The race for the Republican nomination has seen more ups, downs, and overall unpredictability than Rick Perry’s debate performances (okay, sorry to all the Perry backers, but I couldn’t resist). However, one things has remained constant: the prediction that the anti-Romney faction of the party will eventually rally around a candidate and propel him/her to victory.
So far, this has failed to sustainably materialize, for various reasons. However, The Hill reports that it may finally have begun:
A coalition of conservatives is working to organize the disparate groups opposing Mitt Romney as the Republican presidential nominee.
…The group’s website, NotMittRomney.com, launched this week. [Spokesman Ali] Akbar said that although the group is open to becoming a political action committee in the future, right now it is focused on becoming an online gathering place for the anti-Romney movement.
…Akbar hopes the effort will help provide a framework to gather leaders behind the conservative candidate who will eventually become the movement’s preferred option to Romney.
“We’re treading water until this viable candidate presents him- or herself,” Akbar said, suggesting it will happen sometime after Florida’s primary on Jan. 31.
…Erickson is not a part of the anti-Romney coalition, but it has gathered prominent right-wing bloggers such as John Hawkins and Atlas Shrugs’s Pamela Geller, as well as activists working against Romney with opposition campaigns in early-voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire.
The NotMittRomney coalition is focusing on Iowa first, and eventually Florida. The group is fundraising quietly but has not yet met the required limit to file as a political action committee with the Federal Election Commission. “This is about building a coalition first,” said Akbar.
The goal of the coalition is not to draw together various anti-Romney efforts under one umbrella but to help them communicate. Grassroots and online organizations proved to be effective in gathering force behind the Tea Party movement in 2009, and the coalition intends to take advantage of tools such as social media, according to Akbar.
This certainly looks like something we should monitor in the coming weeks; after all, less than two months exist until the Iowa Caucuses, so anti-Romney Republicans have little time to spare. The uncertainty regarding Herman Cain’s future, the numerous questions surrounding Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry’s verbal miscues, Michele Bachmann’s recent irrelevance, and the inability of any other candidate to break into the top tier leave plenty of variables in the equation.
However, for the very vocal segment of the GOP that remains steadfastly skeptical or downright hostile toward Mitt, their hopes of (in their mind) saving the party – and the country – from him may very well depend on a large-scale organizing effort like this one.
Stay tuned.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
” It’s pretty simple. Ideas come to you easily when you have no principles to get in the way of your roaming untrained intellect. So what are some of the ideas Newt Gingrich has promoted? Are they even conservative ideas?
He promoted the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
He was for a federal individual health-care mandate, the lynchpin of ObamaCare.
He was practically spooning Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming.
He supports green energy projects [Solyndras] and farm-subsidies.
Even as late as this year he was pitching for more government intervention in the health-care system at the progressive Brookings Institution.
How is Gingrich an improvement on Mitt Romney?
When Gingrich was betraying his own Republican revolution in 1998, he lashed out at the conservative congressmen who opposed his leadership. “They’re hateful,” Gingrich said of the Republicans holding firm. “They’re cannibals.”
If you grant him high office and complain about what he does with it, he’ll be saying the same about you “
November 10th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Sad that they feel the need to take down a perfectly acceptable conservative candidate because of an easily dismissed meme created by the Boston Globe out of thin air.
Sadder that no one else in the race even passes the laugh test when it comes to electability.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
I read today that Erickson is predicting a Romney nom. That’s the first step. Admit it. Then maybe he can actually turn to admiration.
The Romnots will get over it eventually.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
3,
You have that correct. The article I linked to references Erickson’s quote.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Anthony, you suggest monitoring this. What do you suggest we DO? What CAN we do about such a coalition?
November 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
These people are truly sickening and deranged people. The hate against Romney is so strong it boggles the mind. I guess the crazies need a mad house, I guess NotMittRomney.com will be it.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
#1,, Don’t forget.. “RightWing Social Engerinering:, That what Ryan Paul was doing according to NEWT???
November 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
iGUESS THE “NotMittRomney.com”, candidate will be non other that “BARACK H. OBAMA”.. That is the best they will get/…..
November 10th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Good. So Erickson the bigot wants his own candidate. Who’s it going to be? Put someone up, Erick. Who is it?
November 10th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
The anti-Establiment establishes an establishment?
The best thing about Erick article is when he finally gets down to his real fear: Romney may win without the conservative non-establishment-establishment support and therefore they are screwed, because they have no claim on the candidate. And this is Romney’s fault. Because when Erick and the patriots decided this, Romney should have obeyed there non-establishment establishment established opinion.
Reality is, Erickson in his “prescient voice” has firmly established himself as a guy who shoots himself in the foot because he is to busy selling a hokey political brand over thoughtfulness.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
OBAMA…
November 10th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
This doesn’t sound like a “large scale organizing effort”. It sounds like a strange, negative idea and a website.
Most coalitions that are successful get built around a positive idea.
I’m not volunteering for the monitoring job. Sounds dull and depressing.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Now these assholes are talking that it would be better that Obama be re-elected than Romney winning the Presidency. This is where it is going folks! Sheer lunacy.
One can only wonder that Obama is behind all of this — having his brown shirt army masqurade on conservative blogs to tear down the one candidate that can defeat and stir up anger amongst conservatives against that candidate.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
I’m sorry, but only losers would be taken in by something like this. You’d get a smarter, more interesting group of people by organizing a say-no-to-bread group.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
The anti Romney is Obama. They might get their wish.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
I saw a mention of this in NRO a few days ago and visited the website. It doesn’t look like it amounts to much.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
LOL. Didn’t Newt get reprimanded by a GOP controlled house to a vote of about 400+ to 20 and a fine of $300,000? He bored the money from Bob Dole , as I remember. He was censured for Ethics violations………lying to the House Ethics Committee and appropriating money for a college course that he taught.
I remember Newt speaking to the Congress and apologizing and thanking his wife for being the source of all the good things he had ever done. Wife 2. Marianne
Then he divorced her
Yes, let’s rally around Newt. Slower than political strychnine, but just as effective
CraigS
November 10th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
You would think if they were true conservatives they would be more focused on our real adversary, Obama, than they would be going negative on one of our fellow conservatives. Well said LC Republican.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
This movement should be officially named “let’s trash whoever republican’s nominate, then stay home on election day”. Or, the “Obama’s useful idiots” since that’s shorter.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
perry, cain get detroyed by Obama…EMBARRASSING debates against Barak coming up with those two
November 10th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
So let me see if I get this right. The famous Ali Akbar (who?) is planning to save conservatism by waiting until after the Florida primary to find a savior because all of the True Conservative superstars in the race don’t have the political wattage to light up a 60 watt bulb?
Yes, this doesn’t sound a bit like a bunch of sulking children.
2.
Exactly correct. These geniuses still haven’t come to grips that the flip flop crap was started by liberals who were mad at Romney for governing in a more conservative way than they thought he would.
What a bunch of dopes.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
lol…def entertaining when someone pokes the Rombot beast. And Rombots lash out, much as their candidate does, at anyone who dares disagree or resist the inevitability.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
This is ridiculous. As a former Pat Buchanan supporter, I have to say I’m embarassed if this is how “conservatives” are going to act. Is Romney the perfect candidate? No. Do I have reservations about him? Yes. But he is by far and away the best candidate to put up against Obama and the best hope in the current field for conservative values to be the guiding principles behind our government, Supreme Court nominations, etc.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:25 pm
They can plot all they want. The not Romney people need to actually have a credible candidate to rally the troops around. I have not doubt that Rush, Erickson, Levin and the rest will settle on an alternative to Romney.
I strongly doubt that the person they settle on will be viewed as a reasonable alternative by the base. In other words, whomever the settle on, Cain, Perry or Gingrich, that person is already too flawed to actually beat Romney.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
It’s telling that this mysterious “viable candidate” has not presented him or herself to the party yet. I hate to break it to Mr. Akbar, but by Florida, it’s going to be far too late.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
@10. Great post! Still lol.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
This is going to backfire in their face big time.
It might even help in the general election.
I know tons of Reagan Democrat types that hate this psudo-conservative wingnuts…….and they are feed up with Obama……which just might make Romney look pretty good to them….
November 10th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Another thing that these geniuses might want to consider. Whomever they trot out as the not Romney in an attempt to derail Romney will have affectively ended his or her (hi Sarah!) political life. The Republican Party will shun them and the movement behind them, forever.
Yes, I know, they don’t need the Republican Party which is good because they are perilously close to losing whatever influence they have with the Party.
November 10th, 2011 at 9:47 pm
rick santorum or bust for this group
November 10th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
There has been, in fact, no shortage of Coalescence around an anti-Romney. In fact, the anti-Romney faction has coalesced more this time around than any other election….by doing it repeatedly. First around Palin, then around Trump, then around Bachmann, then around Perry, then around Cain…etc.
The problem is they are rejecting an otherwise good candidate (Romney) because he isn’t perfect, and latching on to whatever rising star happens to make some momentary claim to perfection. When that perfection turns out to be false, they quickly cannibalize the candidate and move on.
So, who is left? Cain? He’s already struggling with allegations, and his failure to deal with them adequately – even without his horribly under qualified resume. Gingrich? The man who turned against Paul Ryan, is a serial adulterer, and has virtually no ground on which to attack Romney’s mandate position?
November 10th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Where is Teledude when his cue is given? Isnt this what he’s been secretly hoping for all this time, that some secret coalition would pick up the phone and call Sarah? Tele? Where you at dog?
November 10th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
29. Bust.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I truly don’t get it. All I can come up with is that they want a “storm the castle” candidate — who cares if they can’t win?
Mitt is about as conservative as you can be and still win the general.
And, he’s SO GOOD at it. Sure, I’m biased, but I don’t know how every republican isn’t just dying to give him a chance — just on the edge of their seats to see if he can really pull it off.
I know *I* am.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Meh, they can create as many websites as they want, the problem they face is that none of them can agree on who this fabled “anti-mitt” is. I haven’t looked at the website yet but I predict that in as little as a few weeks it will be filled with divisive debate that will only further lengthen the divide to consensus.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Is David Axlerod behind this “movement”, because Team Obama REALLY doesn’t want to go up against Romney. They’d much rather just sit back and let someone like Perry or Cain be the nominee and self-destruct before their eyes without having to lift a finger.
The only legitimate contender for the “not-Romney” was Perry, but even the wingnuts are coming to the reality that Obama would eat Perry alive if he were the GOP nominee. They can laugh it off all they want, if Perry performs like that at debates with Obama, the average swing voter will quickly realize they can’t hand the White House over to someone who’s clearly in over their head in the current economic crisis.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Just out of curiosity, how are they going to accomplish their goal? Is Cain, Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, etc. going to drop their candidacy and their own aspirations to prevent Romney from getting the nomination, when they can’t even attack him in public. Does that make sense to anyone? Can anyone really see them coalescing around another, unviable candidate?
These people have delusions of self-importance and on their ability to usurp people’s opinions.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
The fact is that they have to choose a White Knight from those already in the candidate field…..or resort to supporting a write-in effort. Good luck with that.
Erickson has publicly commenced to reconsidering Jon Huntsman’s candidacy. Huntsman is my (very distant) 2nd choice…..but there’s no way the ABR crowd will unite around another Mormon….one who acknowledges global warming and believes in evolution, no less.
What will happen is that these fringe people will divide between those who vote for the Party’s ticket, those who go third Party, and those who stay home. Their numbers will be dwarfed by the Independents Mitt pulls in.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Romney hit 72% on Intrade today. Now 71.8%.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
These people against Romney are nuts! He is by far the best thing that could happen to get Americans back to work. Our future and the future of our children and grandchildren are in jeopardy. Thankfully most Americans are smart enough to know that 4 more years of Obama’s leadership will destroy our Country.
November 10th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
No, Cain’s trouble is 999 (or is it 909). But it’s the only answer he has for everything.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Listening to Levin this afternoon (why do I continue to listen to that angry little man?!?) as he went on his latest rant against I found my self yelling at the radio, “then who?” Newt is my (very distant) 2nd, but even looking at just “pros” I have yet to see one who can compete with Romney. For the life of me, I can’t figure out how this “movement” is going to help the country.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
They keep “waiting for a viable candidate?????????” They are nuts. There is no other viable candidate but Mitt. They have exhausted their options. Cain is not up for the job. The vetting of Newt has begun. Last night’s question about Newt getting $300,000+ for helping to block the federal regulators from doing their job needs to be investigated.
Time for Realville.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
If this happens I’m out. The choice is Romney or corruption. I’m not sticking around for the corruption.
I seriously think they have gone insane.
Romney is by far the best candidate in decades now. More prepared, more conservative, this just not make sense.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
heh heh heh
yes…I guess hope springs eternal
but seriously…
I think Newt is in a great position at this time.
And timing is EVERYTHING…
If you know what I mean.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
44. Newt is in an enviable position. His vanity candidacy is poised to overtake Cain’s vanity candidacy. He’ll be viewed as a highroller. He’s going to get vetted if his balloon floats too high, and then it will be “oops” all over again.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Lol… Mr. Akbar… I feel like I’ve heard that name before…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piVnArp9ZE0&feature=related
November 10th, 2011 at 11:37 pm
“Mitt is about as conservative as you can be and still win the general.”
If this is true, then we are in a lot worse shape than anybody ever suspected.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:42 pm
47, No I’m pretty sure anybody paying attention(admittedly not the largest group) has suspected we’re in really bad shape. And the depth of our problems go a fair amount deeper then whether we get a Democrat or Republican let alone which Republican we get.
November 10th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
According to Gallup, 45% of all Republicans expect Romney to be the nominee.
13% expect Cain will be the nominee, and 9% expect Perry will be the nominee.
A measly 4% expect Gingrich will be the nominee.
38% of Cain’s supporters expect Romney to be the nominee, while only 42% of Cain’s supporters expect Cain will be the nominee.
This was a survey of 1,054 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents from November 2-6.
A couple of clowns who do not like Romney have gotten together and started a website. Big deal. They obviously did not get enough attention from mommy and daddy when they were children.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150659/Republicans-Believe-Romney-Likely-Win-Nomination.aspx
November 10th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
47.
Only in your mind, David Shedlock. You must think you know more than all the outstanding conservatives who have endorsed Romney.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:11 am
As for “prominent right-wing blogger” Pamela Geller, she is a nutcase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
November 11th, 2011 at 12:15 am
Shedlock, just checking in after a long day working on the NotMittRomney site?
November 11th, 2011 at 12:23 am
30 It’s been more like taste-testing. Romney’s kind of been vanilla and they think there’s a better flavor out there. However the aftertaste on these other flavors has been hot manure. When they get tired of the taste of hot manure they’ll start thinking vanilla sounds pretty good (except for the few who have no taste, or like hot manure).
November 11th, 2011 at 12:28 am
Erickson is a complete tool!
He has something like 20,000 twitter followers only.
The next Rush? Lol.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:43 am
When is the next debate? I heard something about saturday but the schedule here on race says tuesday? What kind of debate is it, the next one (whenever it is)?
November 11th, 2011 at 12:56 am
John: It looks like there’s a debate which will be broadcast on CBS on Saturday, Nov. 12, at 8 PM Eastern time. It’s being held at Wofford College in South Carolina.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:58 am
Erick Erickson 4 years ago.
“So if the Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia were tomorrow, I’d vote for Mitt. Sure, he has waffled on social issues — but I think that highlights his pragmatic approach to politics. He was never going to get elected as a pro-life candidate in Massachusetts and he knew it. I won’t fault him. I think, if he gets elected based on conservative support, he won’t betray that support in office.”
“Giluiani had leadership. Romney had conservatism. Make no mistake about that.The people who want a conservative have found their man, it seems. Mitt Romney was pitch perfect and willing to talk social issues — something totally missing from Giuliani’s speech. And people noticed.I have to say that it was a tremendous speech. I actually could not listen to all of Rudy’s, but Mitt’s was great.”
“Mitt was followed by Ann Coulter who put the red meat conservative seal of approval on him. It was an excellent speech that should resolve all fears conservatives have about Romney.The race is on — it’s now between Rudy and Mitt. McCain is a non-starter.”
So I guess that means he flip flopped?
He probably started to read comments on blogs, and came to realization that there are lots of people commenting with that kind of stupid views, but no major blogger representing them, and then he flip flopped to get more attention.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:21 am
53. Hmmm… Hot Manure! LOL!
November 11th, 2011 at 1:52 am
Teemu: Does Erickson even remember having said this????? That is so rich. Almost as rich as Rush’s quotes. I’m sorry, one CANNOT explain away quotes or positions like these by simply saying the field was different then. These statements are actual positions these clowns have taken. Rush called Mitt a conservative in 2008 and explained what he meant by it (ie 3 legs of the conservative stool)then said he wasn’t conservative in 2011. Thanks to Teemu, now I know that Erickson made similar remarks, as did Coulter (per Erickson…thanks Erick btw) but now they do a 180. Mitt didn’t change in 3 yrs. What these phonies have done is downright contradictory. Don’t forget NRO…they endorsed Mitt, couldn’t say enough good about him. Again, what did Mitt do in 3 yrs to cause such a change of heart???? He got better actually. Deplorable, I know. Somebody PLEASE help me understand this.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:05 am
59. Yeah, it would be one thing to say, “sure, Mitt was reasonably conservative compared to McCain, but these other folks are much more so.”
That’s REASONABLE. But to demonize him the way they have and to flat out call him liberal is laughable (if it didn’t make me cry) after what they both said last round.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:26 am
Matt go to Dailybeast and read Michael Medved. He says the problem with Romney is that he isn’t angry enough.
Apparently you can’t be a conservative unless you are really angry all the time. Happy people can’t be conservatives.
So my conclusion is: I’d rather be happy than accepted by angry people as one of them.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:32 am
#55
John….
There’s a debate on Sat, Nov 12 @8pm ET…5pm PT on CBS, Sponsors are National Journal and South Carolina Republican Party.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:46 am
42.
The vetting of Newt has definitely begun. The question from the moderator about what Newt’s firm did for Freddie Mac when they paid him $300,000 is the tip of the ice burg. Newt’s immediate response was…are you asking me? Who did he think he was asking? I thought the question caught him off guard and he needed a moment to think about it. Would they pay him $300K for advice..some think he wrote and talked about the benefits of the Freddie Mac business model to counter Republican pressure. Newt stumbled again when he chose to argue with the moderator over the Health Care question. Did he not have an outline of a Health Care plan ready? If this is the guy that the anti-Romney’s want to rally around since Cain’s campaign has been derailed, they’d better hope he can talk policy and not just spin and fancy rhetoric. If his numbers improve he will be subjected to intense scrutiny. People will ask more questions about what he did for Freddie Mac, his resignation as speaker of the house and his wives.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:59 am
It sounds like Akbar and his group are feeling left out and wants to start a radical movement of Republican party Occupiers instead of looking for a real job…Maybe they can occupy Starbucks!
November 11th, 2011 at 3:27 am
“However, for the very vocal segment of the GOP that remains steadfastly skeptical or downright hostile toward Mitt, their hopes of (in their mind) saving the party – and the country – from him may very well depend on a large-scale organizing effort like this one.”
Well I don’t know how big this “movement” will get or how effective it will be.
Larry Johnson (I forget the name of the website…Quarter something or another) who strongly supported Hillary had a similar site to trash Obama 24/7.
He was the one promoting the idea that there was a video of Michelle Obama using the term “whitie”.
Anyway I mention him & his website because Pamela Geller’s personality kinda reminds me of his….believes in and creates conspiracies (one of hers being birthism), has a fantastical, over inflated ego of importance in the world arena.
I went on the site and it had attracted 80 people from Facebook. I wrote the site defending my support of Mitt.
Also it’s wonderful to keep reminding the Rush’s, Laura’s, Levin’s, the Redstate Eric’s of the world that they have very little credibility in attacking Mitt when they heaped so much conservative praise on the man in 2008, when Romneycare was in full effect.
Petunia, I read the Medved piece at the Daily Caller and it was spot on. I too think anger and rage drive a lot of Rush, Laura, and Co. dislike of Mitt this time around.
Also I would add that this group is projecting their hatred of Obamacare onto Romney. These people are not thinking straight and teetering on buffonery.
I think I read it here but someone called them carnival barkers, which sounds about right…..they truly are making themselves less relevant going down this road with their speechifying.
November 11th, 2011 at 4:19 am
It’s worth noting that there IS a substatial not-Romney contingent who won’t be satisfied with Romney under any circumstances, and they’re larger than the pro-Romney group. Low enthusiasm = low turnout.
Perhaps the Romney supporters should at least consider other candidates. I firmly believe that a Romney nomination will do damage to the number of seats gained in Congress in 2012 due to that low enthusiasm. At the same time, it’s at best a coin toss for him to beat Obama, even with the extra bump that the perceived frontrunner gets in the polling.
There’s more to it than just the white house to consider. Those seats in Congress gained from an enthusiastic turnout are worth a very great deal, since that’s theoretically the governing body with the most power.
@2. Romney doesn’t either, unless you blind yourself to his faults.
@33. I don’t see it. I wish I did, but I don’t. I see nothing even remotely inspiring about the guy, except for the rather great hair. I wish my hair looked that good, no joke.
November 11th, 2011 at 7:01 am
You know what I find as a great example of a FLIP FLOP ? Conservatives like De Mint and Santorum endorsing Romney in 2008 and then refusing to endorse him in 2011 because of positions Romney took on 2006. A CLASSIC definition of a FLIP FLOP.
CraigS
November 11th, 2011 at 7:08 am
>>Perhaps the Romney supporters should at least consider other candidates.
Considered and rejected. Why should I throw my vote to a demonstrably lesser candidate because a bunch of bloggers are having a hissy fit? We have a perfectly fine process in place for selecting a candidate, it’s called the GOP primary. If these not Romney folks are so substantial in numbers then let them find a candidate and beat Romney for the nomination.
So far, all they have demonstrated is that they are intellectually dishonest by flipping and flopping between a group of deeply flawed candidates hoping for a savior. There appears to be no central theme to their support other than it’s not for a candidate that last election they considered conservative enough.
They don’t like any of the current candidates and want someone better? Too bad. These are the candidates we all get to chose from and none of us ever get the perfect candidate. If they don’t want to support Romney thats their right. But just because they want to act like a bunch of spoiled children that doesn’t mean I have to give into their threats.
November 11th, 2011 at 7:25 am
The anti-Romney vote will not coalesce. Have anyone any doubt of whom Bachmann, Santorum and Cain will endorse when they drop out of the race?
November 11th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Mitt 2012 is McCain 2008. And the result will be the same. What I wonder is….will Mitt run 3rd party and will all the Rombots leave when they finally realize the GOP doesn’t want a moderate weather vane who is more in love with the idea of being called Mr. President than he is in fighting liberalism. If there is such an independent appeal to Romney, then go run as an Independent candidate!
Mitt is Obama-lite….THAT is why the GOP won’t support him. So please, stop pretending that you don’t know why Conservatives don’t like him. You can disagree with the assessment Rombot-nation, but you can’t claim you don’t know why.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:08 am
70.
You mean conservatives like Ali Akbar who supported John McCain last election? Conservatives like Roger Stone, professional dirty trickster, who has worked for such staunch conservatives like Bob Dole and Arlen Specter?
I could care less about who you and these clowns think is and isn’t a conservative. And you might want to consider that things work both ways. If you think you are going to excite the part of the base who is supporting Romney by constantly threatening to try and kneecap him or sitting out the election if you don’t get your way you are sadly mistaken. Nobody is going to force us to vote for your candidate either.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:13 am
This really disgusts me. Their talking points are completely dishonest. If you want to make coherent arguments about why Romney is not the best candidate, go right ahead. This group isn’t doing that though. It is a smear campaign that is attacking his character with lies.
As long as they don’t have a candidate, I think they are pretty harmless. But once they start advocating for someone (probably dishonestly), this could cause serious damage.
I wish they would just tell the truth about their motivations. It is motivated by hate and nothing else.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:21 am
47 – Who is your new anti-Mormon candidate of the month?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:27 am
66 – Who should be considering? Newt the unethical, Pelosi-loving serial adulterer? Cain, the vapid 9-9-9er? Perry, “oops I did it again”?
Who should we be considering? And how do you think those candidacies are going to effect the makeup of Congress when Democrats and independents are motivated to show up just to vote against them?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:29 am
70 – Based on what? You can spew your hate over and over, but until you provide something of substance it isn’t going to do any good.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:30 am
71 – Exactly. I am amazed at how many of these so called “conservatives” were former McCain supporters (Smack, I am looking at you).
November 11th, 2011 at 8:33 am
“I could care less about who you and these clowns think is and isn’t a conservative.”
Herein lies the problem with our Party this time around. Rombots want to take the party further left and the rest of the Romnots, fractured themselves amongst several candidates, are resisting it. I know in FL the upper tiers of leadership are firmly and loudly supporting Romney, whilst, for the first time since I can remember, the middle and lower tiers of leadership and damn near all of the rank-and-file absolutely will not support Romney; hence, are looking for a real conservative whose actions match up with their words.
People are finally waking up to the tricks that are played during the primaries by the moderates like Romney and his cult-followers. They are not listening to the vicious presumptuousness of “viability” and “electability” as replacements for conservative positions and a conservative history.
Message to Rombot-nation: You cannot run your liberal candidate with an R next to his name and expect the GOP to support him. Romney cannot win the Presidency and we will make sure of it one way or another.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:36 am
75. Is that really necessary? Even on this site alone, there have been plenty of representations of the anti-Romney viewpoint. Google it…it’s everywhere. I’m not trying to dodge the question, but it’s clear to everyone outside of Rombot nation why he is not liked…..much like it’s clear to everyone why Ron Paul is not liked. No amount of explanation will appease you until you step outside the Rombot bubble.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:37 am
Here is Newt for you…
He promoted the return of the Fairness Doctrine.
He was for a federal individual health-care mandate, the lynchpin of ObamaCare.
He was practically spooning Nancy Pelosi in commercials about the need for government action on global warming.
He supports green energy projects [Solyndras] and farm-subsidies.
Even as late as this year he was pitching for more government intervention in the health-care system at the progressive Brookings Institution.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:42 am
CBS POLL NATIONAL GOP POLL – Just released
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68139.html
Cain 18%
Romney 15%
Gingrich 15%
Cain support among woman has dropped
Romney support among men has dropped
Gingrich support among men and woman have inched upward.
The question should be when does the Anti-Gingrich Vote Begin to Coalesce?
Gingrich is on the move!!!
Newt 2012!!
November 11th, 2011 at 8:44 am
I would rather be “for” someone, than “against” someone else. We’ve done plenty of that over the last decade.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:44 am
79.
Don’t forget, he was a paid lobbyist for Fannie Mae arguing that their business model was just awesome right before it went belly up and helped takedown the economy.
76.
Just you insisting that Romney will take the country further left with zero evidence is hardly a compelling argument. The so called leaders of True Conservatism have flipped and flopped more in the last couple of years as to who is and who isn’t a conservative you are in no position to lecture to anyone about who we should support.
If you don’t like Romney then don’t vote for him. But your argument, such as it is, which amounts to nothing but saying over and over again that Romney isn’t a conservative while ignoring the flaws of every other candidate you insist is a conservative is not very compelling. If anything, by continuing to lie about Romney’s record you are just making people like me dig in further on our support.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Interesting article. An anti-Romney coalition forming to keep him out.
It would appear that there are a large number of people out there who still have not learned that it is very, very difficult to build something positive out of something negative. About the only thing that you can build from such is more hate. And we already have too much of that in the world as it is.
I am reminded of that 60′s organization, the Students for a Democratic Society or SDS. They were all determined to tear down American society. They weren’t FOR anything. They just wanted to destroy. They said anything that sprang up from the ruins had to be better than what we then had.
Isn’t that essentially the save attitude of those who just want to tear down Romney? Anything that springs from the ruins has to better than him?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:45 am
77 – Can you read? What grade are you in?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:45 am
83.edit
“save” = “same”
November 11th, 2011 at 8:46 am
78 – Yes it is necessary. Because you haven’t proven anything. You just spew hate.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:46 am
What a stupid premiss, maybe it is the anti-Perry vote (90% don’t like him) or the anti-Cain vote (80% don’t like him). The fact is Romney is the only candidate that has maintained support.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:46 am
78 – Who is your candidate?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:49 am
mike, Owl,
If your collective concerns about turnout in a Mitt candidacy were valid, Mitt wouldn’t consistently be doing better than everyone else against Obama. We just had a poll yesterday that showed Mitt beating Obama by a larger margin than anyone else in MISSISSIPPI, of all places.
The small percentage of right-wingers who would bolt the ticket or stay home are telling pollsters they will do these things by saying undecided, or even by choosing Obama. They are doing that NOW. Still, Mitt does the best of any of our candidates…..and the reason is that while the angry, aggrieved Right is obstreperous, it’s also, as a percentage of the electorate, TINY.
BTW, referring to Romney as Obama-Lite is asinine. Balancing the budget is massively different than adding One and a Half Trillion Dollars to it every year. Making large, real CUTS in spending is massively different than adding hundreds of billions of dollars of spending every year.
If you guys can’t tell the difference, you’re brain damaged. Romney’s chances of beating Obama are indeed a coin flip, but a 50-50 chance is better than a ZERO chance, which is about what we have with anybody else in the race.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:49 am
NEW INSIDER ADVANTAGE IOWA POLL…this poll does not have a good recent history
Cain 23%
Romney 19%
Gingrich 15%
In 5 day when you compare the last 2 Insider Advantage polls in Iowa you see this…
Cain drops 7 pts
Romney gains 4pts
Gingrich gains 3pts
November 11th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Ha Ha Ha
Let’s see if I understand the state of the GOP race, according to CBS. Top 3 candidates have 48 % of vote. Majority of voters ( 52 % ) is split between
Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman,Paul,Perry and, umm,oops, someone else…….who are non existent as far as the primaries are concerned.
Each of these heavy hitters is teed up against Obama, right ?
LOL……there isnt ANYBODY within shouting distance at CBS that would EVER vote Republican……but they all know, including FOX NEWS that you MUST keep everything churning
for ratings and advertising bucks .
CraigS
November 11th, 2011 at 8:50 am
80 – Telephone only poll … completely flawed. How many telephone numbers are listed in public databases anymore?
November 11th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Any poll that relies only on telephone calls is inherently flawed. People don’t have publicly listed telephone numbers anymore, and those that do have caller I.D. and aren’t going to answer an unidentified call or a call from a pollster. As someone that has done outbound telephone solicitations, I know that the sample of people that you get that will answer a bunch of questions is not representative of society as a whole.
In order to get a properly sampled poll, it has to be a mix of phone and in-person conversations these days.
November 11th, 2011 at 8:55 am
NEW INSIDER ADVANTAGE POLL SC
Cain 26%
Gingrich 19%
Romney 16%
Cain slippes
Romney stays put.
Gingrich surges…up 11 pts!!!!!
Gingrich shows his strength among the 65+ voters has he leads in both Iowa & SC in this sub group.
Newt is on the move!!!!
November 11th, 2011 at 9:00 am
The problem is… the anti-Romney people cannot have it both ways. Romney is in no way liberal. That is a flat out lie.
Your whole reason for being is a lie.
So no, people who support Romney are not going to stop because a few of you have decided to believe a lie and perpetuate it.
Mitt Romney is by far the best candidate in the race. In fact he is the best to come along for a generation. No amount of false propaganda is going to change that.
In most elections the leader does not break out until just before the voting begins. McCain didn’t in 2008. So this continued fake freting that Romney can’t get more than 25% is just drummed up fakery.
Bush II was an exception to the rule not the rule. He broke out early, mostly because there was a strong sympathy contingent for his father’s loss to Clinton.
Romney is positioned perfectly to become the nominee.
These websites are reminiscent of the pro-Hillary, anti-Obama sites of 2008. Those sites were great pushers of false information about Obama, always talking about some new scandal that was about to break and drown the Obama candidacy. The scandals never broke. Obama won. The birther movement was born from that anti-Obama contingent.
I think these nuts are the same people or their right wing counter parts.
It is dangerous to think people who can not think more clearly than that could take us over. I hope that is not the case.
My biggest worry is that with this new apportionment system in the Primary could do more damage to Mitt before he can fully concentrate the party on Obama.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:03 am
The reason it is so hard to beat incumbent is exactly because the Party doesn’t coalesce around the candidate and the candidate is damaged in the Primary.
We can not do that this time!!!! Please, if anyone is on the fence about Romney do not get your information from the losers who are doing these sites and pushing false information about Romney.
Go to whymitt.com and read through the explanations for the all the charges they level at Mitt. Everything has been distorted. Mitt is no worse on any issue than the others.
There was a similar large group who were determined to keep Reagan out as well. He had to run 3 times to finally make it. Let’s hope Mitt only needs two.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:03 am
New Rassmussen poll has Cain and Newt with 50% + negative rating among all voters.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:06 am
After looking at CBS polls again, I have a couple of questions.
1. Why do CBS polls always add up to 88 % , even including the Undecided and Don’t Know vote ? What about the other 12 %
2. The top three, as I said, now share 48 % of the 88 % rather than 100 % so the remainder is presumably split among 40 % , not 52 %
3. The MOE is 5 %, as stated, with 382 voters surveyed,so everybody is in a dead heat. These polls statistically ignore the GOP primary schedule and inordinately favor more conservative sampling in the southern states. That’s O.K, just so everybody keeps his eye on the real ball
CraigS
November 11th, 2011 at 9:06 am
The new National Rasmussen Poll among GOP voters had Romney & Gingrich tied.
You need to win the Party Nomination before you can win the General.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:08 am
This anti-Mitt “movement” (we’ve already had a sophomoric discussion about “movements” here) is nutz. If the party likes someone better than Mitt, go out and support that person 110%. Give them money; sing their praises; work on their campaign; get them elected.
Every time a not-Mitt rises in the polls, they have fallen–not because there was an anti-not-Mitt movement; the person fell on their own accord.
The anti-Mitts need to get this through their thick skulls; there is no one else other than Romney who is sufficiently competent to serve in the Oval Office. There are no doubt others out there, but they chose not to run. We ended up with some vanity candidates and one serious one: Mitt.
Mitt’s not perfect and if he’s the candidate, there will be some challenges, serious ones. People say, “Oh, he can’t close the deal.” Well, maybe he could if there wasn’t this stupid and constant drum beat against him on the right, for which there is no intelligent explanation.
Like I say, if you have a better candidate, elect him/her. Since you don’t, quit killing Mitt over stupid stuff.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:08 am
99. Newt and Cain cant win a general election being a constant sexual harasser and with Newts flip flops and ” Baggage “
November 11th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Smack
Insider Advantage is run by Matt Towery here in Georgia. It is close to not being a poll at all, but Matt’s opinion . Watch and see what really happens.
CraigS
November 11th, 2011 at 9:11 am
>>You need to win the Party Nomination before you can win the General.
Yep. And before you can win the nomination you have to start winning the early states. Neither Gingrich (who has barely been in Iowa) or Cain has any ground organization in Iowa. The caucus process relies on a strong ground game much more than a primary. Ask Howard Dean.
They have a chance to start building one but they better get moving.
They are both going to get overwhelmed in NH.
SC is up for grabs and Romney and Cain are neck and neck in FL.
Way to early to make any predictions or look at national polls. They are meaningless at this point.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Craig S,
I agree.
But since we posts ARG polls at RACE42012 I thought I would tweak everyone today.
But yes, Insider Advantage Poll has a horrible..horrible record of accuracy.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Insider/Advantage polls are a joke. Can’t wait to see the internals of the CBS poll, which have to be screwed up beyond belief.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:14 am
#99 Smack: people are liking Newt in the debates (although he’s muffed some things that people seem over overlook). His vetting is just beginning.
I was laughing at the Luntz group last night on Hannity. They judged Newt the winner; Mitt a strong second. But the hilarious thing was “Newt was more trustworthy than Romney” and “Newt isn’t a Washington insider.”
I like Newt; I would love to see him debate Obama, but Newt is neither trustworthy nor a Washington outsider. Like Cain told voters: “Do your homework.”
November 11th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Is Insider Advantage any better than Zogby or ARG?
November 11th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Where on earth do you buy your Kool-aid anyway?
You RomNots just love to pull crap out of thin air and pass it off as fact.
What is it…the MassCare mandate? The one conservatives, including Gingrich, were for before they were against it?
If Romney has shifted any positions, THEY HAVE ALL BEEN TO THE RIGHT.
How about you geniuses show us all where Romney has shifted left on any position…
November 11th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Newt, in one day, had raised ver $200,000 by late yesterday afteroon.
Newt will have the money to run some Ads on radio and TV in Iowa. But is his late start in build an org in Iowa gong to be his nail in the coffin?
Possibly.
But Precint Captains are starting to be named on the Newt Iowa team, so will see.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:24 am
K.G.
Newt is an insider, no doubt.
I was suprised that Newt received so many good reviews for his debate performance. Newt had great 2 answers that I’m sure moved people, but his snippy comments to the moderaters is geeting quite stupid…IMO.
It’s important that Newt keeps amiling and stays positive. He almost blew it the other night in that regard.
I do think that the Romeny camp believes they have a trust issue with the GOP voters and that’s why Mitt brought up the point that he has been a guy who has been married with the same woman…was with Bain for over 25 years..and things like that.
IMO, the Mitt camp is taking measures to correct the trust issue, and they will continue to do so. But it is clear it has shown up in their internal polls…right or wrong.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:24 am
#109: Smack: Since I have been very bitter about the economic melt-down in 2007-08 and have been wondering who to blame for people not knowing what was going on and anticipating such a crash, I need some explanation for Newt’s role in keeping the federal regulators at bay at Fanny and Freddie.
I want the next POTUS to be able to protect us from the evil ba%tards, not be one of the them–and especially not on the take with MY (read taxpayers’) money.
We have one sick country and I want a healer not a dealer.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mortgage-meltdown-freddie-mac-lobbying-held-federal-regulators-bay
November 11th, 2011 at 9:29 am
coallescing into what? they still have to agree on a candidate, and they don’t
November 11th, 2011 at 9:31 am
K.G (111) interesting article.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:32 am
#110: Smack: The Romney camp is totally aware of the “trust” issues. And yes, they are making a move toward building on Mitt’s personal trustworthiness vs. changes in his political positions.
IMO the anti-Mitt-movement has taken the flip-flop, untrustworthy narrative to the dishonest extreme. I guess that’s what they do in politics; take a little true point and blow it up into essentially a lie overall.
My gripe is that this has been done for now primarily on the right. People who supported Mitt last time keep pounding Mitt to the ground while ignoring the flaws of the other candidates. My gripe is why are you destroying Mitt when you do not have a viable alternative?
November 11th, 2011 at 9:36 am
K.G,
I think we all are bitter over the economy. I own a business that only in the last 8 months have I been successful in onboarding new clients. It’s been tough but we have been lucky in that we were able to keep our 3 biggest clients through all of it.
As for Newt, I have read he was not a lobbyist…and that his contract was written in such a way that he could not be considerd as one. Newt has done a lot of work with the Bush adminsitration and some different agency’s as an Historian.
If other politcal camps can find documentation that shows Newt was actually trying to block reform from happening, then you might have something. But everything that I have seen just tells me that Newt was giving the Agency a historian point of view and was not working as a lobbist.
Freddie Mac paid over 52 different Firms for work…a minority of them did lobby work for them.
But I’m sure the Romney supporters, and quite possibly Cain supporters will keep digging into this…as they should.
Will see what happens.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:38 am
If there ain’t no candidate to coalesce around then there ain’t going to be an anti-Romney surge.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:40 am
“take a little true point and blow it up into essentially a lie overall.”
That is done by all sides…believe me.
I’m not trying to destroy Mitt.
We have a competition going on for the GOP Nomination. No votes have been cast as of yet.
If Mitt does win he will be stronger for this tought race.
Obama was tougher because of Hillary, not weaker.
Mitt will be tougher because of SMACKDADDY, not weaker.
You can thank me later.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:41 am
#115…SMACK, just curious…What kind of history did Freddie and Fannie need from Newt to the tune of $300,000?
That kind of dough for a history lesson might even turn Matt (MWS) into a corrupt turncoat
November 11th, 2011 at 9:43 am
I have thought all along that what Palin really had to offer was strong rhetoric. And that is Cain’s strength too. Gingrich is rhetoric and only rhetoric. He has actually been on the wrong side of the worst decisions we have made as a party and a country!
Gingrich advocated for Freddie Mac against Bush and Greenspan for pete’s sake!!!! And the mandate that everyone is hyperventalating about was Newt’s idea first!!!! Don’t confuse sounding smart with actually being smart!!!
But rhetoric is not leadership. And it certainly is not clear thinking.
We have some kind of bad cop/good cop thing with Mitt as the good cop. What I don’t really get is why the fence sitters are at all confused about who would do the job better. Pick the good cop people!
Anyway, I think Medved’s analysis is very good. The country’s mood is really angry. And Mitt is not angry sounding enough. And Mitt is very polite, even to Obama. And that drives these angry nuts more nuts.
Who was it who said, “I am a conservative, but I’m not angry about it.”
That is how I feel. I don’t think anyone makes their best decisions when they are angry. I don’t. I almost always regret decisions when I fly off the handle and just act out.
I wish these people would just calm down and realize that their goals are best met by Mitt Romney than anyone else. And it isn’t turning left to be calm and calculated.
And oh my gosh! How can Ericksen, Limbaugh and Levin even say Mitt is a flip flopper with a straight face?
Mitt Romney has stayed conservative, they are all flap jacks compared to Mitt.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:43 am
#113: Freddy: Taxpayer money used as hush money, which played a role in bringing down the whole economy? This is who we want to put in the Oval Office? The fox guarding the hen house?
Right now I am furious at Newt and the other dearly beloved Republicans involved in this and I need a better explanation than the one that seemed to catch Newt off guard at the debate. I am furious at debate watchers who are dazzled by Newt’s rhetorical skills and let this one slip by. I only paid attentioned when Petunia sent the link yesterday.
I am furious @ Cainiacs who are defiantly supporting Herman despite his confused responses in interviews and vapid answers in the debates.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:44 am
#117 Smack: No, I don’t believe you are trying to destroy Mitt. But this thread is about organized forces who are.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:53 am
117.
Then lets stop with all the flip flopper crap. Mitt changed his position on 1 issue. He went from being personally pro-life but saying he wouldn’t push his views publicly because the law of the land and the will of the people in MA were overwhelmingly pro-choice to pro-life at the first chance he got to sign pro-choice legislation.. Politically convenient? Sure. But so what? He ended up in the place conservatives want and has never wavered.
He was never for raising taxes.
He was never for gay marriage.
He was never for cap and trade. He did work with a New England coalition that was looking at ways to reduce emissions but when the final proposal came down and there were no safe guards for business he became the only NE governor to refuse to sign it. The governor of RI who was also a Republican then followed suit.
Every other supposed flip flop is nothing more than him considering different legislation and ending up voting in a conservative way. Thats what you get with a conservative businessman versus a “movement conservative”, someone who sits down and looks at the issue from all sides versus someone who makes reflexive decisions based on ideology. It’s also something you get from an executive. All governors to one degree have to do this, Congressman from gerrymandered districts don’t. The further to the right a state is the further right you will see the governors record and vica versa. Anyone who thinks a Rick Perry or a Sarah Palin would have governed as a movement conservative (which neither of them are) in a state like MA versus Texas or Alaska is fooling themselves.
But this flip flop stuff has taken on a life of its own and thats all we ever hear. It is dishonest and when people refuse to stop saying it even when the issues have been debunked over and over it amounts to nothing less than a smear.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:55 am
119. Newt has flipped so much its unbelievable…
November 11th, 2011 at 9:55 am
The $300,000 was paid to Newt’s organization. What was paid out to Newt’s organization was what…about 2% of the total budget Freddie Mac used.
I’m not sure Newt’s organzation did what most you want to say it did.
Newt’s organization has given an Historical lesson to many of his clients. Ths is the work Newt has done for many years.
Just read Newt’s books. Newt was a History Professor. Newt’s business is not in direct lobby work.
Newt is an Historian, his work is not what many of you are thinking…or wanting it to be for political reasons.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Ground game is the answer and no one is going to have a ground game like Romney’s. Everyone can talk about money coming in because of debates and people coalescing this late in the game. Romney’s steady and puts his nose to the grindstone. He has done two things very well: 1) he’s been the one to control the media and his opponents (to a lesser degree than he thought he had to) and not the other way around. The opposition can only talk about the same thing over and over again. He can choose to respond at the appropriate time or he will let them punch themselves out. He hasn’t allowed anyone to paint him into a corner. No big Sunday interviews and choosing to comment when he wants to. The man has nothing to hide, everything is in the open for everyone to see. 2) He knows he has to take a top down bottom up approach to get this things. I guarantee you that all of those endorsements he’s locking up will be put to work. These are not just idle endorsements. When he’s ready he will call upon all of them to push for him in the same way Christie is. That 25% ceiling is a consistent one trending upward. Even if it stays the same that is enough to put the top down bottom up approach into play very effectively.
It’s beautiful to watch. Don’t be swayed by polls. As long as Romney is where he’s at, he’ll be fine.
November 11th, 2011 at 9:58 am
#124..No, really SMACK, I’m dying to know what kind of history Freddie and Fannie needed so bad they forked out $300,000 for it?
November 11th, 2011 at 9:58 am
#122
“Then lets stop with all the flip flopper crap”
#123
“119. Newt has flipped so much its unbelievable”
HA!
I thought that was funny.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Let the vetting for Newt Gingrich begin. What is the psychological profile of a guy who married his high school teacher when he was 19 and she was 26 – and later serves her divorce papers when she is recuperating from cancer surgery?
November 11th, 2011 at 10:01 am
My understanding (and I could be wrong; I’m just looking for facts) is that the Republicans on the list were paid to keep their mouths shut so F&F could do business as usual. Newt wasn’t paid to write histories and speak up and give advice; he was paid the shut the heck up–or at least use his big conservative Speaker creds in DEFENSE of the viability of F&F and make it politically impossible for Bush to dig in and ferret the problems he knew were there.
I’ve been critical of Bush and wanted to ask: Why didn’t you fight harder, George, against the greedy
ba%tards? You owed the American people a good fight, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but DC and NYC.
I have a dream: That the next POTUS will, unlike Obama, “understand the complexities of the economy,” understand greed, understand as Steve Wynn also wants “how things work.” I have a dream that the next POTUS will be a person of honesty and integrity and understand and has the brains and balls to get into office and take care of business.
Is this Mitt? Maybe. But there’s what we know for sure: There’s no not-Mitt than even has a chance. Maybe Bachmann. Bachmann is my new second choice but she doesn’t look electable. So I’m still stickin’ with Mr. Mitt.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Jerald,
I’m not sure what kind of History work Newt did. I was not there.
Are you saying Newt is guily of something bad to where a Newt supporter needs to defend his work?
Because Newt’s firm was pad money by Freddie Mac he is guily by assoication….he must have been trying to protect them from reformist?
Newt has been paid many times over for giving DC Agency’s History lessons…history of their own agency’s. Newt does not give all the history lessons hmself….he has a firm.
I think you all should dig really hard and find something rotten to the core on all of this before you accuse Newt of doing something bad. Especially when most of you bitch and moan about how your guy is treated.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Newt has delusions of grandeur. He’s an egomaniac. He’s been reading so many history books that I’m sure it’s his lifelong dream to be considered in the same sentences as Adams and Reagan and Jefferson. He longs to see his mug among theirs. He believes he knows it all and knows what’s best regardless of what others say. He’s a Republican version of a liberal professor. They believe that they can talk their way out anything. They’re so persuasive and smart. We’re like mush in their hands as they spew out word after word. Book after book. Policy after policy. It’s dizzying at the most for independent thinkers like myself. Like Adams and Lincoln, Newt is a tool, it’s too funny.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:09 am
131 – Correct that Newt thinks he’s an Adams or a Lincoln. He’s nothing but a tool.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:12 am
K.G.
“Newt wasn’t paid to write histories”
Except for the fact that’s why people have been hiring Newt to do that exact same thing for many years.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:13 am
#130 SMACK…..Relax, that’s not where I’m headed.
But I’m sure some people will go there.
If it was Mitt, people would be going there.
Since F&F have a rather poor reputation for fiscal responsibility, I was just wondering what kind of history was so important to them that the felt they needed to drop $300,000 on it…
November 11th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Smack,
First of all read that article from 2008. K.G. posted it above in number 111.
Do you really think it possible that Freddie Mac hired Newt because he was a historian?
Or is it much more likely that they hired him because he was a former Speaker of the House and has a great deal of clout with the party? The goal for Freddie Mac was to get the Republican Congress to back Freddie.
They could get an actual historical opinion for far less than $300,000 if that was what they were really after. What they were after was Newt’s very influential name on the report about the business model being safe and secure.
Like global warming scientists… the results will favor the one paying the bills.
It stretches credulity that Newt Gingrich was hired merely as a historian. He was hired for his political connections. Which if not technically lobbying is in actuality lobbying.
In fact, a bank hiring a historian to do a business model analysis all be itself is rather strange. Lawyers, MBAs, Accountants yes, Historians no. It defies logic.
Newt’s expertise was personal friendships and over all clout with the Congress.
I would be persuaded he was against Freddie if the report he suposedly made to Congress was made public. But that seems unlikely.
And if we have historians making our fiscal policy maybe that is the whole problem!
Well actually we have politicians making our fiscal policy so yeah it’s a problem.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:20 am
Another thing Smack
Do I really need to post the Las Vegas debate where Mitt got Newt to admit the mandate Idea came from Newt himself? I can find it if you need to see it again.
Not only are his ideas pretty bad over all but he turns around and blames them on others instead of taking the blame himself.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:22 am
#131 ConGlad: I believe you’re right; Newt would love to be seen as in the calliber of the Famous Founders. That egoistic ambitition is, in itself, a little frightening.
This constant demand for “Lincoln/Douglas Debates” is just plain weird. He got someone to sponsor the debate with Cain. What a yawner. I don’t know who was supposed to be Lincoln and who was supposed to be Douglas, but I don’t believe either would have said, “You go first, Abe.” The unprepared Cain in a L/D debate is just laughable. Why not get Perry too?
#130 And Smack: No one has said Newt is “rotten to the core.” It’s Newt’s turn to be vetted. Let’s see what he’s got before we elect him to the most powerful position on the planet.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:26 am
Good point K.G.
I like Newt very much! But he is not Presidential material! Heavens no!
I have said before… Newt is most like Ben Franklin. He has too many personal failings to be a steady President, but as an idea man and an ispirational figure he is perfect!
Like Frankin.
I would hope he would find that flattering.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:30 am
What romney has going for him is that there is no legitimate anti romney candidate to coalesce behind.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:34 am
huck is out. he was the most likely guy to knock romney out. perry was untested and failed. even christie and jindahl and the like were unproven on the national stage. cain is charismatic but that is where it ends with him. he seem ignorant to me on foreign policy matters and even political procedure matters, etc.
newt may be seen as the legitimate anti romney and i think that newt steal from both romney and cain types. he could end up giving romney a run for his money. i am surprised to see how well cain continues to do amid the scandals.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:37 am
#136: Petunia: Quite right about Newt and Mitt in the prior debate. Newt has skated through the debates w/o attacking the other candidates, scoring points by attacking Obama and the media. When he finally did try to attack Mitt on the mandate, Mitt slammed Newt to the ground and forced Newt to admit the truth.
This was stupid on Newt’s part because during the debate before this one, Mitt had made it clear that he used Newt and the Hertitage Foundation as a model for the mandate. I guess Newt wasn’t paying attention and then, to use Perry’s words, “stepped into it” with Mitt.
No one has ever bothered to challenge Newt on anything during the debates since he’s been so low in the polls he hasn’t been a factor. So we really don’t know anything about Newt’s actually debating skills. He just pontificates on things we can all agree on and everybody loves him.
But the one time he tried to challenge Mitt, Newt turned out to be dead wrong. And in this last debate, where there was a hint of a challenge re: this F&F thing, Newt was caught completely unprepared and gave a lame answer.
But you’ve got to know who you’re mad at in this life, and it’s not the candidates but the voters who are so easily snowed and refuse to settle down and look beyond the rhetoric.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:38 am
#119,
“Don’t confuse sounding smart with actually being smart!!!”
love this…..be warned I will be plagerizing you
November 11th, 2011 at 10:45 am
So, let me get this straight, they are going to go all-out against Romney but they don’t have an alternative and acknowledge they are “…treading water until this viable candidate presents him- or herself,”.
That is utter stupidity. There are eight major choices right now. The deadline to get on the ballot in many states has passed. There is not going to be someone else to emerge after Florida. These people are simply politically ignorant.
I’ve come to the conclusion that all this anti-Romney rhetoric really amounts to one thing. The Teavangicals want something radical. They are looking for revolt. The want to ‘take back’ government and Romney just isn’t a fire-breathing radical and they believe the movement will lose its momentum if a mild-mannered guy like Romney is the nominee.
November 11th, 2011 at 10:57 am
“re: this F&F thing, Newt was caught completely unprepared and gave a lame answer.”
Quite right. That moment was a small clarion call of things to come and very real reminder that Newt has long and very deep record to produce more of those moments.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:04 am
#143: “They want to ‘take back’ government and Romney just isn’t a fire-breathing radical and they believe the movement will lose its momentum if a mild-mannered guy like Romney is the nominee.”
Bingo.
And I confess to being a “fire-breathing conservative radical,” but look what happens. Push back. Over half the country are not radicals. They don’t see the country from the same perspective. And the Teavangelicals are a bunch of hypocrites. They want to cut government, but not THEIR sacred cows. Oh no.
Every dollar in DC has a constituent and the minute you cut one of them, people take to the streets. And now, it appears, do not leave. (OWS)
Mitt is running on his stated goals: “clear, consistent and realistic.” Oh, no! We can’t have that. I liked what the 18-year-old kid in the Luntz group said last night: He likes Mitt because he has solid ideas to cut government and reduce taxes w/o the changes being so radical as to “shock the system.”
What is the economy looking for right now: STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY. A POTUS “who knows how things work.” And what are the Teavangelicals looks for: A bellicose radical bomb-thrower who will “fundamentally transform America” in 90 days or less.
They are delusional.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
124 – That isn’t true. I met with Newt in 2007. Yes, he is a former history professor. His job was not to be a historian after he retired from Congress. He was a policy wonk and a lobbyist. That is a fact. You can spin it whatever way you want.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:06 am
There is nothing to be worried about when it comes to Newt. He will last about three weeks at best. His record is a mess.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:08 am
130 – Nothing bad other than bad judgment. He was hired for publicity/lobbying. He was hired to help them improve their image. There are several articles from the time that described what he did. None of them say anything about history.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Just read Newt’s wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Post-speakership
It is full of troubling points that will come up when he is vetted. There are certainly many more to come too.
To think that he knew nothing about Abramoff during his House tenure is silly too. Abramoff has said he had over 100 members of Congress in his pocket during that period. Don’t be surprised to here him tell some stories about Newt if he makes it big.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:17 am
$300,000 seems to be a fun number for Newt:
He was fined $300,000 for ethics violations.
He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac for a “history” lesson.
He ran up a $300,000 bill at Tiffanies.
Someone could make a good commercial out of that.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:33 am
#149 I have been thinking about Abramoff and what part his story will play in the next election. We all know that a candidate begins running for office a year and a half out on some strength vis a vis a problem at the time. For example, McCain and Iraq. But by the time the election came around, it was all about the crashing economy.
Currently it’s all about class warfare and Mitt looks like he could have a problem since he’s seen as Richie Rich corporate raider.
But like waves forming way out on the horizon it looks like one of the big problems is going to be the hideous collusion between big government, big lobbyists, big financial services, and all the big money sloshing around that comes from hard-working Americans and gets wasted and fraudulently spent in DC.
It looks to me like Newt’s smack dab in the middle of it–or at least part of the problem not part of the solution.
Last time Mitt ran on “Washington is broken” but never gave details so that average Americans could figure out exactly what he was talking about. Mitt has a good case to make to the American people that he’s the one that could actually get in and clean some things up and not get rolled like Obama has.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:46 am
New book due out soon: The Romney Psyche, which should be classified as a significant condition requiring heroic intervention.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/11/bloomberg_articlesLUH0M70D9L35.DTL
Yes. Quite. Willard’s first priority is Willard.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:48 am
151 – Mitt needs to get specific on the “Washington if Broken” theme. It is a good one, and it is the perfect message for him. Unfortunately, it also alienates some of the establishment and members of Congress that he needs endorsements from.
I would imagine he will ramp that message up big time in the general election. In the primaries, he probably feels the vast amount of endorsements he is going to get over the next couple of months are more important.
Has a single member of Newt’s caucus in Congress endorsed him yet?
November 11th, 2011 at 11:49 am
152 – Is that supposed to be an attack?
November 11th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Oh, not at all my good friend. Competent mental health professionals write detailed case studies about problem individuals like Willard Romney all the time. If the early reviews are any indication The Romney Psyche may become a signification contribution to the literature on narcissistic personality disorder.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:55 am
Significant, not signification. Sorry.
November 11th, 2011 at 11:59 am
155 – Maybe they can write one on you next. Do you get off on smearing the character of good people or something?
November 11th, 2011 at 11:59 am
More on the NOT-Romney movement: Romney [alleged] “Inevitability” Prospect Forces Republicans to Pick a Side http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/11/11/bloomberg_articlesLUH0M70D9L35.DTL
November 11th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Dude. Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m only trying to help you by providing you the facts that your uncritical devotion to The Willard causes you to omit. I didn’t write the book.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
159 – You have an odd definition of the word “fact”.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
158 – Seriously dude? Back to abortion again? Can you not come up with anything else?
November 11th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
‘
I define a fact as what is publicly available, and therefore empirically verifiable: everything else is interpretation. The book about Romney is a fact. You argue its premises despite the preponderance of evidence that the researchers develop to support their case study. But the book about Romney’s troubled psyche is an empirical fact.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Once again–this time slowly–I am the messenger. I didn’t come up with anything. I only quoted from an article to support the fact of conservatives organizing themselves against Willard Romney–hardly a surprise, but some of the Willardists are in denial as they imagine that conservatives will at some point hold their noses and support The Willard. So, please follow me: The fact that The Willard has not satisfied there concerns is a significant problem for the alleged candidate–it indicates either poor communication skills on his part, or a severe credibility problem for the former corporate raider, or both. I would say both but that would be my interpretation based on the facts at hand.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Ha! Name any person who has ever run for POTUS who could not be described as a narcissist.
As for Mitt “safeguarding his own public image,” say what? Romney’s public image has been attacked, shreaded, berated, savaged, mocked, and you name it.
And how has Romney “shrewdly shifted identities….?” He may have shifted political stances, but “identities?” That’s nutz. And even his changes in political stances have been significantly exaggerated and mischaracterized.
How is Mitt any different now than when he was as capable, responsible missionary in France? Or a stand-out student who graduated summa cum laude in both business and law from Harvard? Or a successful business executive? Or a well-respected church leader? Or a turn-around artist at the Olympics? Or a loving, faithful husband and father? Or an organized, disciplined, determined campaigner?
Whatever these “competent mental health professionals” have to say on the subject of Romney, I doubt very much it will become a “signification (sic) contribution to the literature of a personality disorder.”
Now Romney has a personality disorder because he’s successful in all areas of his life???? Now, that is disordered thinking. Welcome to the New America, the Land of Glorified Ineptitude.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Yes, Willard is too good for us. Let us strap him into a space-craft and launch him toward a world of sufficient excellence to satisfy his vanity.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Isn’t that what your so-called experts are saying: Success is evidence of a personality disorder? My comments have nothing to do with Mitt–and everything to do with your stupid psycho-babble theories. Strap them to a space-ship and send them into some inner-gallactic land fill where you and your nutty professors can satisfy YOUR vanity.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Hilarious take on the last Republican debate:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/299169/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-mercy-rule-edition
November 11th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
Media likes to create simple different narratives for history and different elections, and make those narratives different and special for each election. “Bush made Kerry look like a flip flopper”. “Truman won by running against “do nothing congress”"
However many of them are more or less wrong
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/bxn2011100602/
The cumulative overall growth of the economy for the last 5 quarters before election day was 5.5% for Truman, whereas it is expected to be around 2% for Obama, and those numbers are from time before the European crisis got worse. But repeating the “do nothing” congress myth as the main reason for victory makes things more interesting than just repeating economy as the main reason for most of elections.
Interesting exit poll analysis from 2004
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-can-obama-win-demagouging-gop-nominee_607967.html
If branding John Kerry as flip flopper was really main reason Bush won, then you would expect that destroying Kerry’s character would have enabled Bush to win in some states where Bush’s net approval rating was negative. However the opposite was true, Bush lost 4 states where his net approval rating was positive. Liberal mind seeks novelty for novelty’s sake, that’s why they have obsession to give single, more unique than economy/general approval of the performance of incumbent/etc, main theme to each election, no matter how big issue that theme actually was.
Even still in July 2005 in Pew Research Bush was viewed as strong leader by 55%, whereas this summer Obama was already down in 49%. Obama just yesterday “voted present” when it came to Keystone XL pipeline, delaying the decision and 20,0000 fully private sector funded jobs to 2013. Regardless of how much of and issue “Bush is a strong leader and Kerry is a flip flopper” was, considering on how many issues Obama has flipped and how weak as leader he is seen, and Romney’s record of leadership in private and public executive roles, Obama team’s plan to run on “Obama is a strong leader and Romney is a flip flopper” is borderline absurd.
Conservatives need to chill, stop buying into crap pushed by mainstream media of how Romney is vulnerable to get similar treatment from Obama team as Kerry got from Bush team, they just push this crap that Republicans would panic and nominate some unqualified baggage carrier.
November 11th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
To add to 168. Septermber 2003 “Strong leader” numbers were 69% for Bush
November 11th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
I am a strong supporter of Not-Mitt. However, I find this notmitt website/movement ridiculous and unnecessary.
Also, I was unfamiliar with Pamela Geller, so I surfed over to her atlas shrugs site — holy shelfpaper! Apparently, the only thing that her keyboard is able to type is religious hatred and vitriol. That she is using the name of libertarian “bible” for her blog disgusts me.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
77. Romney did not move an inch to the left since 2008. The vocal part of the party moved several miles to the right.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
110. Smack, when you make comments like that, I begin to wonder if there are two people using your User Name! Or, maybe you’re a bit schizophrenic?
When you’re not posting bombastic crap with pom poms and drums, you actually post thoughtful and fair comments.
I completely agree with the positive and negative things you said about both Newt and Mitt in that post.
I don’t expect you to start posting pro-Romney stuff, but I do hope to see more comments based on thoughtful reality and fairness — like your #110 post was.
Thanks for that.
November 11th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Is there a Luntz focus group link?
November 11th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Luntz was on Hannity last night. The nub of it: They thought Newt won the debate, but they really like Mitt too. They actually had more specific good things to say about Mitt. No one else was discussed–at least not that they put on the air.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
I wonder why his focus groups are never posted to his website. And, why he doesn’t have a YouTube channel for them. Seems an obvious thing to do.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Until this group that is coalescing around “anti-Mitt” finds a candidate to support, they are just a glorified attack dog for Obama. If they choose a candidate and stick with them, they would be a group to possibly listen to. I won’t support an anti-group, but I will consider listening to what a supportive group says about their candidate.
November 11th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Apparently my post got stuck to moderation, links maybe?
Media likes to create simple different narratives for history and different elections, and make those narratives different and special for each election. “Bush made Kerry look like a flip flopper”. “Truman won by running against “do nothing congress””
However many of them are more or less wrong
Brendan Nyhan, Obama 2012: Not Exactly the Truman Show
The cumulative overall growth of the economy for the last 5 quarters before election day was 5.5% for Truman, whereas it is expected to be around 2% for Obama, and those numbers are from time before the European crisis got worse. But repeating the “do nothing” congress myth as the main reason for victory makes things more interesting than just repeating economy as the main reason for most of elections.
Interesting exit poll analysis from 2004
Weekly Standard
Morning Jay: Can Obama Win By Attacking the GOP?
If branding John Kerry as flip flopper was really main reason Bush won, then you would expect that destroying Kerry’s character would have enabled Bush to win in some states where Bush’s net approval rating was negative. However the opposite was true, Bush lost 4 states where his net approval rating was positive. Liberal mind seeks novelty for novelty’s sake, that’s why they have obsession to give single, more unique than economy/general approval of the performance of incumbent/etc, main theme to each election, no matter how big issue that theme actually was.
Even still in July 2005 in Pew Research Bush was viewed as strong leader by 55%, whereas this summer Obama was already down in 49%. Obama just yesterday “voted present” when it came to Keystone XL pipeline, delaying the decision and 20,0000 fully private sector funded jobs to 2013. Regardless of how much of and issue “Bush is a strong leader and Kerry is a flip flopper” was, considering on how many issues Obama has flipped and how weak as leader he is seen, and Romney’s record of leadership in private and public executive roles, Obama team’s plan to run on “Obama is a strong leader and Romney is a flip flopper” is borderline absurd. Conservatives need to chill, stop buying into crap pushed by mainstream media of how Romney is vulnerable to get similar treatment from Obama team as Kerry got from Bush team, they just push this crap that Republicans would panic and nominate some unqualified baggage carrier.
November 11th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
#174 Luntz seems to be exclusively on Hannity. I’m thinking Luntz has a contract. I always watch Hannity when I hear there will be a Luntz group.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:11 pm
MEMORANDUM
To: All Republicans
DATE: November 23, 2011
RE: Sign-Up for “Anti Mitt Romney” will be made available to Support
This Much Needed Movement Before It’s Too Late – Stay Tuned
Romney is a Fake Leader.
We Republicans Need a TRUE Leader to Realign the Nation!