were withheld for a reason...
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 24, 2012 07:06 AM (447Af)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 11:01 AM (nj1bB)
yes, this right here!! that has been the biggest problem this primary. the tea party has flirted around w/ worthless candidates (cain) because they are more concerned w/ trying to show they run things than they are w/ winning.
Posted by: chas at January 24, 2012 07:07 AM (TKF1Y)
In the current political environment, Even Bob Dole is sorely missed.
Posted by: Bob Saget at January 24, 2012 07:07 AM (SDkq3)
Damn, am I the ONLY one that sees potential in Santorum?
Who's the one guy that can't be savaged the way Mittnewt have been? Who lacks the incredible negatives of Newt, and the glass jaw of Mitt?
At least give the guy consideration, guys.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 07:07 AM (U+BDE)
Posted by: runner at January 24, 2012 07:08 AM (WR5xI)
One of my primary problems with Romney is that I can't figure out why he wants to be President. Because his father wanted it, but couldn't run on account of not being a natural citizen? He doesn't seem to have any inner values/principles that drive him to seek the office. All three of the others have that (Newt does; you can quibble, but he's got real passion when he talks politics - always has).
He seems like an automaton driven by programming - no internal "there" there.
Posted by: Looks Like We're in for Nasty Weather at January 24, 2012 07:08 AM (eMtQ2)
***
You've gotta be kidding. Not faith. Not his devotion to his beliefs....hardassed repressive?
Well, you can rest comfortably in the knowledge that Newt has absolutely no fucking control over his urges.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:08 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Bob Dole at January 24, 2012 07:08 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 24, 2012 07:09 AM (Pixxe)
My read of the exit polls was that Newt pulled more than Tea Partiers. He pulled everyone except the most educated (grad degrees), richest, and liberal Republicans.
Maybe you saw exit polling that showed a different breakout, but to me the people who voted Mitt had decided months ago. The people who decided late voted for Newt. That even argues against the Evangelicals voting like little sheeples "against the Mormon" since they didn't go to Santorum.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:09 AM (5H6zj)
You know, a stinky sock should be able to beat Obama this year and yet, I actually think he's going to pull this off and get 4 more years. I'll vote for ABO but enthusism is going to be so low, I fear I'll be the only one in my district.
The GOP- letting you down and crushing conservative dreams since 1988.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, depressed former Perry supporter at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (fYOZx)
****
Well, without the cheering and the booing, how do we know what we like?
Posted by: Average Newt Voter at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (Ptem3)
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:10 AM (nj1bB)
-------------------
I think he wants to go where his father couldn't in getting the nomination and ultimately the white house to prove himself and to carry his own legacy. It's an innate psychological thing I think. I hope Mitt Jr has the smarts though to not campaign in MA when he wants to follow his dad in 40 years.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:11 AM (Q33Iq)
Who's the one guy that can't be savaged the way Mittnewt have been? Who lacks the incredible negatives of Newt, and the glass jaw of Mitt?
At least give the guy consideration, guys.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 11:07 AM (U+BDE)
I wouldn't support Huckabee in 2008, and Santorum 2012 looks like a Huckabee clone to me.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 24, 2012 07:11 AM (Pixxe)
Well, we will see if I am right or you are. Seems to me that plenty of people who grow up in the Mormon community (Donnie and Marie Osmond come to mind) are not dry and stiff, and I assume they went to the same type of family meetings.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:11 AM (GoIUi)
Who's the one guy that can't be savaged the way Mittnewt have been? Who lacks the incredible negatives of Newt, and the glass jaw of Mitt?
At least give the guy consideration, guys.
----
I am, but he's not showing me anything.
He is untouched by scandal because he has not been a serious threat owing to a combination of no money, so-so support, low charisma, and a weak platform.
And if we're talking about turn-offs, he scares me a bit with his need to drag religion into every talking point. (And I'm Catholic.)
If he is not running as a holy roller he needs to up his game and show me that.
But even then, I still see no reason to go for a less accomplished legislator when Newt is running.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:11 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 24, 2012 07:11 AM (XBdI0)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:12 AM (i6RpT)
. . . as did the boy who cried wolf. It's called lying - or political expedience.
I guess since Romney's a D-bag, that makes Newt the S-sandwich. I guess I am going to have to take a bite.
Posted by: Flounder at January 24, 2012 07:12 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:12 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:13 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:13 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 11:10 AM (YdQQY)
Tell me about it!
Posted by: Fred Thompson at January 24, 2012 07:13 AM (fYOZx)
Amazing how an organization with no leader or leadership per se is attrubuted with so many political shenanigans. The TEA party seems to have become "they" when in fact they are we.
Posted by: maddogg at January 24, 2012 07:13 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:14 AM (7vSU0)
I don't think there are that many "heavily-invested partisans" on the Newt issue, Ace.
I think we're seeing the least bad of a bad lot.
You, yourself, said you picked Mitt because he seemed most electable. Well, now that's gone down the tubes. So, based on *record* who's the best one (with a chance)?
Based on my criteria, it's Newt. That's not saying much, because it's not that hard to be better, on your record, that Mitt Romney, and Santorum and Luap Nor never really had a chance.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Team Meteor. Now with Cheesecake at January 24, 2012 07:14 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: ambrosia at January 24, 2012 07:14 AM (oZfic)
* * *
The crowd for the presidential debates (if there are any) will not be allowed to show much in the way of reactions either.
Posted by: M80B at January 24, 2012 07:14 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 24, 2012 11:11 AM (Pixxe)
***
Huckabee was a liberal on everything other then social issues.
Santorum, other then dabbling with Bushian Compassionate Conservativism, has been a solid conservative - and was with Newt when they were fighting for welfare reform and the government shutdown.
He is *easily* the most conservative candidate left in the race.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Looks Like We're in for Nasty Weather at January 24, 2012 11:08 AM (eMtQ2)
One of the interesting points of a potential Romney run is that natural-born citizenship and polygamy will be relevant issues, with Romney having a connection to both only because of his family's past (long gone past for polygamy) and Barky has both attributes NOW.
That said, this isn't enough for me to want Romney ... but such a race would be interesting in these respects. I am still amazed that we had the first true product of a polygamous family (a muslim one, at that and with a brother living in a friggin cardboard box!) running in 2008 and, while the idiotic arguments over the asinine idea of "gay marriage" was raging no one could be bothered to think about the non-natural born citizen, polygamist product that was running for the highest office in a land not his own.
Posted by: really ... at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (X3lox)
Santorum, other then dabbling with Bushian Compassionate Conservativism, has been a solid conservative - and was with Newt when they were fighting for welfare reform and the government shutdown.
He is *easily* the most conservative candidate left in the race.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (7BU4a)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (i6RpT)
OK, gaming this out--if we were to draft someone, who would it be?
It can't be someone who has endorsed one of the two active frontrunners (No Christie, No Fred!). It can't be someone who has dropped out (No Perry, No Hunstman--giggle). It can't be someone with excessive baggage (No Rudy!, No Jeb, No Palin--sorry, Palinites, it's true.)
Has to have executive experience.
Jindal or Daniels.
Pick one.
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (B+qrE)
Posted by: runner at January 24, 2012 11:08 AM (WR5xI)
________________
Look at the guy in the middle top of the pic...the one with one finger to his mouth. Looks like Rush.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 07:15 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 07:16 AM (nj1bB)
Posted by: eman at January 24, 2012 07:16 AM (g08ab)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:16 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Oh good at January 24, 2012 07:16 AM (PMbrs)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:16 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:17 AM (ALwK/)
I think you could be right. With the field that's left, then, I'll go with Newt for fire-in-the-belly. I want a leader with some passion for America. I don't agree with his vision, but at least he's got one. Obama's vision is for America to mire in the sea of mediocrity and discontent/class-warfare. Would prefer Perry or Palin(!!), but they're not around.
Posted by: Looks Like We're in for Nasty Weather at January 24, 2012 07:17 AM (eMtQ2)
Posted by: Chris Christie at January 24, 2012 07:17 AM (90w0O)
****
Wrong. Romney lost SC only after Newt put on his top hat and did a jig for them. Many other people are turned off by it. I am in the South, and I will be voting for Romney in the primary.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:17 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Matt at January 24, 2012 07:18 AM (90w0O)
Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at January 24, 2012 11:16 AM (OWjjx)
Purity pimps like Michelle Malkin driving good conservatives away from the race in the search for perfection.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at January 24, 2012 07:18 AM (Pixxe)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:18 AM (i6RpT)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 11:11 AM (Q33Iq)
I think you can armchair psychologize Obama -- he has major daddy issues -- but look, Mitt is running for president because he has a reasonable chance to win. You don't go through 6 years of this crap just to prove something to a daddy you knew and loved.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 07:18 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 11:12 AM (nj1bB)
Except that the primaries have been co-opted by the Paulians and those from the left who would vote in a Republican primary for their own ends. Until the primaries are all closed, your statement is factually correct but doesn't recognize reality.
And that's one of the big reasons we now have the choice between a shit sandwich with hot sauce and a shit sandwich with mayo.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:18 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Oh good at January 24, 2012 11:16 AM (PMbrs)
Ah...well, he looks like Rush.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 07:19 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 11:04 AM (T0NGe)
did mittens not realize how liberal mass was when he ran for governor?? thats just not an acceptable excuse.
Posted by: chas at January 24, 2012 07:19 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: holygoat at January 24, 2012 07:19 AM (XnwWl)
Posted by: ace at January 24, 2012 11:12 AM (nj1bB)
I would say that is probably true ace. I use my MIL as an example. She is an ultra-conservative Texan but she doesn't follow politics at all. She did not vote in the primary here.
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 07:20 AM (YdQQY)
When it was still Israeli?
I dived off of the tip of Sinai when I was a kid. Best diving in the world!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:20 AM (nEUpB)
***
Newt has been reckless since leaving office, bouncing from one idea to the next. But as a commentator, that is his job, however when in office he was a solid conservative.
Romney was governor of MA, true. And he consistently refused to fight for conservative principles. The only thing, in fact, he has been consistent about in his whole career.
There is no guarantee that we will get the 1994 version of Newt. But if we get *any* version of Romney he will, at best, go along with the status quo - which Obama has pushed far to the left.
Posted by: 18-1 at January 24, 2012 07:20 AM (7BU4a)
We slept too long. By the time we woke up, the GOP was center-left, and the Dems were high-fiving Karl Marx.
Posted by: DarkLord©, Rogue Commenter at January 24, 2012 07:20 AM (GBXon)
Are you claiming that less-interested people bother voting in primaries?
---
You're more expert on this than I am, but I think that exit polling from South Carolina is every bit as useful as general election polling ten months out. It seems as though you are influenced too heavily by one and not enough by the other.
I was shocked by the exit polling for SC. It didn't look like just a tea party victory. It looked like a pretty broad base of support to me. However, it is true that Romney won the folks who have a negative view of the tea party. I'm not sure that's a great thing.
I'm not a tea partier. I think it has been a useful movement, but I think when it became institutionalized and people were claiming to lead it it was doomed. Now I think it's not much of anything, frankly, when a guy like Chaffetz does not run against Hatch and throws in with Romney so early.
But although I think the movement is kind of dead, the sentiment is still there. And I think that's why Paul is a bigger threat this year. I think he's pulling some of those frustrated people.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:21 AM (5H6zj)
rush does live in florida, could be , could be...
Posted by: runner at January 24, 2012 07:21 AM (WR5xI)
SIgh... when are people going to get it through their heads that GOP primary voters are IN NO WAY AT ALL representative of the electorate at large?
It's like suggesting that Michele Bachmann run for Senate in Massachussets because she did so well in her district in the 2010 midterms.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 24, 2012 07:21 AM (SY2Kh)
Posted by: Random at January 24, 2012 07:21 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 11:18 AM (nEUpB)
Actually looking at the county-by-county breakdown in the SC primary, it appears that the Dems who voted in the primary went for Mutt, not Crazy Uncle.
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 07:22 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:23 AM (Q33Iq)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:23 AM (i6RpT)
@183....Niedermeyer
-------
If Romney ends up being the nominee, I hope that there are *a lot* of people like you, NDH. .....It's not something that I want to be right about.
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:23 AM (ALwK/)
---
Good points, blaster.
People say Newt is unelectable because he's repulsive, ugly, and old.
To me he looks like Santa Clause or a garden gnome. Paint him blue and he's a Smurf. Pretty darned likable.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (5H6zj)
***
Are you fucking kidding? So a citizen of a state shouldn't run for office if the leanings of the electorate are opposite of his own beliefs? He should just fucking write it off and, what, move?!
Damn, Scott Walker....it's time for you to go!!!
Chris Christie, GTFO!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (Q33Iq)
Posted by: nevergiveup at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (i6RpT)
But although I think the movement is kind of dead, the sentiment is still there. And I think that's why Paul is a bigger threat this year. I think he's pulling some of those frustrated people.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 11:21 AM (5H6zj)
I am a tea partier and I agree completely. And thank God this is Paul's last stand- may he go away to hate Jews and covet their gold in private til the Leprechauns reclaim him.
Posted by: Ms Choksondik, depressed former Perry supporter at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (fYOZx)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 11:22 AM (nEUpB)
You're welcome. Good thing I got it in when I did.
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 07:24 AM (YdQQY)
Good analysis, blaster. You're right about it being about "cares about people like me". That's why I think corruption (Obama's rich buddies) is a good line of attack.
I also think attacking lawyers is a good parry to class warfare. You can make the entirely rational point that lawyers are the lubricant by which corruption enters the body politic. Warren Buffet has an army of lawyers for a reason.
The well-connected elite are the ones who have the government on speed dial.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (Ptem3)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 11:23 AM (Q33Iq)
Conservativism and common sense only got taken out as collateral damage ...
Posted by: really ... at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (digkk)
Posted by: MJ at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (/x4oj)
That's my point. Is Romney really the choice of those Republicans who are politically aware and attuned to the minutia of the political process? No, I don't think so. But the fucking Dems who want to play games with democracy sure like Romney.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (nEUpB)
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?
IS THIS NOT WHY YOU ARE HERE?
This is what we've become, a spectacle. No better than Obama acolytes.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 24, 2012 07:25 AM (447Af)
And he managed to balance their budget. He also did some things we don't agree with, but he did get some stuff done despite having a legislature that was 83% democrat.
This is no small accomplishment.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:26 AM (GoIUi)
Pick one.
I'd pick Jindal.
Daniels was my governor for a while. He was not that impressive (to me). Even though Jindal seems like he'd be more of the technocrat, I think he has more passion than Daniels does.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:26 AM (5H6zj)
******
And here in Florida we're seeing ads about the flip-flops that Newt has made.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:26 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Mr Pink at January 24, 2012 07:27 AM (MlVck)
Posted by: Chris Christie at January 24, 2012 11:17 AM (90w0O)
Thats all well and good but we need to sell philosophy this year. Santorum is just a shitty salesman.
This year we need to move beyond the paradigm of people, and make our philisophical case to everybody. I think Newt would be most effective at that.
After all, Milton Friedman had a great point when he said it doesn't really matter who we elect.
Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 24, 2012 07:27 AM (xXhWA)
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 07:27 AM (X6akg)
And did you clock Fox & Friends this morning? They showed Mitt Romney "zingers" (well, as much of a zinger as Romney can deliver) in 30 to 60 second sound bites, each followed by 4 seconds of Newt with the sound off, thus looking as though he was inarticulately flapping his lips. Apparently Rupert and Roger panicked after Newt's South Carolina victory, and decided to take direct action.
Fun times, folks! Fun Times!
Posted by: Minnie Rodent at January 24, 2012 07:27 AM (S3rrR)
Ohh, you mean, like in actual presidential debates?
2000 Bush-Gore moderated by Jim Lehrer (http://tinyurl.com/76yzb45)
2004 Bush-Kerry moderated by Schieffer (http://tinyurl.com/87a6uz5)
2008 Obama-McCain moderated by Jim Lehrer (http://tinyurl.com/3uax6o)
Wanted to cut my femoral with a plastic spoon watching those.
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 24, 2012 07:28 AM (447Af)
Posted by: Sharkman at January 24, 2012 07:28 AM (RtpCp)
197......But although I think the movement [tea party] is kind of dead, the sentiment is still there. ....Posted by: Y-not
-------
It has been hurt by people like Dick Armey and Bachmann, who jumped in front of the parade, and co-opted it for their own personal gain.
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:28 AM (ALwK/)
Posted by: naturalfake at January 24, 2012 07:28 AM (XBdI0)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (digkk)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 11:25 AM (nEUpB)
The only two areas that went for Romney were Columbia and Charleston. Those are heavy Dem urban areas. IYKWIM
Posted by: Vic at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (YdQQY)
Before I even read the comments, I'm assuming the Romney lovers are refuting everything you say, Ace. I do think you are wrong, but where you are wrong is having it 180 degrees backwards. Romney is all politician. Unfortunately, that's the only thing he's good at. The rest of it, the part that would need to include some element of humanity, even a jerkoff A-type personality, he doesn't have it.
The party pushed forth an empty suit. You can't expect to fill a man in there after the fact.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (TOk1P)
****
A small price to pay for such quality entertainment.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 24, 2012 11:27 AM (xXhWA)
You're wrong. He said it shouldn't matter. The system should be set up that even bad politicians do the right thing.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (T0NGe)
Maetenloch knows what happened. Apparently "Juicer" screwed it up with all sorts of HTML crap. Can someone with privileges just go back and delete all of Juicer's comments?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:29 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 11:26 AM (piMMO)
That's fine. Romney combats Newt's erratic flip flops with his sensible ones. I just hope for Mitt's sake that he isnt pissing off floridians by storming them with robocalls and flyers for the past month.
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 07:30 AM (Q33Iq)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 24, 2012 11:23 AM (Q33Iq)
Look I'm still trying to understand this game of politics. The primary thing is like and orchestra without a conductor. But I've observed how sneaky people are. How the press can be your enemy. How leaving one little item out can be devastating at another time when you least expect it to be devastating. That romney tax return is the size of what a bill used to be. It's being gone over with a fine toothed comb. What if they find stuff but romney and the republicans don't know what they found cause they don't say. They wait until romney if the candidate and they bring it out right before the election. Sort of like something I vaguely remember about a dunk driving incident or something.
If this happened to Newt the nominee I think he could handle it. Romeny hasn't really proven to me that if this happened to him he could handle it. I'm afraid he'd say "wow you got me guys, that's amazing" in a kind of like mccainian "senator obama would make a good president, don't be afraid of him" way.
Posted by: ambrosia at January 24, 2012 07:31 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 24, 2012 07:31 AM (xXhWA)
God forbid we should put a decent man in the White House.
The MSM would release a scathing report on Jesus Christ and his connection to a whore during this election cycle. Nobody is coming through this looking decent.
Posted by: taylor at January 24, 2012 07:31 AM (5wsU9)
Posted by: Random at January 24, 2012 07:31 AM (YiE0S)
220 Jindal or Daniels.
Pick one.
Neither. If we go to a brokered convention, the only thing that is going to matter is how much excitement the candidate can generate for the few months before the election.
Rubio already has a conservative Jack/Bobby Kennedy vibe going on. He someone that everyone on the right can project their idea of what a president should be on. ThatÂ’s how itÂ’s done.
Posted by: jwest at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 11:29 AM (nEUpB)
Yeah, everyone knows what happened yesterday. Pixy is working on it. Juicer's comments have already been deleted. It appears it takes more than that to fix what he broke.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (X6akg)
-------
What's your point?
Republican voters are not Democrats or Indies (well, some are in some states)... except when Republican voters decide to cast their ballot for someone they think Dems and Indies will like.
What I am saying is that Newt has grabbed a broad group of Republicans. A broader group of Republicans than Mitt grabs.
And, I think it is important to attract your "base" Republicans and get them fired up going into the general. So far it looks like Newt may have the best shot at doing that.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: cherry at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (OhYCU)
Since he will be giving the response to the SOTU tonight, people can decide what they think. Advance word from lieutenant governor is that he will speak from Lucas Oil Stadium, site of the Super Bowl. He will be live, not recorded. He will be armed with facts and figures and will not use bombast, but rather have a conversation with Americans.
So watch and see what you guys think.
My perspective is different than Y-not's. I think he has been an excellent governor.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (GoIUi)
I would love a nice boring generation, during which I can be confident that I won't have to use my AR-15 on a regular basis to protect my family.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Billy Bob, the 1% at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (S1INM)
Ohh, you mean, like in actual presidential debates?
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 24, 2012 11:28 AM (447Af)
And Obama will not debate Newt. I know a lot of you think, "That will make him look like a chicken! Great!" Trust me, it won't matter.
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 07:32 AM (T0NGe)
Romney: Comes across as a guy who's a little uncomfortable in his own skin.
Gingrich: Comes across as a guy who wants to make a woman suit out of your skin.
Yeah, let's go with Gingrich by all means.
Posted by: PalinFan at January 24, 2012 07:33 AM (otN9L)
Posted by: AmishDude at January 24, 2012 11:29 AM (T0NGe)
My point is, it doesn't matter who's technically the most conservative if we can sell the philosophy to a majority. Newt / Mitt / whoever (even Obama) will fall in line. Selling philosophy should be our primary concern.
Posted by: bernverdnardo at January 24, 2012 07:34 AM (xXhWA)
Posted by: cherry at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (OhYCU)
I know! Act like those Westboro Baptist people! Them there are REAL Christians!
The reader may infer my dripping sarcasm.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: tasker at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (r2PLg)
---
Whoever he is, he'll have John Sununu by his side.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (7vSU0)
interesting. not being snarky, but I find who-kids-like data predictive. Honestly, I think most of the non-informed herd in the middle makes their decisions based on inborn crap like this, just like children.
Maybe this is why I can't stand the little fomites?
Posted by: garrett at January 24, 2012 07:35 AM (zvYKO)
Oh, and are they also working on that smell?
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 07:37 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:37 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 11:24 AM (piMMO)
wow, someone has anger issues!! if you run and govern as a liberal than no, you cant use the excuse it was a liberal state but i'll do better as president. no one forced him to support an assault rifle ban, no one forced him to support romneycare. if he had the courage of his convictions he wouldve gone down fighting.
Posted by: chas at January 24, 2012 07:37 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:38 AM (digkk)
There is absolutely no way Obama will debate Newt, unless he has some dirt he wants to spring on him on live national television.
Oh, here is Dick Armey acting like he is the head of the Tea Parties on Fox now.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:38 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: runninrebel at January 24, 2012 07:39 AM (bI3Cc)
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJconservative) at January 24, 2012 11:37 AM (nEUpB)
No...that's part of the charm of this place.
Posted by: Tami at January 24, 2012 07:39 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:39 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Random the ex-Mormon at January 24, 2012 07:40 AM (YiE0S)
Posted by: woman voter at January 24, 2012 07:40 AM (9AQdP)
257....Absolutely. I think the Solyndra thing and all of the other crony capitalism - and yes, I think that is a valid line of attack, because capitalism is fine and dandy, but crony capitalism - where you go to your buddies in gubmint to get a leg up over your competition - is not. Tea Partiers are no fan of that sort of thing, either.
----------- .
I get your drift, blaster. .....But when you use that term "crony capitalism" it makes it sound like capitalism is the only place in the universe where that crony shit happens. .....Can't we just call it "crony corruption" without attributing it to capitalism?
Posted by: wheatie at January 24, 2012 07:42 AM (ALwK/)
Hell yeah , I can get behind that.
Posted by: Berserker at January 24, 2012 07:42 AM (FMbng)
Republican voters are not Democrats or Indies (well, some are in some states)... except when Republican voters decide to cast their ballot for someone they think Dems and Indies will like.
What I am saying is that Newt has grabbed a broad group of Republicans. A broader group of Republicans than Mitt grabs.
You still don't get it.
Newt won over a broad group in ONE state, among PRIMARY VOTERS who represent a very small, unrepresentative slice of the electorate at large. It's a fraction of a fraction of a fraction.
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference how fired up the base is if Independents and other non-primary voters aren't on board. Besides, the opportunity to oust Obama is already a strong incentive for conservatives to get out the vote.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 24, 2012 07:43 AM (SY2Kh)
So, who would I prefer to sit down and have a chat with, someone who is "fake nice" (in my day it was "pleasant and polite") or someone who tells me to "suck on it?"
Guess.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:43 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: King Rat at January 24, 2012 07:43 AM (DDSJB)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:44 AM (digkk)
Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at January 24, 2012 07:45 AM (Ptem3)
Posted by: Bill Clinton at January 24, 2012 07:45 AM (7vSU0)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:46 AM (digkk)
And there you have the secret to electability, and that is likeability.
And Newt isn't going to cut it on that score.
Posted by: Miss Marple at January 24, 2012 07:47 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: blaster at January 24, 2012 07:47 AM (7vSU0)
bernverdnardo
I agree that Santorum is a crappy salesman. But if you're using the salesman analogy, look at the alternatives. I think Newt is a great debater, but he is not warmly received, to say the least, by people outside of the GOP. I think it is safe to say that a lot of people don't like him. Romney has authenticity issues. Would you buy a car from the guy you don't like or don't trust? Santorum is the least bad choice, imho.
Posted by: Matt at January 24, 2012 07:48 AM (90w0O)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:48 AM (digkk)
Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX at January 24, 2012 07:49 AM (aGYmX)
Otherwise, Romney folks, I gotta tell you I can easily see Romney losing a couple of the "New South" states in the general -- the ones like VA and NC that have been partly colonized by libs and thus need good base turnout to go red. At which point, it's all over.
Romney is not especially electable now, but in theory he might become an electable candidate through adapting benefically to Newt's challenge. (N.B. "adapting beneficially" does not mean more nasty attacks on other Republicans.)
Frankly I'm cheering for Newt in FL because I think it will serve the dialectic above. I want him to beat Romney in Florida but not crush him.
However, if Romney doesn't start showing "personal growth" pretty soon, then I may just say F-it and get on Newt's train, although I don't think that train can reach the White House without derailing.
Posted by: P.M. at January 24, 2012 07:50 AM (2AfKV)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose~AoSHQ Graveyard Shift at January 24, 2012 07:52 AM (digkk)
And, we will further layer on the "woman vote" and try to guess how they will react to Newt's fifteen year old affairs (but ignore current data because South Carolina Republican women are not female)... but we will ignore how Independent women will react to the cultural aspects of LDS. I'm telling you that my LDS women friends and neighbors all report getting negative (pitying) reactions from most non-LDS women because of their traditional lifestyle and values.
Fine.
I think I'll stick with choosing, from a flawed and limited pool of candidates, the candidate who has accomplished something conservative on the national stage and who is best able to deliver a core conservative message in the general.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 07:52 AM (5H6zj)
Posted by: boycat at January 24, 2012 07:53 AM (h/e3d)
------
Those are biased insiders from the 'establishment,' you can't trust their judgement. They really don't know more than you or me, they just have the positions because of crony-capitalism and going to liberal schools with lesbians and nose-candy, Sarah told me so.
We need to stand firm and forgot about rational policy. We issue a no-retreat order, we stand here and win or all die. I don't care what anyone tells me. It worked for the German's on the Eastern Front when those 'establishment' generals were overruled by the clever populist wunderkind and it'll work again.
I'm a good historian too, Newt.
//sarcasm
Posted by: Uriah Heep at January 24, 2012 07:54 AM (447Af)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at January 24, 2012 07:54 AM (deaac)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 24, 2012 07:55 AM (RD7QR)
And Newt isn't going to cut it on that score.
Newt's likeable! He's fat. Likeability is inherent as long as he doesn't look like he smells bad.
Posted by: King Rat at January 24, 2012 07:56 AM (DDSJB)
Posted by: King Rat at January 24, 2012 07:58 AM (DDSJB)
Posted by: Cricket at January 24, 2012 08:00 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: filbert at January 24, 2012 08:02 AM (smvTK)
Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 24, 2012 08:05 AM (RD7QR)
The funny thing about the "electability" and "likable" stuff, when you have a steady drumbeat of so-called conservatives in the media and politics telling people how likable a guy is, people who tend to listen to those so-called conservatives tend to believe it. And then when they get a good look at the guy, and he isn't so much either, it may take some time, but they'll figure out for themselves that their betters were wrong, and stop listening to them.
Big losers in 2012 (just my prediction, I could certainly be wrong): Fox News and all their assorted opinion panelists/Romney cheerleaders. Pols like Haley, Christie, etc.
And this is whether Romney wins the nomination and/or the White House or not.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 24, 2012 08:06 AM (TOk1P)
295 -
So the guy pulls some made up numbers out of his rectum, and you want to ridicule people who dismiss them? You know, the myth of Romney's electability is the ONLY thing your boy has going for him. You better hope people don't catch onto the lie.
Posted by: BurtTC at January 24, 2012 08:11 AM (TOk1P)
*****
What's next? nana booboo? That's some top level humor you've got going there.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 08:23 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: BK at January 24, 2012 08:31 AM (R2Yh0)
Posted by: King Rat at January 24, 2012 08:38 AM (DDSJB)
I have but one question.
When have Thomas Sowell, Art Laffer, Rick Perry, Fred Thompson and Sarah Palin all agreed on something and been wrong?
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 24, 2012 08:39 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: anthony at January 24, 2012 08:41 AM (ReUhY)
Um . . . we just ran out of candidates?
Oh.
Damn.
--------------
LOFL.
Recruit MOAR CANDIDATES!
Paul Ryan, report to the TSA for your 'vetting'.
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 24, 2012 08:42 AM (mf67L)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 24, 2012 08:45 AM (0eXnU)
Damn, Ace - you had finally accepted Perry's horribleness at campaigning and your blog had gotten good again.
Please take a sick day and eat some ice cream or something until you're over Perry.
Posted by: also from Oklahoma at January 24, 2012 08:47 AM (QyMDY)
Posted by: Ron Paul is the worst politician ever... except for all the others. at January 24, 2012 09:09 AM (jdOk/)
Posted by: anthony at January 24, 2012 09:14 AM (ReUhY)
Pick one.
I'd pick Jindal.
Daniels was my governor for a while. He was not that impressive (to me). Even though Jindal seems like he'd be more of the technocrat, I think he has more passion than Daniels does.
Posted by: Y-not at January 24, 2012 11:26 AM (5H6zj)
If they jump in, I guess I'll be with you. Until then... I guess Santorum. Never thought I'd say that, but hey - it turns out Mitt folds like a cheap camera, and Newt is toxic and erratic.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 24, 2012 09:15 AM (U+BDE)
Posted by: Cricket at January 24, 2012 09:16 AM (DrC22)
Posted by: Ed Snyder at January 24, 2012 09:21 AM (WsjhW)
Being a good politician isn't so much about being likable as it is being able to relate to voters - or to get them to relate to you. If that connection isn't there people won't vote for you. Algore never had it. He only won on his father's name or Bill's coattails. The product of a one party political state Kerry just wasn't very good at connecting to people in a national campaign. Obama, an even colder fish than Kerry, is superb at getting certain types of people to want to relate to him. Newt made what some people thought was a kiss of death among evangelicals a plus because SC has one of the highest divorce rates in the nation. A great many people there know what it is like to have a bitter ex who won't let go after more than 15 years. You can find him unreliably conservative but Newt has been a practicing retail politician for almost 40 years.
The poster who noted the mechanisms Mormons use to cope with their outsider status made some very good points about the barriers Romney has been raised with. They severely impede that ability to connect with voters. There may be another factor. His father's own presidential campaign blew up rather spectacularly because he was too candid, Journalists joked they needed to install a typewriter key that would print Romney later explained...That's how many statements made on the hustings Romney '68 had to walk back. Politics is a fluid game. An over managed campaign tends to be a losing campaign.
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at January 24, 2012 09:48 AM (ioOUg)
Posted by: George Romney Sr. at January 24, 2012 09:49 AM (hkXlB)
Posted by: Oldcat at January 24, 2012 10:09 AM (z1N6a)
It doesn't make a damned bit of difference how fired up the base is if Independents and other non-primary voters aren't on board. Besides, the opportunity to oust Obama is already a strong incentive for conservatives to get out the vote.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 24, 2012 11:43 AM (SY2Kh)
-----------------------------------------------
But that is what you have to do to win the nomination.
Romney hasn't done well at it in 2008 or now, and yelling at us here will not change that one bit.
Posted by: Oldcat at January 24, 2012 10:15 AM (z1N6a)
Part of Romney's problem is something I've been worried about from the beginnning and it's related to the fact that he's a Mormon and a Yankee. I'm not digging into the whole Mormon vs. the universe thing. I'm an active Mormon, too. I'm not a Yankee, but I spent two years in New England, so I've done my basic anthropology.
Anyway, the fact is that we're not a very demonstrative people. Our meetings are quiet. Our speakers in our meetings are non-professionals called from the congregation and we're not expected or encouraged to whip up the crowd. We don't give soaring speeches or fiery sermons. Even more so for Yankee Mormons. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, and Romney has lots of experience in public speaking outside the church (he was a politician, after all), but I don't think the apple falls far from the tree in this case. Maybe that's a good thing for an administrator, but it's a liability for a politician.
Posted by: Neal5x5 at January 24, 2012 10:24 AM (gMnyi)
As a very Conservative traditional gal, married to one man for 36 years before his death from Agent Orange poisoning, I don't find Newt's marital missteps to be a bar to his functioning as a President. They are not a plus by any means, but, divorce and infidelity are a fact of modern life.
Neither do I find Mitt's super squeaky clean Mormon family and his faith to be either a plus or a minus. He has been running for POTUS his whole adult life, so, of course, he has a squeaky clean life.
Posted by: Will Not Assimilate For Food at January 24, 2012 11:49 AM (kXoT0)
Posted by: States de Swing at January 24, 2012 12:53 PM (8HhF2)
Whut? I could point to some scorching sermons from the 1800s from both Mormons and New Englanders. John Taylor's "Banner Of Heaven" speech alone can keep one warm in a Utah winter
Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at January 24, 2012 12:54 PM (QQAJP)
Posted by: norrin radd at January 24, 2012 02:28 PM (tVK9Z)
'kay...
By their staff ye shall know them. Seriously though, who these guys surround themselves with is very important.
Earlier I'm reading Romney's boy, what's his face that lost to Al Fraken in MN, telling the pres how no republican president is going to be able to repeal obamacare fully, but they will be able to make some changes.
Now I'm reading that Romney has dozens of Crist staffers on his campaign (contrast Gingrich, who has a lot of Rubio staffers).
Posted by: Entropy, Racism Delenda Est at January 24, 2012 03:38 PM (Ci0JG)
Posted by: How to Sharpen a Plane Blade at January 31, 2012 04:26 AM (mIhy6)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3234 seconds, 459 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Schmuck.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at January 24, 2012 06:38 AM (piMMO)