With just days to go before Republicans begin to head to the polls in order to pick their 2012 presidential nominee, Gov. Mitt Romney appears to be in an ideal position to go in for an early kill and snatch the nomination. He is either ahead in Iowa or in a very close second place to Ron Paul, he’s way ahead in New Hampshire, and he benefits from the inability of any one of the “Four Horsemen of the Teapocalypse,” i.e., Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, or Santorum, from breaking out of the pack as a clear choice for conservatives in South Carolina who want neither a Mormon from Massachusetts nor a dovish libertarian to head the ticket. As such, it’s entirely possible that Romney will sweep the early contests and become the de facto nominee by February.
But what happens if Romney wins? I don’t just mean the nomination, I mean the whole thing — what happens if Romney garners the nomination, goes onto defeat President Obama in November, and becomes our nation’s 45th president in 2013? The conventional wisdom seems to be that Romney will settle into his job as a milquetoast, caretaker president, simply holding court until a saner generation of leaders can emerge from the muck left behind by the cartoonish candidates that represent the last hurrah of the Baby Boomers. But I would argue that such a view completely misreads the amount of public angst that exists on the ground due to economic and demographic changes that will require strong, bold, decisive leadership over the next few years, regardless of who is president. If Romney wins, he’ll have to be more than a caretaker. He’ll have to move mountains.
In the recently released trailer to The Dark Knight Rises, Anne Hathaway, portraying Catwoman, remarks to Batman’s alter ego that “there’s a storm coming, Mr. Wayne.” Christopher Nolan, who prefers that this particular “Batman” series be topical and modern, appears to be writing Hathaway’s “Catwoman” as an “Occupy Wall Street” type who is fed up with the lack of wealth and prosperity on the ground. And the thing is, she’s right. There is indeed a storm coming should the nation spend another five years in a state of economic malaise. At that point, we may very well be approaching a revolutionary moment in America, one that could usher into power a quasi-strongman of a president in 2016 who promises to replace freedom and dynamism with security and certainty.
If Obama wins, the threat of a Trump-style strongman emerging from the Right will once again rear its head. But as in 2012, the reality probably is that Republican voters are just too sensible to nominate someone like Trump, whose tenor and tone are similar to that of a two-bit dictator of a washed up banana republic. But what if Romney wins? If Romney wins, and fails to jump start the economy, the “Occupy” movement becomes the new Tea Party as the main source of the out party’s energy and ground game, and as the primary voice of public anger. A failed President Romney would be almost the perfect foil for the Left in a jobless America, complete with an increasing number of young adults unable to live as adults due to a dearth of entry-level jobs, a growing number of non-whites, equally impoverished, and all convinced that Republicans hate them due to their skin color, and a budding generation of professional, Sex-and-the-City urban and suburban women, who have no use for stodgy old Republican moralists, and who all but think that “Plan B” should be dumped into the nation’s water supply. That combination of leading demographic indicators favoring the Democrats and a seemingly Aristocratic Republican president presiding over a stagnant economy would be enough to make Elizabeth freakin’ Warren president in 2016.
Don’t think it couldn’t happen. The number of Republicans who predicted that the nation would never elect a post-racial president named “Barack Hussein Obama” were countless, and yet such a candidate won the nation with a greater share of the popular vote than any Democratic president since Lyndon Johnson. The idea that America won’t elect a true leftist fails to take into account the reality that the U.S. is an ever-changing nation, and that demographic changes plus economic woes often yield surprising results. A failed Republican president in 2012 could lead to a president in 2016 who is positioned farther left than any president in American history, and who would use his or her term(s) to complete the Great Society and the Cultural Revolution.
If Romney wins, he has to do whatever it takes to get the economy moving again. Whatever it takes. It will be his job to swim, not sink. Because if he sinks, the nation will change forever in ways that we can now only imagine.
December 28th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
we’re doomed!
December 28th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
If Romney acts like a conservative, we have nothing to worry about. If he takes moderate to left positions and continues to sign bills that expand the size of government (security, militarily) then we are doomed.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
I LIVE IN A super Tuesday state Will I still have a say in this nomination come march 6th? seem like the media thinks this nomination process is over thats why i asked
December 28th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Wow, Dave Gaultier, you sound like quite a pessimist! Have you heard any of Romney’s speeches? He talks of this as an American Century. He talks optimism, opportunity, a vibrant business environment, and a bright future. He needs people to be believers in this future and to be advocates not naysayers. Could your scenario happen? In theory, yes. But, working together we can get Romney elected. And, then working together with him at the helm, we can turn this country around!! Do you believe?!!!
December 28th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Romney is doomed to failure. The economy will never recover until monetary policy is addressed. As long as Mitt Romney is “not concerned” with the Federal Reserve, as he has said, then the flood of new circulation credit and the corresponding artificially low interest rates will keep confusing investors into throwing their capital into worthless lines of production, as has been happening for the past decade. Until, as Warren Harding did in order to put an end to the 1920-1921 Depression, the government massively rolls back spending (think $1 trillion in the first year) and allows sharp deflation, there will be no recovery. Mr. Romney shows no understanding of the root cause of this depression, and as President he will preside over a continuing malaise.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Caretaker? I doubt this word is even in Romney’s vocabulary.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
As soon as any Republican wins the WhiteHouse, corporations will unleash their first wave of pent-up spending and investing/hiring. When Obamcare is repealed, the second wave will go out.
We need to elect Mitt, and it WON’T be a failed presidency. The only thing we need to fear is fear itself (or another Obama term).
December 28th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
Yep, but Romney will do his best to kick butt.
You really think there’s anybody running who would try harder than Romney to turn things around based on conservative priciples?
Plus, that “caretaker” meme is just a RomNot fantasy argument…It has no basis of reality in Romney’s life.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
5.
Right, a gynecologist from Texas has all the economic answers but a guy who has made hundreds of millions of dollars working in the private sector doesn’t understand monetary policy.
You Paul guys need to give it a rest. Ending the Fed and going back on the gold standard is neither a panacea or even remotely possible.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
who knows when is out insider and ARG iowa POLL
December 28th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
Romney has been an intentionally “safe” candidate, being the last man standing after a bunch of ABRs imploded. I don’t see Mitt being a “safe,” milquetoast, pushover, clueless POTUS. Bob is right; I doubt “caretaker” is even in his vocabulary.
You don’t make 200 million dollars, rear a large, successful family, serve as a governor, save the Olympics and accomplish what Romney has accomplished by being a whimpy milquetoast, but by planning your work and relentlessly working your plan.
Now, is Romney barking up the wrong tree re: monetary policy? Is the job too big for any POTUS? Will the American people rebel against government cuts, or against allowing homes to find their natural bottom as Mitt has said? Will the American people go crazy if things get worse before they get better? Perhaps. But it won’t be because Mitt’s Mr. Milquetoast.
Ron Paul will NEVER be POTUS. If his ideas are so dang great, his best bet is to convince the person who does win the presidency.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
What in Mitt’s history would ever lead you to believe that he would be Milquetoast? The guy takes charge and makes things happen. Those who believe this are just cotton pickin ninny muggins (guess what movie that’s from?).
December 28th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Una vez mas: One more time: You cannot win the presidency if you get labled “dumb” or “crazy.” Even if the labels are not deserved, it doesn’t matter. Palin got labeled dumb and it has forever destroyed her chances. Same with Perry. Paul might have the best policy ideas on the planet: people will not elect him: the perception is he is a crazy old coot. Newt’s falling because he too has been labeled nuts.
Santorum is rising because no matter what you thing of him, it’s neither dumb nor crazy. Mitt is in good standing because he appears to be smart and sane. End of story.
December 28th, 2011 at 9:32 pm
“cotton pickin ninny muggins” — Buddy the Elf
December 28th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
13. but Newt IS nuts..he truly looks forward to world war 3
December 28th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Romney is only doomed if we allow it. The media will do EVERYTHING in its power to sway public opinion against him. Part of the reason that Obama was so ineffective, but in the end successful, at ramming through ObamaCare is that the people pushed against it. If we the people support Romney with all of his correct decisions, then the nation will rise, it will not fail. But it won’t be with the media. If Romney wins the Presidency, he will have done against all media. Not Fox News, not CNN, not MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. None of them have given Romney a proper portrayal (it’s partly why the ABR crowd hates Romney, they are actually believing the leftist lies.) So, I have faith that Romney will prevail despite the negative media attention when he becomes President.
This article is an alarmist article for sure. To repeat other’s question, “What in Romney’s past shows that he’s a milquetoast?” Is it the 100′s of companies he has helped prosper? Is it the SLC Olympics that he took from near bankruptcy, failed management, and scandal and turn it into the most prosperous winter Olympics ever? Is it the State of Massachusetts, which he took from a $3 billion deficit and turned it to a $2 billion surplus? You don’t do those kinds of things by being a milquetoast. No, only in the echo chambers of RedState and similar places will you hear the claim that Romney is spineless.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
#15: Of course Newt is nutz. It’s that realization that is causing him to fall.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html
December 28th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
The idea that Romney is going to go in and run business as usual has never made any sense at all. He is a turnaround specialist. His entire career has been the opposite of “business as usual”.
Sometimes I wonder if RomNots have ever thought about how stupid their criticisms of Romney are.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
The individual is more important than the greater good.
Clinging to power creates men like George Bush who are intend on destroying the U.S. to keep their party in power.
Utilitarianism is a dumb concept.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Yeah, that was a lot of What If in that article. You never even presented the scenario where Mitt wins AND duplicates his success in business, Olympics, and as Governor.
The man lives and breathes to fix things. He’s a workaholic. And, he’s a big proponent of digging through detailed data.
AND, he’s very good at working with both sides to come to common ground and get stuff done.
There’s a lot of unlikely What If in your article. But, you left out the most likely:
What If Romney wins and does everything he’s saying he’ll do?
Now, THAT’s a world I want to live in.
So let it be written. So let it be done.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
Mitt is tough as nails. His campaign this time has proved it. And all the caca that has been thrown at him just runs off his back. We supporters get annoyed, but he just laughs it off.
Look how Newt is behaving at his falling numbers: Crying like a little girl; petulant little princess. Mitt is a grown man who has what it takes to take it and stay on task.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Uh-oh..not so fast. Put down the drape samples, Willard.
ROBERT REICH: Get Ready For A Obama-Clinton Presidential Ticket
December 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
13 KG,
I don’t know if I completely agree with your statement. Reagan and the second Bush were deemed as dumb and yet they both won, and Reagan won two landslides. It’s all about branding. Nixon was viewed as finished after losing to JFK and then losing the CA governorship election, yet, he rebounded to win the Presidency. Dole & McCain were able to rebound from their losses to either Bush to win the nomination eight years later. The one thing going for someone like Palin is that she still has a HUGE following. In fact, she probably has a bigger following in Iowa than Paul could ever have. She also has a huge following in the Southern states. In a conservative starved GOP primary that is suspicious of Romney, Palin in theory, could’ve won this primary hands down had she ran.
I’ll say this, if God forbid and Obama gets re-elected, the American people will be so angry with Obama by 2015/2016, that the voters would elect Mickey Mouse or Super Mario over the democratic nominee. So, Palin would have a legit shot if she rebrands herself the way Nixon, Reagan, and others have in winning.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:16 pm
Sarah Palin spoke some about a “servant’s heart.” That is Mitt, although he would never put it in those terms. Mitt left Bain to “volunteer” to bail out the Olympics; took no pay. He worked w/o pay as governor. He and his wife give millions to charity.
Mitt served as a missionary on his own dime, full time. He’s served as a leader in his church, donating thousands of hours and millions of dollars and not receiving any payment whatever. Mitt knows what it’s like to work full-time for family, faith and country. He will not “need” expensive vacations or hundreds of hours of golf. No whining like Newt did when Clinton didn’t let him sit a in primo seat on the airplane.
Look for a sane, frugal, hard-working, kick butt, get the job done no matter what presidency–if he were to win. I’m not counting chickens. A lot of forces want him to lose.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
1, 2 & 5
Oh brother (rolling eyes).
December 28th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
“The idea that America won’t elect a true leftist fails to take into account the reality that the U.S. is an ever-changing nation, and that demographic changes plus economic woes often yield surprising results.”
This is a solid observation and one that should not be ignored. As to the potential for a successful or unsuccessful President Romney, I contend that much will be determined by the character of the Republican Congressional (both House and Senate) leadership along with the quality of the GOP/conservative support infrastructure. If the “Romney era” is accompanied by Republican
leaders in the mold of Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey, then Romney may be successful. But, if it is defined by a continuation of the bitter baby boomer culture wars, we will be in trouble almost from the start. So a lot will depend on who and what defines the future of Republican conservatism, the face it wears, and how it is perceived.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
The Democratic nominee in 2016 will be Elizabeth Warren, fact.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
27,
So you are predicting an all-Massachusetts general election for 2016?
December 28th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
27.
That’s a pretty bold prediction about someone who has never been elected to anything and has not exactly proved to be a dazzling politician so far.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
#23 Well, you have me with Bush II. However, he was running against two complete dufusses: Gore and Kerry.
But even tho they tried to say Reagan was dumb, he really wasn’t. And he didn’t speak or come across as dumb. His speeches are magnificent, even today.
Palin does sound dumb and so does Perry. I know Palin has her many supporters, but she’s truly hated outside of her realm. Citizens at large truly believe Palin isn’t smart. She has only herself to blame. I’ve heard her where she cannot put a sentence together that makes a bit of sense.
IMO if Obama wins again, there will be so many quality Republicans on deck the next time around, Palin will be completely eclipsed. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe Palin or Perry can ever recover from their labels. A candidate can learn from a prior failed campaign (Romney) or rebrand. I’m of the opinion you cannot rebrand from not-smart or crazy.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
27,
A little hard to predict who the nominee will be in a race that hasn’t happen yet. Also, I admire the love for your state, but, I just don’t think every nominee for every election is meant to come out of Massachussetts. That said, I do wonder if by some chance, that Obama gets re-elected if Obama’s people and the dems will help push Biden for the nomination in 2016.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
#27 Ee gads, Elizabeth Warren? She is my total nemesis. The Frank/Dodd banking caca has totally messed up the perfectly wonderful banking relationship we have had for decades for our business. It has been a royal nightmare. Don’t even mention her name in my presence.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
#31: Ozzy: Biden? Now that is one dumb dude.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:33 pm
28
Yes, but that aspect of it is moot. It goes to two different visions.
28 and 27:
Elizabeth Warren’s vision for America is one where the envious and angry can intellectually justify high taxes and wealth re-distribution by claiming that the rich get rich by utilizing government services to foster their business. It’s very intriguing for liberals to think in that way. They would love to be able to rationalize their hate of the rich into a moral debate that essentially asks, “where would you be without us?”
She INVENTED this concept in its current form, and she is a star among the beltway liberals. Politico practically has a story about her every single day. She will defeat Scott Brown, and she will be the nominee in 2016.
Not only is she a far-left ideologue who helps liberals organize their hate into an ideology, but she exudes that “mother-like” charm that serves as a metaphor for an all-encompassing big government that hugs and nurtures its young.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:37 pm
Elizabeth Warren claims that business owners would be nothing without the roads we pay for, and therefore, they should pay us back.
I claim that the business owners pay for the roads in the first place (since 47% of the country pays no taxes), so they deserve the roads and owe us nothing in return.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
30,
It depends on few things. In the primary, it depends who she runs against, if she comes off more conservative and rational in the debates she could win over voters. In the general, if the media bashes her relentlessly, she moreso than Bachmann would get people who usually would be against her to side with her. Also, an America(especially woman voters) who are obsessed with finally voting for a Woman POTUS might pick her. It also depends who the dem nominee would be. If this primary and the 2008 primary have tought me anything, it’s that anything is possible, especially in a primary.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
#26 Amen to that.
The biggest failure of current conservatism has been the lack of men (and women) to match the message. Rush is crazy when he claims “conservatism wins every time it’s tried.” No, it doesn’t. It’s a hard sell. Most Americans’ self-evident truth is progressivism even tho its evil fruits can be seen everywhere–especially in my once conservative Golden State.
People here in CA truly believe that every evil we are experiencing here is “the Republicans’ fault,” even tho the GOP has NO power in California. People have their ignorant notions and they will not let go of them at gun point.
Obama is already laying the groundwork that all his failures are the Republicans’ fault. Many people I know already believe it. The rest will be easily convinced.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
33 KG,
A thought just occurred to me. If Obama wins 2012. What if 2016 becomes Biden vs Palin? A rematch of the 2008 bottom of the ticket in 2016 as the top of the ticket? Has that ever happened before? Where VP nominees came back to challenge each other as POTUS nominees?
P.S. Oh by the way…. Elizabeth Warren!!!
December 28th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
36
I just know it deep down inside. It’s as much a feeling and a sense of things as it is a logical conclusion.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Elizabeth Warren would be the president that talk radio thinks Obama is.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
22-Craig the loser, the tone of your post seems to indicate that you would revell in Obama winning if Romney is the nominee. Obviously, you are no conservative with that kind of attitude. Why don’t you just come clean and tell us all what your real agenda is, because it sure appears to be anybody but Romney, even if that means Obama. After the convention will you be known as CRAIG FOR BARACK OBAMA/JOE BIDEN?
December 28th, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Pretend she’s in the Oval Office giving an address on TV. Picture it. The Dems would love it. She comes off as a “big-government nurturing its young” mother figure.
She is smart, and she looks and acts like a typical liberal.
Imagine her in a Dem debate, explaining her theories that the rich owe us and so forth. It’s a winner on the Democrap side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwJhpeOWp4A
December 28th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
34.
>>She will defeat Scott Brown, and she will be the nominee in 2016.
Way too soon to make that call. She is up buy about 6 points right now and is getting crushed in the Independent vote.
The Occupy movement has run its course and is now a net negative not a positive. Anyone who thinks the economy is going to improve over the next 12 months is not paying attention.
I also don’t think you should discount Romney’s coattails in 2012.
In any case, there are lots and lots of Democrats who will line up in 2016. A fire breathing liberal with at best a half term total under her belt is not assured of anything.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Now, imagine THIS:
A Warren/Giffords ticket.
The big-government nanny with a motherly charm, with a heroic shooting victim at the bottom of the ticket to tell her story.
The passion on the left would be insurmountable. Not only that, but both of those women come off as palatable and even likeable among independents and swing voters.
On top of that, the libs would LOVE to take the place of first female president before we do.
Easy nomination.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
42,
Totally agree. Plus she’ll be a natural leader for OWS and the grassroots Left if Obama loses, much as Palin was for the Tea Party and the grassroots Right.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Mitt Romney doesn’t sink. If there was anyone that was capable of doing what needs to be done, it is him. Ask the Olympics, numerous saved businesses and Massachessets. Mitt is a doer with a profoundly intense work ethic. That’s why Jim Kramer turned down a job with him. He said Mitt was way too structures and Kramer didn’t feel he’d be able to keep up!
December 28th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
42,
If Hillary runs, Elizabeth’s toast. The dem nominee will be whoever Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Wasserman-Schulz endorse in the primary, which could be either Hillary or Biden.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
In the Democrap Party? Well, we disagree on this. Plus, Warren will have her work on the Stimulus and Dodd-Frank to exploit the sheep with.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
In any case, there are lots and lots of Democrats who will line up in 2016. A fire breathing liberal with at best a half term total under her belt is not assured of anything.
Change a couple of words and this could easily have been said about Barack Obama in 2004.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
47
“To beat the enemy, you must understand the enemy.”
“Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.”
The liberals don’t have a history of following endorsements from politicians. They get caught up in the emotional roller-coaster generated in the press.
December 28th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
47
I doubt Hillary runs, but it’s possible.
Imagine a Warren vs. Hillary primary. Warren, the kind, nurturing mother figure, and Hillary, the shrill terrorist killer. I suppose the winner would depend on political dynamics during the primaries.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
43,
The underlying angst of the Occupy movement will fuel the next big grassroots movement if any Republican is elected in 2012. Sort of an anti-Tea Party. As you yourself said, the economy ain’t getting better in the next 12 months. The anger on the ground isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
48.
>>Plus, Warren will have her work on the Stimulus and Dodd-Frank to exploit the sheep with.
A horrid piece of legislation which will be gone with a Republican President and Congress, both of which look likely.
49.
>>Change a couple of words and this could easily have been said about Barack Obama in 2004.
The couple words being Obama had a decade of experience as at least a state legislator on his resume and for all his faults, an excellent campaigner. Warren has proved to be a very average campaigner so far with no elective record at all. A 6 point lead in MA for the Ted Kennedy seat is pretty much a wash. The idea that she is lock in this election is way too premature.
She’s had the wind at her back thanks to all the positive media for the Occupy movement. Its not so popular anymore. Now comes the actual campaign, her first. We’ll see how it plays out.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Boomer, who do you think the Dem nominee will be?
December 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
52
Exactly. OWS may be dead, but the anger is not. It will take a new shape when the time comes.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
The division of the 2012 election is going to be something this country hasn’t seen since 1972-4.
Obama is going to fire up the populist rhetoric big time, and he and his left-thinkers will have assembled a large school of thought, similar to the sentiments of Warren and OWS, subscribed to by millions of angry Americans.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:06 pm
54,
Like I said, it’s too early to tell. But, any of all possibilities for 2016 include Hillary, Biden, Deval Patrick, Andrew Cuomo, and some other democratic governors or senators we probably aren’t anticipating right now.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
57
Biden and Patrick are no-shots. Not only would neither of them run, but if they did, they would get massacred.
Warren is my pick at this point, and if she doesn’t run, it will be Hillary, Cuomo, or Giffords (very unlikely she will run).
December 28th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
Good post, and gotta say I agree with most of it. Reading through some of the responses, you get the sense Romney supporters have elevated him to almost godlike status. I’ll grant you that Romney is a smart guy who understands business (although he has a less stellar record as a politician). But even then, it’s one thing to run a successful private equity company during the 80s and 90s, when that business was flourishing. Another entirely to change the entire trajectory of the country when it is on the decline and suffering from such serious problems.
One issue that wasn’t mentioned is entitlement reform. Given that the Ryan plan (and perhaps privatizing SS) is going to be on the agenda for any GOP President, they are going to face some blowback sooner rather than later. It’s one thing to push these policies as an alternative to an unpopular Obama administration – quite another to try to get them passed in the face of massive resistance from unions, OWS and the professional left, along with a base that may or may not be 100% behind the President (given grassroots dislike of Romney).
December 28th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
58,
If Obama wins re-election, the VP usually gets preferential treatment, ala Gore in 2000, so if Obama wins in 2012, I can see Biden considering on making a 2016 try and the dem establishment pushing him over others.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
54.
Way too soon to predict. I do agree that the Dems like to pick wild cards unlike the Republican Party which tends to be more orderly. But I don’t agree that automatically means that a woman with almost zero national cred outside of political junkies who hasn’t won anything yet is a lock for the Dem nomination. Obama became a national star with his speech at the Dem Convention in ’04. Warren is a pure inside the beltway phenomena who, I say again, has proved to be a so so campaigner so far.
She may win against Brown next year but as a resident of MA for many years I am hardly impressed with a 6 percent lead before the race even starts. Kennedy started with a 30+% lead over Romney in their race and the state has become if anything a little bit more Independent since then.
Brown has a large campaign war chest and the RNC is going to target this seat with millions of dollars of attack ads. I guess I disagree with you that the Occupy movement has become anything other than immensely unpopular right now. I was at dinner tonight with some very lefty friends tonight and even they were laughing at what a negative, unfocused joke the movement has become. Yes, people are angry but they also realize that Obama and the radical left is not the answer.
We’ll see.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:15 pm
lol…Biden might think he’s a viable nominee, but no one is going to vote for him.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
>>I was at dinner tonight with some very lefty friends tonight
I think there may be one to many tonights in there.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
I see Romney being successful, but he will have to tackle entitlements which is by far the deadliest obstacle in America’s future, more so than any foreign power.
If Romney can get our deficit on to a path that resembles some sort of sanity, keep taxes around the same or lower, and allow America to unlock it’s natural resources he will be successful at turning this country around economically to where people feel we’re on the right track.
However, if he’s a failure and Democrats get another crack at this country like they did in 2008 where they basically had a blank check in DC, that’s the end of America and we’ll all become California, headed right over a cliff. That’s when you stock up on only two investments: gold and lead.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
60
Biden is neither inspiring nor accomplished. Nominating Biden in 2016 would be like nominating Mondale in 1984. A relic of the past with no inspiring message whatsoever. He probably won’t even run anyway. He’s old.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
“Obama is going to fire up the populist rhetoric big time, and he and his left-thinkers will have assembled a large school of thought, similar to the sentiments of Warren and OWS, subscribed to by millions of angry Americans.”
Indeed. And for some reason Republicans especially the conservative media is convinced that the best tack to take in all of this is to emphasize how cool rich people are, and how much poor people stink, and how their kids should be cleaning our toilets…
December 28th, 2011 at 11:23 pm
61
OWS is dead. We agree. Warren isn’t just an OWS candidate, though. She, in my opinion, is on par with Paul Ryan as the next big thinker of their party. A total transformation away from Liberals of the past to liberals of the future. It’s sad, really.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
66
It is really something. It’s like they think the best thing to do is just do exactly the opposite of everything Obama does. We could at least tone some of it down a bit.
We ought to bring this party to where Mitt is, given that he’s been saying we need to focus on helping those who have been hurt most by the economy, and that we’re not going out of our way to find ways to cut taxes for the wealthy.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:29 pm
#59: Not God, for heaven’s sake. Just the best of the litter. I have my doubts that anybody can fix anything in this dysfunctional country. Yes, we have a Constitution, but almost no one understands it and even fewer are inclined to follow it.
Mitt can rattle on about a merit-based society vs. an entitlement-based society, but the entitlement mentality got baked in the cake during FDR and then truly irrevocable during the LBJ’s Great Society. There’s a large segment of the population who doesn’t believe in merit; that the deck is stacked against them and merit is either impossible or unrelated to success–in their minds. Big money bags people like Mitt are in cahoots with other Wall St. robber barons and are out to rape and rob the little guy.
There are not enough “citizens” devoted to the idea of self-reliance to turn the country around. If Romney wins, he will be the most hated man on the planet if he tries to cut government or fix the economy.
Mitt claims it’s “immoral” to borrow money from our kids and grandkids. Well, no kidding, but that’s what American’s are dedicated to doing: robbing their own kids’ future. Will common folk listen to Romney? Seems unlikely.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. We have been brainwashed for some time now. I do wonder if Mitt understands just how impossible the job is considering what he has to work with. He seems to believe people are smart and you can appeal to them using reason. That would be a huge mistake.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
69
That IS Romney’s Shakespearean flaw.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
67.
I may be wrong but I’m a big believer in the Black Swan theory of politics which in a nutshell says that things nobody can predict ( or sometimes should have been able to predict but weren’t paying attention ) have outsized affects on events.
We have a couple of them on tap. The financial crisis in Europe and Iran. Now both of these should not qualify as Black Swans because they are obvious to anyone who is paying attention. Sadly, far too people actually do pay attention. They will escalate and they will affect us although how is still unknown.
But what about the unknown unknowns as a former Defense Secretary would say? They are out there and something will happen.
By 2016, who knows? We may be wandering in the wilderness and fighting off enormous freaks named Lord Humongous wearing hockey masks riding freak mobiles. That may sound nuts be we are teetering on the edge of some serious, and not to go all Newt, transformational changes.
This isn’t just any other time. Anyone who thinks it is is just not paying attention.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
71
Yes, I agree totally. But I made the prediction anyway, just for giggles. We’ll see what happens. The chances of my prediction being true are probably very low. Just an interesting point of discussion.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
#70 It really is. Obama, the community organizer, understands his constituency. Mitt’s only constituency is other rational people–a small group apparently. Not more than 24%.
It’s a problem–not to know how the dummies think.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
73
There is evidence of it as well. Take for instance his resistance to addressing all the flip-flop charges directly. He thinks that the people will look for the truth themselves. How naive.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
When has anyone ever sought the Presidential office to be a “caretaker”? What a stupid premise!
December 28th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
75
It’s a by-product of men attempting to be “men with ideas,” minus the ideas.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:45 pm
The OWS movement is a joke, even among those on the left.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
68, Masscon, You got to love that question Newt gave to Mitt when the candidates asked each other questions. Something along the lines “Would you please defend your plan to continue taxing really rich people” well at least that’s how anyone that not a die-hard conservative would have interpreted the question.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
78
Yes. I lost a lot of respect for Noot’s “honesty” on that one. What Noot was asking for, essentially, was for the richest guy in the race to apologize that he doesn’t love rich people as much as he’s supposed to.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
#74 This is why Palin did well; also Huckabee. People feel like they are understood. It’s served Bill Clinton and Obama well.
In my church congregation, rural San Diego, in the past there were the highlanders and the flatlanders. These labels were given by the highlanders, who live in the outback, have guns and live stock, shoot rattlesnakes, heat their homes with wood, are very down-to-earth and have disdain for their suburban brethren living in million dollar mansions. It’s the old suits vs. cowboy boots mentality.
The funny thing is the suburban suits were clueless since they were just fine with the cowboys. This has all gone away, thank goodness, but the point is, the rich people were completely naive as to the resentment brewing in the hearts of the highlanders.
Class envy will be with us until the Second Coming. Obama and the Dems will play on these emotions to the hilt and Romney will be a lightening rod. It is what it is, but the Romney camp needs to recognize the problem and fight it where they can. If they can. It will be hard.
December 28th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
78 – The optional flat tax is the worst offender in this regard. Did Perry and Gingrich really think a tax reform plan that cuts taxes on the rich and no one else was going to fly in a general election? What morons!
December 28th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
80
But I’m confident because Mitt is ready for that assault. First, he’s donated over $40 million to charity. Second, he’s explaining Bain very well. Third, he will counter-attack Obama on GM closing plants. Fourth, his tax plan does not benefit the rich.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Romney is going to win this nomination going away. His campaign is far ahead of the curve this election and starting to separate. The only question now is how quickly is this over.
http://marion.patch.com/articles/romney-greeted-with-enthusiasm-at-north-liberty-factory-appearance
December 29th, 2011 at 12:05 am
Wow. Perry just said one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard on Greta.
He was asked about crony capitalism, and he responded, “Just look at Texas over the last 10 years. If that’s crony capitalism, America needs some more of that.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:16 am
#82 Quite right. But now you’re falling back on truth and reason, not perception and emotion, which is essential in politics.
People are convinced Mitt is capable, moral, hard-working and intelligent. They need to know he understands their circumstances and “feels their pain.” He speaks the words, but……….. the perception is that he is a Richy Rich robot.
I was amazed at Kimberly Guilfoyle on The Five yesterday. She’s been pretty much for ABR, but yesterday she said how touched she was when she heard how “human and sweet” Mitt was when his wife had serious illnessess. It was amazed because it’s taken her so long to hear about this side of Mitt.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:34 am
How is the race going in Florida. Glad you asked.
>>Mitt Romney hosted a Florida tele-town hall meeting that didn’t yield a whole lot of news but spoke volumes about the state of the Republican presidential race in Florida. Right now, it seems that only Romney is running here — a result of his superior organization and money. His supporters are advertising for him. His campaign is pushing early vote-by-mail absentee ballots (at least 370,000 of which have been requested by Republicans). And he’s stopping in the state every month or so to pick up campaign money and some free TV time. The only serious challenger to Romney right now, Newt Gingrich, only named a Florida manager this month. If Gingrich doesn’t win one of the early states (South Carolina?), chances are high that Romney wins Florida in the Jan. 31 primary.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2011/12/what-mitt-romneys-fl-tele-town-hall-says-about-his-campaign.html
My only question, what happened to Smack?
December 29th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Maybe it’s best if Obama wins the election. The economy will most likely remain terrible regardless of who is president. The rot goes to the core. Let Obama take the blame. With four more years of boiling frustration and anger at the establishment, maybe someone in the mold of Pat Buchanan would have a chance to emerge in 2016, sweep into power, and start the counter-revolution.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Seriously, do the math. The race is over. We will go through all the normal Kabuki dances but Romney is going to be the nominee.
The sooner everyone stops hammering each other and realizes that Romney is the candidate we are going to go up against the Obama machine with the better our chances of winning.
Let’s get the focus back on beating Obama.
December 29th, 2011 at 12:56 am
#87 Oh stop it, Pat. We cannot handle four more years of BO; even the next year will be impossible to bear. The Chinese are buying up oil all over the world; they, unlike us, seem to understand that the world economy runs on oil.
There are things that a GOP POTUS could do to reverse things. In four more BO can bake a lot of things into the cake. Even now a huge portion of the population are true progressive believers. Even now things are going down hill because of the Dems and the GOP is getting the blame.
Stop the Dems in their tracks now, if we can. Later will be too late. If the American people don’t get it now, they never will.
December 29th, 2011 at 1:01 am
Please someone tell me how Romney can be even remotely credible on the economy when he never saw the current Depression emerging and was making fun of Ron Paul for warning everyone about it in 2007 and earlier? Only one candidate understands that the economy of bubbles and busts is caused by the federal reserve system and therefor ending the fed is the only solution, and that candidate is Ron Paul
December 29th, 2011 at 1:12 am
90.
Please explain how Paul can attract any votes outside his small segment of Truthers, anti-Semites and bigots. Paul was far from alone knowing what was coming with the combination of a corrupt gov’t partnered with Wall Street. Even Bush saw it coming. What did Paul do other than rant and talk about the Trilateral Commission and New money?
Don’t bother trying to defend Paul’s newsletters. Paul has a paper trail that goes way beyond that.
Those are his positions and everyone knows it. Make the case for him despite these issues.
Oh and did I mention that after Iowa he is all done? I should have. He is all done. Thank God.
December 29th, 2011 at 1:36 am
IF Romney is the nominee it will be the 2008 election all over again. A moderate Republican cannot beat Obama. We just saw that with McCain. Conservatives are not going to be force fed Romney. At general election time the conservatives will bail as they did in 2008, and we will have Obama for another 4 years. The only man who has a snowballs chance in hail in beating Obama is Newt. Say what you will, regardless of your own pissy attitude, the man can win, and turn this county around so fast people will be saying Obama who? Regardless of each and everyones personal beef, let’s not have history repeat itself with Romney because I simply won’t vote for the phoney.
December 29th, 2011 at 1:47 am
92.
Nobody is force feeding you anything. You True Conservatives put up a bunch of never have beens and never will bes who are frankly embarrassing. Every single one of them had a shot and they all shit the bed. You want to blame someone, look in the mirror. There is no conspiracy, you True Conservatives put these dolts up as your best hope and they have been overwhelmingly rejected. Deal with it.
Stay how if you want. You goofballs who put up equally goofball candidates and then whine when they get rejected do this every cycle and most of you never vote anyway.
December 29th, 2011 at 1:47 am
92. Exactly, Molly. Thanks for some welcome sanity at Willard42012
Newt Gingrich Endorsed by Architect of Reagan Economic Plan, Economist Arthur Laffer
December 29th, 2011 at 2:00 am
What in the world would make anyone think Romney would be a caretaker President.
I can’t believe so many have bought into the lies. And believe Romney is a moderate.
That is ridiculous.
Fortunately for the country we may well have the chance to see just what a Bain Capital fix it man can do with this economy!
Romney will be remembered, the government will work, the debt will be handled, that is what Romney does!
Romney succeeds! That is his genius!
How silly to think he would suddenly become a caretaker resting on his laurels! How very silly.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:08 am
92:
Here are some calculations based on 2004 and 2008 exit polls and the total vote:
Conservative vote
Bush 2004 34.577 million
McCain 2008 34.315 million
African American vote
McCain 2008 0.673 million
Bush 2004 1.465 million
The difference in conservative vote is less than 1% so basically McCain got as many conservative votes as Bush did in 2004. McCain received almost 0.8 million votes less from African Americans than Bush, so the loss in African American vote was over 3 times larger compared to the 0.27 million loss in conservative vote. So once you deduce the African American conservatives who were inspired to vote for first African American president (this includes Newt endorser J.C. Watts), McCain got clearly more conservative votes than any other president in US history, he got more conservatives than Bush got in 2004, when people cared more about War on terror and protecting the marriage than they cared about the economy. So much for the myth of 2008 being lost because McCain caused the conservative voters to stay home.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:09 am
The parallel between what people were saying when Reagan ran against Carter and what they are now saying about Romney is stunningly similar. We were told all the reasons why electing Reagan was a bad idea, and now everyone is telling us why electing Romney is a bad idea. Well, they were wrong about Reagan and they are now wrong about Romney. Consider what Romney accomplished with heavily Democrat state, image what he can accomplish with republican congress. I am going on the record of not only predicting Romney will win, but he will be considered the greatest president since Reagan.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:16 am
With Willard as president, the U.S. would become Massachusetts.
Oh great.
$50 abortions on demand, gay marriages promoted, liberal judges appointed, healthcare mandates strictly enforced by taxing authorities, federally subsidized exchanges aka death panels, extremely low job growth, Planned Parenthood domination, higher healhcare costs, longer waiting times for primary care, doctor shortages, massive increases in business taxes and government fees…
December 29th, 2011 at 2:17 am
97.
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:18 am
92 Every objective bit of information suggests Romney’s stronger against Obama than Gingrich. We lost in 2008 because when the economy took a turn for the worse we nominated an old, long-time politician, Washington insider, adulterer, lose cannon from a Southern state who has trouble raising funds.
Now you’re suggesting we nominate another of the same type, except we double up on the wives left, triple up on the affairs, add on lobbying, exchange senator for representative, subtract out the military service, double up on lose cannon, add on a side-show book tour, and subtract out hundreds of endorsements.
No thanks.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:22 am
96,
Romney is waaaaaaaay to the left of Bush, and waaaay to the left of McCain.
Conservative voters would stay home in droves rather than cast a vote for a Massachusetts moderate/liberal like Willard.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Reply to 101, 98: Craig, the serial dishonest poster….
Does your hypocrisy have no end and your dishonesty? Your myths about Romney have been disbunked numerous times, and you keep you lies up. In the mean while, you support Newt who as a recorded history of turn to the left when it helped him financially. There is no getting over Newt on the Couch with Peolsi. You don’t get more liberal than that, and neither does your liberal hypocrisy.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:32 am
101:
“and waaaay to the left of McCain.”
Yeah that explains why he won NH very conservative vote by 25 points when he lost NH by 5 points.
Mhh, wait no it doesnt…..
December 29th, 2011 at 2:32 am
97 Thunder, everyone likes to claim Reagan. In fact I think Gingrich is now claiming he invented Reagan or something, so I shy away from Reagan arguments. However I like AC’s reasoning about who to support.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
December 29th, 2011 at 2:36 am
101 Please, 20 years from now you’ll be claiming you were part of the Romney revolution, and be criticizing all the candidates for being to the left of Romney.
December 29th, 2011 at 2:54 am
#22, 94, 98 and 101;
Sour Grapes Idiocy on full display.
December 29th, 2011 at 3:43 am
Craig is to the point that he has run out of losers to promote. He can not think of any new lies to invent. So the only self validation he can stimulate himself with is if others respond to him. For the most part I just skip his comments, but I sometimes go back and read his to remind myself that opponents can be both stunningly overconfident and foolish at the same time.
December 29th, 2011 at 3:46 am
That’s a lot of words expressing that a failed presidency would be bad. I think everyone understands that.
That’s one of the reasons I’m high on Romney. Of everyone in the race, he’s the most likely to bring some stability to our political system after we’ve had “change” elections in a row, and are probably on our way to a 4th. I think Romney will bury himself in the Oval Office, not rouse strong feelings either way, and work on getting things done without calling attention to himself. Note: That’s different than being a caretaker.
I don’t think it’s likely Romney will have a failed presidency. He might lose a re-election bid if he doesn’t fix things fast enough, but I don’t think it will be because of a massive backlash like it would be if we had someone like Perry in office. It would be more akin to Bush 41.
December 29th, 2011 at 4:23 am
Well, Romney doesn’t golf so you wouldn’t ever see him take it easy. Plus isn’t this the guy who refuses to buy theatre popcorn and has 250 million? The guy is a 100% fiscal scrooge. And notice this part…he had every opportunity to push through healtcare legislation through the first year, second year, or third year of his term, but waited for the last year. Why? He was negotitaing with his legislature to remove as many costs as possible, was demonstrating that the single-payer system was flawed. He won all the Dems over onto his side. Now, if he was a bleeding hurt liberal, he would have pushed the leglisation the first year possible and would have given all the goodies the Dems wanted and would have selected the single payer model and would have not pushed for the $10,000 catastrophic bond option.
And I haven’t even talked about the reason he drove the Dem legislature crazy. He refused to do any backdoor negiotation or make promises for future legsilation. What he offered to them was the same thing he would offer in public which they hated because it was routinely the cheapest option. Now if he could do that in Massachussets, then imagine what he would do in D.C. My prediction is that he will go fiscally nuclear as a hard core deficit hawk. Not as radical as Ron Paul, but he would be always coming up with ways to reduce costs to provide the same services. That is in his DNA.
December 29th, 2011 at 5:58 am
Lots of great post’s about Romney. Anyone who thinks Romney will sit back and watch has not been paying attention! Romney 2012!
December 29th, 2011 at 6:12 am
Romney will be a nice, competent manager of American Decline.
December 29th, 2011 at 7:20 am
Dave G, I have to join in soundly condemning your entire article – Romney sit on his haunches?? Romney more a manager than a leader?? Where would you ever get that idea, much less be gullible enough to buy into it?! Must have come from the same people spouting nonsense about Romney is so moderate, when as governor and his book clearly show him to be a full fledged conservative.
Venture capitalists don’t find broken companies and manage their decline – they radically alter them and attempt to steer them back into prosperity. The new companies that they invest in have nothing yet to manage and need to built completely from the ground up. The Olympics – if you think that boat was headed in the right direction when Mitt took over you must live under a rock. And as governor of MA, did he sit back and govern on his haunches and try for reelection? No way – he got done everything that he could with an 85% dem legislature, and his conservative agenda made it so that reelection was never even a serious option for him (which is to his credit from a conservative’s standpoint). Romney the manager?? Riiiiiight. Romney has demonstrated strong leadership his entire life!!
December 29th, 2011 at 7:31 am
111
Nice one liner, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Just like Dave in his article. “Hey, lets take a rediculous premise, state it like accepted fact, and write an in depth analysis based on it.” What a waste of time – completely lacking in substance.
The only possible argument I can think of for this rediculous notion is that Mitt is a cautious campaigner because he has his eye on independent voters so that he can win the Presidency. But there isn’t one shred of evidence that says he’ll be a cautious POTUS. OPEN YOUR EYES, rather than squeezing them shut and sticking your fingers in your ears yelling ‘NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU’!
December 29th, 2011 at 8:13 am
90
I totally agree.
Mitt was asked about the NDAA and didn’t even know about it. He said his team would look into it and post his views on his site. I keep checking his site and nothing’s ever posted and I doubt he’ll ever post anything.
We need a President who knows what Congress has been up to during these liberty-stealing years since 9/11. We need a President who’s going to turn Congress’ eyes back on the Constitution and admonish then to adhere to their oath of office. We need a President whose attention is foccused on American issues and not what some other country is doing. Ron Paul is strong on defense and thank God weak on national offense which is what the Repubs have brainwashed us into believing is needed. I want the TSA GONE! Mitt won’t get rid of it. The DHS has aleady asked for more money so the TSA can expand to railways and bus depots.
With the creation of the DHS, and legislation like the unPatriot Act, Military defense Act – that’s the one that authorized FEMA to build those ‘happy’ camps, and now the NDAA, we’ve lost our 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendment rights – and they were supposed to be unalianble.
And the gun organizations don’t like Mitt. He’s flip-flopped on gun rights issues so we may be sacrificing our 2nd Amendment right, too, should he be the nominee.
Does no one care about their individual sovereignty anymore? If Ron Paul isn’t the nominee, you might as well rip up the Constitution now because it will be gone.
Oh, and he can win against Obama.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Media bias os the so called “journalists.”
[NEW VIDEO] Comparison of media treatment of Iowa Caucus 2008 and Iowa Caucus 2012
December 29th, 2011 at 8:29 am
Good post.
The changing demographics of America does indeed pose challenges for conservatives. Yes, there is obviously the diminishing market share of whites, who make up about 90% of the Republican coaltion. But beyond race and ethnicity, consider those lifestyle factors that tend to make people more conservative than they otherwise would have been…..
1. Owning property. The housing crash has produced more renters.
2. Getting married. Young people continue to get married less often, and later. Cohabitating more.
3. Having children. Fertility rates continue to decline. Couples continue to have their first child at a later age, and the Great Recession isn’t helping.
4. Having a job. The welfare state is coming back with unemployment benefits getting extended, seemingly ad infinitum. The unemployment rate among the young and blacks is in the stratosphere.
Put all that together, and consider what group is ALWAYS the most volatile element of society. The group that triggers revolutions.
Young, unmarried, unemployed, propertyless males.
If they have no stake in “the system” through marriage, property, children, or a job, they tend to get….. punchy…. in times of despair. Too many of those could very well usher in a more authoritarian era. Could be left or right wing, depending on conditions.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:32 am
87 – that is completely an idiotic notion -there won’t be anything left of the country.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:41 am
Go look at the new Rassmusen poll for Romney/ obama election matchup out today. This just might make Romney’s electability argument a little stronger.
December 29th, 2011 at 8:54 am
116
The breakdown of the American family is very alarming. This fact could undermine America more than any of her enemies ever could.
Mitt ran his 2008 campaign on a “Strong economy, Strong military, and Strong families.”.
Family values are not something politicians have all that much control over, however, they can help by making laws that promote the family and child rearing.
Mitt has been talking less this time about family values, but it’s still on his mind, I’m sure.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Boom! Game changer in Iowa:
Iowa Rep. Steve King: Gingrich Better Candidate Than Romney
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Republican-King-Gingrich-Romney/2011/12/28/id/422395
“Although Iowa Rep. Steve King is holding back his coveted political endorsement with only days to go before his state’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, he tells Newsmax that he almost certainly would choose former House Speaker Newt Gingrich over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Describing Gingrich as a “brilliant man, who generates all kinds of ideas,” King said pundits will be talking about Gingrich’s debate performances in future elections”
Not a full fledged endorsement, but good enough for me!
December 29th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Romney opens up biggest lead over Obama in latest RASMUSSEN POLL.Romney leads Obama by 6 percent and is biggest lead of any GOP candidate
December 29th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Geez… I thought the Paul supporters were supposed to be “the End is Nigh” people. Nope, apparently Romney people are the ones motivated my exaggerated fears.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:35 am
120 – You sure seem to find a lot of “game changers” out there. Too bad no one sees them as “game changers” but you.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:35 am
122 – Huh?
December 29th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Now this is what I call a “game changer”:
http://www.gossipcop.com/kelly-clarkson-ron-paul-endorsement-support-president-2012-republican-twitter/
I think Ron has this just about sealed up now.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:37 am
The idea that Romney is a “manager” and not a leader belies his entire life.
He helped found a company. That takes guts. That takes initiative.
He returned to a failing company and rescued it. That takes guts. That takes initiative.
He took over the Olympics when they were becoming a national embarrassment and turned it into a massive success. That takes guts. That takes initiative.
He became governor in MA when the state was in disarray and turned it around, while standing strong for his principles even when his principles made him unpopular. That takes guts. That takes initiative.
Romney is a leader, not a manager. Leaders have guts and take the initiative. Managers simply tell people what to do.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:39 am
GAME CHANGER!!!!!!
Romney – 45%
Obama – 39%
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
December 29th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Craig for LotW says, “$50 abortions on demand, gay marriages promoted, liberal judges appointed, healthcare mandates strictly enforced by taxing authorities, federally subsidized exchanges aka death panels, extremely low job growth, Planned Parenthood domination, higher healhcare costs, longer waiting times for primary care, doctor shortages, massive increases in business taxes and government fees…”
That’s a pretty pessimistic vision, Craig, and as a Romney supporter I have to allow that it might come to pass. Of course, there would have to be a die off of the 4 conservative and 1 swing SCOTUS Justices in the next few months and some way for BHO to do an end run around the Senate so he could replace them with liberal justices.
Perhaps you could answer something that I’ve been wondering for a while … I’ve been looking for a new job lately. Does being a professional troll pay well?
December 29th, 2011 at 10:15 am
#120 – teledude -
C’mon, be honest, tele. As a fellow Iowan, you know as well as I do that the only Game Change that King’s endorsement would be is if he came out for Romney. His followers were going to be caucusing for Newt (maybe Santorum) anyway. This is just more posturing and preaching to the choir.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:20 am
And Craig, did I mention a complete reversal of the mandate the Republicans received from the voters in 2010, resulting in Super Majorities in both the House and the Senate, while somehow Mitt beat Obama. Yep, a pretty likey scenerio.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Rasmussen’s new numbers are obvious outliers. Whatever, God bless him.
Good for Scott and potentially a new Fox News deal for his company.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:39 am
111.Alex Knepper Says:
December 29th, 2011 at 6:12 am
Romney will be a nice, competent manager of American Decline.
====
Except Willard will never get that chance to screw up America like he did Massachusetts. NEVER!
December 29th, 2011 at 10:43 am
1) eliminate the filibuster + fix other arcane senate rules so things can actually get done
2) new tax code
If romney or any gop’er win and fail to do either, its pretty pointless for them to have won in my book.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:49 am
132
LOL. Massachusetts is screwed up? Am I missing something?
December 29th, 2011 at 10:51 am
113 — Nothing to back it up?
Okay. Here’s what I just wrote on my blog (click on my name) about Mitt. You can see why I don’t run very comfortably in right-wing activist circles nowadays from the whole article, but here’s my assessment of Mitt:
Pity poor Mitt Romney. Romney is what Obama once described himself as: a symbol. In 2008, he was the supposed ‘conservative alternative’ to the likes of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain and the muse of the likes of Mark Levin — and now poor Mitt finds himself the target of scatter-shot anti-establishment ire — and for no other reason than that he’s there. He’s not even a part of the “permanent political class” — he’s too much of a proven loser to be such a thing! What have we got, then? Is his sin of shameless pandering really altogether inexcusable, especially relative to Newt’s parade of horrors?
Is it? We’re asked to believe that a thoughtful, well-educated man in his sixties, born into a political family and passionate enough about the issue to discuss it with activists, had a fundamental change of heart — again, in his sixties –about an issue like abortion? And we’re furthermore asked to believe that it was merely a coincidence that this conversion just so happened to occur about a year before the 2008 Republican primary season kicked off? We’re supposed to believe that the man who once promised to be a more passionate advocate of gay rights than Ted Kennedy suddenly is a champion of the Federal Marriage Amendment — even as the rest of the country has turned dramatically to the left on gay issues? We’re supposed to believe that the man who once championed the Bush-McCain approach to illegal immigration is now aligned with the likes of Tom Tancredo? Please. Not to mention his rhetorical shifts on guns, religion, and taxes, and his disavowals of the Reagan legacy in the 90s. “The older I get, the smarter Ronald Reagan seems,” he says now. Yeah, talk about how great Reagan is; they get hard-ons for that.
Shameless, blatant, transparent pandering to the right-wing base. Yet Mitt’s old-line support, engaging in quite the contortionist act by simultaneously denying that he’s ever flip-flopped, has a curious defense: “Oh, he doesn’t mean it.” Well, of course, Mitt’s a liar — duh. Romney 2012!
That might — might! — be excusable — if it weren’t for the fact that his economics are hardly inspiring, either. He savaged Rick Perry for stating a simple fact: that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme — and then went on to sing hymns to the glories of the entitlement state, decrying the cruel, heartless fascists who want to kick Grandma out on the street. Romney similarly refuses to call for an abolition of the capital gains tax, caving into Obama’s class-warfare paradigm by refusing to support cuts for anyone making over $250,000 a year. (One can just picture Romney at the debates: “No, no — my plan is for the middle class. The rich can get by on their own, and my plan reflects that.”) His love affair with mandates is legendary, and his record as Massachusetts governor is unremarkable and managerial. How fitting for our new age of decline.
Bottom line: Mitt Romney will be a competent manager of American decline.
Read the whole thing at my website (click on my name).
December 29th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Craig, I’d vote for Romney 500 times before voting for Gingrich. Hell, I’d vote for Obama 500 times before voting for Gingrich.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:20 am
135 – Holy absurdity! I can say Sarah Palin is the second coming of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t make it true. You presented absolutely nothing in that screed to backup the idea that Mitt Romney will be a failure as a President.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:26 am
Best modern day president ever. Could happen. He’s the man.