Alex Roarty asks an interesting question over on the National Journal site:
Why Is No One Attacking Romney?
Mitt Romney’s confidence is brimming. The former governor, now widely seen as the favorite to win Iowa, announced Wednesday he’ll stay in the Hawkeye State the night of the caucus, a clear indication he anticipates a good result. If he does capture Iowa, he’ll head into New Hampshire, long his political stronghold, with a chance to become the first non-incumbent GOP presidential candidate ever to win the first two primary contests – a back-to-back triumph that would all but secure the nomination.
So, naturally, his Republican rivals have spent the last week castigating him on the trail and eviscerating him on TV, all in a desperate attempt to slow down his momentum and keep their own campaigns viable. Right? No – they’ve nearly done the opposite.
…
As they [the others] form a circular firing squad, Romney stepped back. Rather than engage his GOP opponents, as he’s done most of his campaign, he’s focused almost entirely on his No. 1 target, President Obama.
…
It’s really not that hard to understand what is happening. Mitt Romney primarily occupies the “Competent Executive” niche. His supporters have been loyal to him for years. Unless another candidate can convince Mitt’s supporters that he is the more competent executive, they are not going to defect easily.
One that could conceivably compete with Mitt in that niche is Rick Perry. Or maybe I should have said was Rick Perry. While it is true that he’s had a fairly successful run of 12 years as Texas Governor, the history so far of this campaign hasn’t exactly shown off his superior executive skills. Quite the opposite, in fact. First he leaped into this campaign with much fanfare, but it quickly became obvious that he has done little to no preparation. Competent executives do not initiate major undertakings without first thoroughly preparing for it. Rick seemed genuinely surprised when he discovered the party wasn’t going to just hand the nomination to him because he asked for it. He was going to have to earn it.
And then there was that Virginia ballot fiasco… .
Is there any wonder why Perry seems to be de-emphasizing the “Competent Executive” angle as of late and instead has been shooting for the “God’s Candidate” crowd?
And if not Perry, who? Newt Gingrich perhaps? Newt’s last real executive job as Speaker of the House saw him getting kicked out on his ear. He has done little since then to prove that his executive skills have improved much. It’s been quite the opposite, actually. He took that Greek vacation right in the middle of last summer’s fundraising and organizing season. His whole campaign staff then quit in disgust.
And then there was that Virginia ballot fiasco… .
Huntsman, maybe? Perhaps, but as I’ve stated many times before, Jon is a solution looking for a problem. He has yet to articulate any real compelling reason to vote for him other than the fact that he’s not Romney.
And he didn’t even try to get on that Virginia ballot… .
No, Mitt’s core niche is quite safe from poachers. This forces the other candidates to look elsewhere for supporters to win over.They must attack each other and pretty much leave Mitt out of it. Unfortunately for them, squabbling amongst themselves and calling each other names allows Mitt to rise above it all and act Presidential. It makes him appear as the only adult in the room. Concerned voters wanting to defeat Obama next fall see this and then gravitate towards Mitt’s banner.
So Mr. Roarty, THAT is why no one is attacking Romney. There are no other “Competent Executive” types to compete with him. Pawlenty dropped out, and Huckabee, Daniels, Christie, Jindal and Barbour declined to run. That leaves just Mitt Romney to claim that niche.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Right on, Mark.
And that core of Romney’s – you know “the ceiling” which is actually a floor, has been his secret weapon throughout this entire campaign. It was able to withstand attacks and advances by other candidates, Talk Radio and the DNC.
It’s what has the WH troubled (see today’s 6 pt. Romney lead in the latest H2H Rassmussen poll wiuth Barry)as this phallanx is solidly mainstream, where elections are won.
Romney’s strategy was carefully thought out and has played out perfectly.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
I am laughing my head off and screaming my head off at the same time–listening to Rush on Greta right now. Rush is blathering on about how we need a candidate who loves America, is optimistic, believes in the entrepreneurial spirit, be the best you can be, will attack Obama etc. etc.–and then goes on to slam Romney as pure evil Establishment. What? Didn’t Rush listen to Romney in Ames today? Does Rush EVER listen to Mitt? Does Rush ever get out of his studio?
Maybe other candidates aren’t attacking Mitt, but there sure are a lot in the so-called conservative media–and I believe they have lost their minds.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
He is widely considered the frontrunner in Iowa now? Seriously? I don’t consider him the frontrunner in Iowa, and I am about as big a RomBot as you will find.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Romney knows very well that he could lose…I don’t believe he is counting his chickens before they hatch….What he’s doing is simple….. he’s doing this to get the upper hand on the other candidates, and to tick off Rush Limbaugh.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
The other reason no one is attacking Romney because everything there is to know about Romney is already known. He has no skeleton in his closet and most of the attacks against him have been already debunked a thousand times already. People are tired of hearing about RomneyCare and have already made up their mind on the subject a long time ago.
The other reason Romney is not being attacked is because he isn’t going after the same core voters the others are, namely the hard core, Social Conservative Evangelical voters. That Group is being split up between the other candidates.
The final reason no one is attacking Romney is the same reason attacking Paul is useless. Each of the candidates have very little money left and they need to spend it where it will do them the most good. They know that Romney’s supporters are not going to leave him, just as they know that Paul supporters will not leave him. So, attacking Romney is really useless endeavor because it doesn’t forward their goals.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Exactly right and well said.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
2 – That is really strange. Rush is not stupid. I wonder he is trying to do. He is making the argument for Romney, but then pulling back when it comes to actually using his name. I don’t know how he says all that and then claims Newt is the guy that fits that mold with a straight face.
As smart as Rush is, I don’t really think he has a ton of integrity. He is pretty manipulative of his audience. I wonder what game he is playing now. Maybe he is prepping his audience for a general election fight while not alienating his RomNot base.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Mitt could easily lose this quirky state. The Paulbots are zealots. The IA pastors with their emails and church buses are zealots. Mitt’s been drawing enthusiatic crowds, but anything can happen. We’ve seen this movie before and it doen’t end well.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Mark, I had asked myself this question in vain; kudos to you for putting your finger on it. This explains a lot.
Thank you.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
5 – also, the real battle in Iowa is over third now. The top two spots will be Ron and Mitt. That seems pretty certain. Attacking Romney leaves the door open for someone else to take the “third ticket out of Iowa”.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Now that I have read the whole post, I have to say I 100% agree. Great analysis Mark, as usual.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Romney has always been seen as running against ABRs and thus all of the ABRs feel like they are competing for the same voters. Its a great strategy that wasn’t necessarily made by the Romney camp. My boys do the same when playing Risk against me. They see stacking me as futile and proceed to take each other apart. Not until recently did they figure out that they would have to tag team me to weaken me. I don’t think that the ABRs will figure that out in time either.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
#7 Rush has been a mystery all season. He has said nothing but bad things to say against Romney for months. For some reason, he believes Mitt is the evil Establishment candidate.
Every talk show needs a demon. Of course, Rush’s demon is the Dems and Obama. But the demon he’s whipped up now are the horrible, non-conservative Pub Establishment in general and Rahm-knee specifically. You’re right. Rush has been incredibly dishonest throughout. Here’s my theory, which I’ve put forward before here:
Someone on Race said Rush’s listnership is down 70% from what it was. He’s left with a bunch of Teavangelicals who have an anti-Mormon bent. Rush needs to sell advertising and in order to do that, he has to have listeners. Ergo, he’s pandering to the last bunch of listeners he’s managed to hang on to.
Rush is STILL blathering on Greta–and still hating on Romney. It’s insane. And that Rush has lost his mind is something to consider.
Romney was Rush’s conservative darling last time. Even tho Mitt hasn’t changed a bit and there are fewer viable candidates this time, for some reason Romney has become a hated pariah.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
*attacking oops.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
# K.G. Says:
December 29th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Mitt could easily lose this quirky state. The Paulbots are zealots. The IA pastors with their emails and church buses are zealots. Mitt’s been drawing enthusiatic crowds, but anything can happen. We’ve seen this movie before and it doen’t end well.
=================================================
Last time there was a Huckabee, there is no Huckabee this time around. There is no great Evangelical candidate. Every time there seems to be, he/she turns out to be zany. Santurom is the last chance, but it just may be too late for him. Rick Perry, Newt, Bachman have all shot themselves in the foot and are no longer looked at as being credible.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
K.G @13 you listed the reason that ROmney has become pariah and that is that Rush’s listeners are really only the hard core teavangelicals who dont like Romney at all. Makes perfect sense when you are in something to make money you have to keep the audience happy or they go somewhere else
December 29th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Don’t agree with the analysis. I haven’t seen any ads here in California, but if it is true that Romney isn’t getting hit hard in the ad wars it probably has more to do with the fact that the second tier candidates are more interested in going after each other to be the one who will eventually be crowned the not Romney. There probably is a good 25-30 per cent of the GOP that would get behind Santorum, Gingrich or even Perry (despite his campaign flubs) if they are the only non-Romney candidate left (aside from Ron Paul). Iowa will pick off at least one not-Romney (probably Bachman), and two of Perry/Santorum/Gingrich will probably be done after South Carolina. After that, whoever is left will move to consolidate conservative support and start hitting Romney hard. Not saying they’ll be successful, but that is most likely the Perry/Bachman/Santorum gameplan at the moment.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
# Jaxemer11 Says:
December 29th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
5 – also, the real battle in Iowa is over third now. The top two spots will be Ron and Mitt. That seems pretty certain. Attacking Romney leaves the door open for someone else to take the “third ticket out of Iowa”.
====================================
You are absolutely correct, the battle for 3rd is seen as a way to survive. Anything less, and they may as well pack it in. However, I have a feeling anyone grouped close to third will continue anyways and run down to SC where the battle for the Evangelical Social conservative vote will again be seen as key.
Look for most of the candidates to give up on New Hamsphire and leave it to Mitt. SC will be seen by these candidates as their last chance and the same battle for the same voters will again continue in SC.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
#13: I’ve listened to a bit of Limbaugh here and there but I have never, once heard him mention anything disparaging about Romney’s religion. Limbaugh disagrees with Romney on policy, which is hardly a crime nor is it a sign of bigorty. As for the “teavangelical” dig, those are the folks Romney will be relying on to plant lawn signs, walk precincts, man phone banks and help turn out the vote so hopefully his other supporters have more respect for them than you.
December 29th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Thunder: Of course, you could be right. However, the IA pastors have driven themselves crazy trying to take out Mitt. They have begged Bachmann and Santorum to get out rather than split the evangelical vote w/Perry. Since that didn’t work, it appears they have annointed Santorum as the heir to Huck’s Army. Santorum was on Hugh Hewitt completely giddy over the prospect. Now, can the pastors with their emails and church buses pour on the heat in the next four days?
You betcha!!!!
December 29th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
# Sean P Says:
December 29th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
There probably is a good 25-30 per cent of the GOP that would get behind Santorum, Gingrich or even Perry (despite his campaign flubs) if they are the only non-Romney candidate left (aside from Ron Paul). Iowa will pick off at least one not-Romney (probably Bachman), and two of Perry/Santorum/Gingrich will probably be done after South Carolina. After that, whoever is left will move to consolidate conservative support and start hitting Romney hard. Not saying they’ll be successful, but that is most likely the Perry/Bachman/Santorum gameplan at the moment.
=================================================================================
Your analysis is correct and is still in line with the main idea of this blog. One of the big reasons for not attacking Romney is the ABR crowd is fighting each other.
Side Note: sorry, Romney is very conservative, even though many seem to no recognize it. Certainly he is more conservative than the group on immigration and fiscal responsibility.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I think part of the reason is also the simple fact that the other candidates know they have to be the “not Romney” candidate but the only way to do that is eliminate the other contenders for that mini-crown. Attackin Romney as just one of the pack doesn’t do them any good. Attacking the others, scooping up their support, and then going after Romney makes more sense, at least to me.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
18.
>>Look for most of the candidates to give up on New Hamsphire and leave it to Mitt. SC will be seen by these candidates as their last chance and the same battle for the same voters will again continue in SC.
If Santorum does overtake Newt and takes 3rd in Iowa, the race is effectively over. Santorum has no money and no organization. He didn’t even try to get on the VA ballot. He’s spent his entire campaign in Iowa and hasn’t built any sort of national effort.
And as Romney said today, Ron Paul is never going to be the Republican nominee.
If Mitt takes 1st or 2nd in Iowa and Santorum is 3rd, Mitt is the nominee.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
# K.G. Says:
December 29th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Thunder: Of course, you could be right. However, the IA pastors have driven themselves crazy trying to take out Mitt. They have begged Bachmann and Santorum to get out rather than split the evangelical vote w/Perry. Since that didn’t work, it appears they have annointed Santorum as the heir to Huck’s Army. Santorum was on Hugh Hewitt completely giddy over the prospect. Now, can the pastors with their emails and church buses pour on the heat in the next four days?
You betcha!!!!
================================================================
This is also true. These ABR preachers based solely (in my opinion) in their opposition to the prospect of a Mormon president, are desperate to get a champion, the problem is, they haven’t been able to find him/her. They are split on who that should be and Santorum appears to be their last hope, and frankly they will elevate him to 3rd but no further.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Mitt has been attacked for the past 5 years. The past year has been a steady attack from the talking heads. The other candidates get attacked for their given 1-2 months in the spotlight so its just different dinamics.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Because they want to be chosen as VP!
December 29th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
dynamics
December 29th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Did you hear Newt’s latest spin on his Greek Isles vacation? He said he did it cull out the deadbeats.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/12/28/gingrich-greek-cruise-was-test-advisers-who-defected
It only took him six months to come up with this line of BS.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
That Rush interview on Greta was a re-run, you know.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
20 – The difference is media coverage. Huckabee had tons of media coverage in the weeks leading up to the caucus. Santorum’s have increased, but he isn’t the media darling that Huck was. Huck’s surge was created by a variety of things. The pastors and busses were definitely a big part of it, but he also had a ton of positive buzz.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Creative BS for sure. Wonder if he really believes people actually believe it themselves.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
#19 You are quite right; Rush has never mentioned religion that I know of. However, my theory is that his audience has been reduced to people who like to hear Mitt slammed and there’s always the thought that religion has something to do with it. And those callers who slam Mitt have been given free rein on Rush’s show.
As for respecting some Teavangelicals, it doesn’t matter what I think of them. I was one of the original Tea Party goers. I even traveled from CA to DC to march on 9-12. But somewhere along the line, the Tea Party turned anti-Mitt, even tho they had no viable alternative. This is true with Rush; this is true with Matt Kibbe and Freedom Works. Matt went all over Fox, etc. slamming Mitt early on–but had no one to offer as a good alternative. After all this time, they still don’t.
So, yes, I have lost all respect for them as they have run around like groupies on crack, fawning over one unvetted and ultimately flawed ABR after another that they knew. However, I heard today that 70% of the Tea Party supports Mitt. If this true, they have redeemed themselves and regained respect from me.
In the meantime tonight, Rush is touting Newt. Newt is nutz! He’s unstable and lacks character. I’m beginning to think the same thing about Rush. I’m a 20 year loyal listening, but I’ve lost all respect for Rush….not because he has a different opinion, but because he’s been grossly dishonest and just plain wrong.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
#32 that they didn’t know.
And MassCon: I should have realized it was a re-run; everything is this season.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
In fact, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say I think Mitt is thrilled with a Santorum surge so long as he finishes third. I bet his internal polls showed that Santorum was rising and Newt falling and that along with his own growth in support led him to stay in Iowa and go for a final push.
Think about it, after all the back and forth of this campaign it could be over in a couple weeks.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
23 – Money will pour in if he is the last person that can stop Romney. The big problem is organization on the ground in South Carolina.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
#34: From your mouth to God’s ear. This has been a long, weird six months.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
35.
Not enough money. Besides, there isn’t any time, you don’t just ramp up a national campaign in a couple weeks.
Sure, there will still be other state primaries and caucuses but no real challenge. Mitt will be so far ahead after NH that it will be more of a coronation than an election.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
19. “I’ve listened to a bit of Limbaugh here and there but I have never, once heard him mention anything disparaging about Romney’s religion. Limbaugh disagrees with Romney on policy, which is hardly a crime nor is it a sign of bigorty.”
I never listen to Rush, but I used to. I stopped listening to him because he was frequently dishonest about Mitt’s background. When he wasn’t dishonest, he focused exclusively on Mitt’s negatives and always has a less than straightforward analysis. Rush didn’t seem to use this kind of unfair and dishonest method when talking about the other candidates. So I stopped listening.
But I agree about the religion part. I’ve never heard Rush say anything disparaging about Mormonism or any other religion.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
The best way for Mitt to transition from the primary to the general would be a short primary, but not so short the party doesn’t warm up to him over time.
It needs to be quick because the only way some of the RomNots who listen to talk radio will warm to him is if talk radio warms to him. And talk radio will not warm to him until he’s the nominee, and he makes a good VP choice.
He will also need some time in the Spring to begin really strategizing hardcore for the heat of the summer, preparing fundraisers, preparing oppo research, ads, and focus grouping. He will need time for the Veepstakes. He will need time to shore up the base.
And all of this is why I hope Mitt wins IA. Let’s get this thing over with.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Now, if the primary is TOO short, it will give Mitt less earned media appearances, which allows Obama to attempt to define him before the mainstream public gets a real hard look at him.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Let’s not count chickens, guys. Keep it grounded.
In the meantime, I disagree that the Tea Party was ever really anti-Mitt. Some members were to be sure, especially the rabble-rousers. But many of the rank and file have always supported Mitt, or at least have not been hostile to him. Remember, the original TP was primarily about fiscal conservatism, which fits right in Mitt’s wheelhouse.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
#39:
I think it’s best that Romney has some kind of contest, if for the only reason that it makes Republican voters have to invest in him. If Romney wraps it up after 2 or 3 primaries, that wouldn’t smother some of the discontent about him because Republicans in Ohio or Texas or Pennsylvania might think “why should we work hard for him? He didn’t need our vote or listen to us to get the nomination.”
A super quick primary process, I feel, would do him more harm than good if only because it could give time for those voters in the later states to seethe at not having a say in the process.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
32 – Freedom Works is a sham. They destroyed the tea party movement, in my opinion.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
37 – I agree. Even if Santorum were to miraculously win in Iowa, he would be another Huckabee at best. Huck never had a shot at the nominating in 2007 either.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
41.
I’m not counting chickens, just doing the math. Which is obviously what Romney is doing.
He’s really raising his profile in Iowa for the final push and there is no way he would be doing this if he didn’t see a profoundly, fundamentally, transformational opportunity.
I hope Newt goes away soon and takes his adverbs with him.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
#41 In the Rasmussen poll today, Rasmussen said that Romney has the support of 75% of the Tea Party. I’m one of those that completely stopped listening to Rush this year.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
You know what I was thinking back in Fall ’09? I was thinking, “Great! Finally Mitt is going to have a shot at being the nominee in 2012. He’s their exact perfect candidate!”
Boy was I wrong.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
42
Yes, I agree, but think about this: If Romney has trouble getting the nomination, doesn’t that hurt his credibility? Plus, if the party is busy propping up also-rans and losers, and all of them keep Mitt’s numbers down, doesn’t that hurt the party’s credibility as well?
December 29th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I liked listening to Newt before he jumped on the RomNot tricycle. He makes some good points, but I always considered him somewhat of a satirist. He has always been very manipulative of his audience, which is amusing to listen to at times, but also somewhat disturbing. People that think his word approaches scripture scare me.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
OT: Has anyone read Erick Erickson’s hysterical rant about Rick Santorum, the “pro-life statist”? http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/29/rick-santorum-earmarxists-and-the-pro-life-statist/
In Erickson’s reading, Santorum was hounded out of Washington because he was… a big government statist. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was facing a pro-life Democratic son of an incredibly popular former Democratic Governor in a marginally Democratic state. Nor the fact that, far from trumpeting his wild, big-government, statist ideas, Santorum spent most of the campaign alternately railing against gay marriage and talking about “the gathering storm” menace of Islamofascism? These people are unreal. There’s something genuinely disturbing about this attempt to rewrite history and establish “the new truth” practically at the point of a gun. I can’t decide whether to hope it’s tactical dishonesty- in which case we have a low-grade Pravda on our hands- or actual delusion- in which case we have a group of people who are susceptible to a low-grade Pravda.
Santorum is not a pro-life statist. Santorum is extremely conservative on social issues, extremely conservative on foreign policy, and fairly conservative on economics. There is no sign, none, that Pennsylvania voters would have rewarded him with victory in ’06 if he’d been perfectly pure on economic issues: the evidence runs quite the other way- i.e, it was likely Santorum’s ability to talk passionately about issues which actually effect Pennsylvanians, manufacturing for instance, in a way that isn’t reflexively dogmatic that allowed them to overlook his too conservative outlook on everything else for years.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
#47:
The Tea Party morphed from being about fiscal issues into the umbrella name for those who were (rightly) ignored by the regular Republican Party. Those who lost out in power struggles, has-beens, wannabees and never-will-bees all declared themselves as Tea Party and suddenly they were listened to again. Take Bachmann; everyone in the GOP House Conference ignores her because she’s been a useless legislator. But the moment she slapped on the Tea Party label, she had a whole group of discontented people who listened to her and cheered her words and praised her non-success.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:44 pm
51
That’s actually a really interesting observation. Nice comment.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
#48:
I don’t necessarily think it hurts Romney’s credibility. If Hillary Clinton had eventually beaten Obama in the primaries, she would have been a more formidable candidate because she had gone through such a rigorous primary process. The liberal New York Senator/former First Lady became morphed into the champion of the working class Reagan Democrats.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
50
I read that earlier, and I thought Erickson is just so immersed in love for Perry, that he will try anything to keep Santorum from finishing ahead of Perry in Iowa.
However, Santorum IS a pro-life statist. But that’s not why he LOST in 06. It’s because he was out of step with the state in terms of the climate at the time.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:50 pm
53
That’s a different scenario. There was never a narrative running in 08 that Hillary was “unacceptable” to the Democrat Base, or that the party was nuts for picking a fringe candidate to go the long haul against her (Obama was far more credible than anyone in our primary besides Romney).
Now, with that said, if Romney had to go the distance against Rick Perry, then maybe his credibility would not be hurt. After all Perry looks, acts, sounds, and hails from a state that all represent what our party is. For Mitt to beat Perry in the GOP primary in a heated battle probably adds credibility. But Perry is out of it anyway.
If Mitt is forced to go long-haul against Santorum, Paul, or Noot, then his credibility is damaged.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
#50:
Part of the reason I decided to support Romney was that the True Conservative crowd like Erickson hate him so much. Erickson is about as useful to the Republican Party as Harold Stassen was after 1956.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
50.
>>There’s something genuinely disturbing about this attempt to rewrite history and establish “the new truth” practically at the point of a gun. I can’t decide whether to hope it’s tactical dishonesty- in which case we have a low-grade Pravda on our hands- or actual delusion- in which case we have a group of people who are susceptible to a low-grade Pravda.
I vote the latter. I wasted way too much time arguing with not Romneys about Romney’s actual record using facts and back up data only to be told time after time “No, Romney’s a big government liberal and to the left of Obama!”. There appear to be a lot more people in the Republican Party who are absolutely immune to facts and instead rely strictly on emotion and whatever they hear in their echo chamber of choice.
It is pretty disturbing and why I’ve given up on much of the True Conservative wing of the Party. They have moved the meaning of conservative not only impossibly far right but also made it so flexible that it can mean whatever they want whenever they want it to. It’s been said many times but Reagan is the perfect example. Lots of people continue to tout Reagan as the apex of conservatism yet if he were running today he would considered a flip flopping RINO.
I no longer care about the labels people assign to candidates, I just support the one who best fits my values.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Rush trashed McCain 24/7 last time. All that negative energy was still energy and McCain won the nomination. Maybe Rush is doing Romney a favor although as a Romney supporter I can’t tolerate to listen to him anymore. He’s not stupid….but he’s an egomaniac and Romney has never come begging for favors from Rush. Either way bring it on…it actually lends some credibility to Romney by being trashed by someone who is on there way out of fashion.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
I confess, I have an on-again, off-again, fondness for Santorum. He’s principled- genuinely, seriously, “my career is in peril but I don’t care because this is the right thing to do” principled. He’s almost certainly an excellent Catholic (note the 7 kids, including one with Trisomy-18, and think about the implications for how seriously he takes some frequently ignored church teachings) which, whatever you think of the Church, reflects well on him in the same way that Romney’s strong family life and apparently devout faith reflect well on him. And unlike Bachmann, he doesn’t grandstand. Sure he’s really grumpy and acerbic and probably much, much too conservative on social issues and foreign policy issues to win a general election in a normal cycle but, well, this isn’t a normal cycle. I’m happy he’s getting a surge here, even if it complicates things a little for Romney.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
42 – The RomNots are not a huge group, they are just loud and get a lot of media attention. I don’t see them being a huge burden in the general.
December 29th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
#55:
I do agree that from a purely nonpartisan point of view, the Democratic field last year is on the whole much better than the field our side has this year.
That being said, the knock on Clinton though was that she was unexciting or that she didn’t fire up the Democratic base. As she kept campaigning and campaigning and refused to stay down or get out of the race, Democrats gradually began to see a different side of Clinton that they hadn’t seen before. I think at a certain level, Democrats respected her desire to stay in the fight even though the odds at the end were so titled in Obama’s favor.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
59
It’s not a normal cycle, but Obama is going to be as tough to beat as Bush was in 2004. The economy is going to improve, including through next summer (that is, unless Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, but I don’t think they have the balls or the firepower anyway).
Santorum would get totally creamed against Obama. He’s way too far right on social issues and foreign policy for the independents to even consider. He has no national organization, little money, and his palette of issues is far out of step with the national dialogue.
That said, he’s better than Noot. But I am by no means happy he’s doing well. He has been a total jerk all year. He ENDORSED Romney in 2008, strongly, and now he hates him? He told Mitt “your time is up” during the debate as well, and it really turned me off. I have no use for the man.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Who hasn’t been reading the newspapers? The attacks never stopped. There’s just too much good news smothering it right now, but the undercurrent is definitely there and we’ll hear from the RomNots again.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
60
Mitt is only viewed “strongly unfavorable” by 4% of the party. Unfavs at 24%. Much better than all the other candidates, and actually, better than McCain in 2008 I’m guessing.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
#59:
Even though I agree with Santorum on most of his foreign policy stances, I find his personality way too off-putting. He just seems to me to be the guy who’s either attacking or whining, which is what we already have in the White House.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:09 pm
The religion-based RomNots in Iowa appear to be going into panic mode and want to circle their wagon around Bachmann or Santorum, maybe even Perry in desperation, but there is no concensus among the candidates or the supports on which 2 of the 3 should drop out.
However, I’m nervous, Santorum could become the IA anti-
MormonMitt and take the whole thing or come close to it. He would then go and cause trouble in SC.He can’t pull it off in the long run, but when it’s your dog in the fight, a quick victory is always preferential to a triple overtime squeaker win (which the media would just love of course)…
December 29th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Although I don’t comment a lot, I really appreciate the intelligent, honest, and civil dialogue that has gone on in this thread.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
I highly doubt that a whiny uber-NeoCon who seems to want the entire country to adopt traditional Catholic morality is going to defeat a president with an approval rating in the mid-to-upper-40s. That’s Harry Truman/Gerald Ford territory, which portends a very close election and which will require a reasonably strong candidate to unseat the incumbent. I’m not sure why folks seem to think that Obama is in Bush 41 or Carter territory. He’s doing much better than either of them in terms of job approval.
If Santorum does somehow manage to turn the race into a three-person battle going into South Carolina, it will be interesting to see whether he can beat Mitt and Paul in the Palmetto State. There’s an argument that can be made that South Carolina comes from a political, cultural, and social tradition that is quite distinct from that of Santorum. Conservative Protestants aren’t particularly fond of Catholicism; they prefer the prosperity gospel over the self-sacrifice commanded by the Church. And Santorum’s Rust Belt economics is hardly fodder for the economic model of the New South. As such, even if Santorum does especially well in Iowa, he may not be able to translate that showing into the finishes he’d need in other early states in order to remain a contender.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:12 pm
66
All the more reason to salivate Tuesday night if/when Mitt wins.
It will be a crisp, sunny morning in America when the Religi-stablishment in Iowa sees its demise, and as painfully as possible.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:14 pm
68
Consider this: How does Santorum reconcile his (and I’m assuming here) past fondness of PA unions with the Boeing NLRB ruling in SC? SC is a proud right-to-work state and Santorum just simply cannot play that card in a close race.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
67
This site is a lot better without Casuist, Sojourner Truth (Adam X), and Craigfer, isn’t it?
December 29th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
This report from ABC ought to make my fellow Romneyites happy. There’s something in the air:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/mitt-romney-top-republican-race-poll-15251853
December 29th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Dave G,
I largely agree with you. Simply from a cultural prospective, Santorum is even more alien than Romney to the average American. Both men lead almost unthinkably clean lives, both appear to be devout adherents to minority religions, but at least Romney’s this rich guy who’s got the history of calculation and wild expedience that Americans expect from their politicians (and, let’s face it, their neighbors). Santorum’s just an odd duck. Still, I’m not sure Obama’s in a strongish position- he’s been up, he’s been down. So much hinges on the fundamentals of the economy which, improving or not, are not going to be anywise good come November, that I think any temporary signs of strength are bound to be misleading. As hard as it is to believe, Republicans have not really brought to bear the sort of pressure an incumbent presiding over such a weak economy is vulnerable too. Division has prevented it. I think with a halfway decent nominee- one who can talk and has minimal baggage- they’ll at least have the opportunity to make that case. I don’t dismiss the possibility that Santorum could reach that relatively low bar. He won in Pennsylvania, statewide, twice, with essentially the same posture he’s taking now. It was only when the salience of social and foreign issues increased (with 9/11 and the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling) that he “outed” himself in PA. Now we’re back in more economically oriented times and the economically oriented Santorum is, I think, something like electable against a weakish Obama.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Anyone who has tried to attack Romney in the debates has lost the exchange with Romney.
Perry could have gone after those looking for competence, but then oopsgate & missing Virgina’s ballot happened.
Paul doesn’t want to claim competent leadership because then his racist newsletter is HIS racist newsletter.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
73
One thing I can hope for is that Santorum has enough of an impact for his 0% corporate tax on manufacturing to become part of the party platform, or at least a very low rate like 3%.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I fear no Rick. Santorum can go right ahead and win Iowa and South Carolina. If he does, its because he’s got the Huck’s Army folks doing his road work. How’d that work for Huck in 08? He finished third in the race…Santorum won’t fire up the So Con crowd the way Huck did…he lacks the pulpit-sense to do so.
As a Romney backer, I hope Santorum wins Iowa, as long as Mitt finishes top three.
December 29th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
#76 Riccardo: I think you’re right. We knew Huck and Rick is no Huck. Huck is perfect @ the pulpit. Rick? Uh, no. Mitt was pretty good in Ames today; did you see him on C-SPAN? Mitt’s message is good; the Constitution, the Declaration, America, the story of the 9-11 flag @ the Olympics. And then lots of friendly greetings, hugs and autograph signing afterwards. Believe in America. It’s a good message–especially if going mano a mano with Obama and the Dems, who have freaky notions of our nation.
I have to laugh that Obama gets labled not-quite-American, but how would things be different with Hillary? Or Elizabeth Warren that MassCon has started scaring us with?
December 29th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
Romney’s almost even money with Paul in Iowa on Intrade right now. 45-47
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=90932
December 29th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
KG..Yes I did. Mitt was very good today. The other reason a Santorum win is good for Mitt is that it dents Paul, it dents Newt big time, and it further gives permission to the sane folks in N Hampshire to go all in for Mitt(I sometimes worry that some voters in NH resent the Iowa outcome so much that they almost have a knee jerk “not the Iowans” vote. If Romney happens to kill it in Iowa, I can actually see it hurt him in New Hampshire).
December 30th, 2011 at 12:06 am
Interesting comments here in this thread. This is why I come to this site.
I generally agree with Matthew E. Miller about Santorum.
He’s principled- genuinely, seriously, “my career is in peril but I don’t care because this is the right thing to do” principled.
The above comment reminded me of the following nugget that I read recently, from this link:
Of the several hundred clients Brabender has had over the years, he says, Santorum is certainly unlike any other in his political calculations: When it looked like he was going to lose his first Senate race, in 1994, Brabender remembers him worrying that he might have blown it for his campaign workers. Trailing badly in his last race, against Robert P. Casey Jr. in 2006, “everyone was telling him to move to the middle or throw [George W.] Bush under the bus, but he looked at the polls and said, ‘I don’t see how I can win this, but I do have a microphone, so I’m going to use it to talk about Iran’ — then spent the next three weeks talking almost exclusively” about the threat posed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “No one could understand it.”
Santorum has long been one of my very favorite politicians, superseded by perhaps only Tom Coburn at this point.
December 30th, 2011 at 12:11 am
Paul just fell below Mitt in Iowa on Intrade 45-44.
Right now Intrade favors Romney to win the first 5 states.
December 30th, 2011 at 12:13 am
80 I like Santorum, but he’s viewed as a whiner, and his illegal immigration policies would destroy basically everything else he stands for as it would destroy the GOP (in my opinion).
December 30th, 2011 at 12:19 am
I’ve probably posted the following article here before, but just because I can, here it is again:
http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=338
I end with a story too corny to be true, but it’s true. A month ago Mr. Santorum and his wife were in the car driving to Washington for the debate with his opponent on “Meet the Press.” Their conversation turned to how brutal the campaign was, how hurt they’d both felt at all the attacks. Karen Santorum said it must be the same for Bob Casey and his family; they must be suffering. Rick Santorum said yes, it’s hard for them too. Then he said, “Let’s say a Rosary for them.” So they prayed for the Caseys as they hurtled south.
A friend of mine called them while they were praying. She told me about it later, but didn’t want it repeated. “No one would believe it,” she said.
But I asked Mr. Santorum about it. Sure, he said, surprised at my surprise. “We pray for the Caseys every night. We know it’s as hard for them as it is for us.”
Personally I’ll shed no tear for the careerists of either party who win or lose, nor for the BlackBerryed gargoyles in the second row of the SUV who tell them how to think and where to stand. That means this election night will be, for me, a dry-eyed affair.
But if Rick Santorum goes down to the defeat all expect, I will feel it. Like the crusty old moderate Republican, I know a national loss when I see one.
December 30th, 2011 at 12:29 am
#51
I think you may be onto something. Please, allow me to rant a bit.
Here is what I see-
An American Revival being successfully spearheaded by a Mormon got the attention of a lot of folks. Many felt compelled to get involved reasons other than those on display at the movements true pinnacle – Restoring Honor. Add to that the audacity of another Mormon running for the presidency. Mr. Vander Platts/Jefress types surely could not abide that. BUT these are only symptoms of the real problem.
Sadly I have also seen The Blaze quickly degenerate to what is largely a peeing contest between hateful condescending atheists vs hateful condescending “christians” vs. trolls, who sometimes team up against them “mormonites”. Nevermind winng friends, everyone needs to win the point. Who cares if they can hear you, as long as you get to speak. Not even so much as the good ol’ the tripping of your neighbor to feign helping them up. The flags only wave when needed to cheer their ABR candidate de jour. Gotta say, I am highly disappointed in what the movement has become. It seems we tend to forget the spirit of the law when we are too busy trying and use the letter of the law to cut others off. This is not really about religion, per se, but the kind of people we are as a nation. We have lost a lot over the years, and it seems that many want us to be fixed so fast that they rush to quick solutions, yet they fail to see that what they prescribe will not work. If I decided I was just going to get up and run 5 miles at my old Army days pace, I may well do more harm if I have failed to prepare. I am not the nimble and invincible 18 year old anymore. To that, I would ask, have we maintained ourselves as a people whom our Founders envisioned The Constitution for? Some yes, but most, no. Do we really think that America will be saved if we continue to refuse to look in the mirror at the weak diseased fatbody staring back? The facts are, we can have all the knowledge in the world, the greatest Constitution and George Washington as President, but if we only give it lip service to legitemize porn, indecency, filth, extortion, dishonesty, divorce, abortion, etc, it will not work no matter how hard we wave that flag. The things we desire individually are far more important. Many fail to see that liberty was never licentiousness. It is time to stop the mob cheering or jeering from the bleachers, and time to live what it is we believe to be right and good, because it will be tested. The party is over. Whether or not we fail to rise to this greatest of occasions, I presume will be evidenced by what our children have become. Ask the WW2 generation about that one…
December 30th, 2011 at 12:57 am
“This site is a lot better without Casuist, Sojourner Truth (Adam X), and Craigfer, isn’t it?”
Yes. But I’d like to see some of the more fair-minded and intelligent anti-Romney folks (MarqueG, Smack) a little more.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:07 am
Santorum would get nowhere in a general election for the same reason he lost in Pennsylvania to the most boring man on the planet. He is an ideologue. Americans don’t like to elect ideologues. I can’t think of a single instance in the last 100 years of an overt ideologue being elected President. You might say Obama is an ideologue, and I might agree with that, but he didn’t campaign as one and most people didn’t think of him as one when he was elected (though it was obvious that he was one).
Santorum is an overt ideologue and will campaign as one. If he is the nominee (which I highly doubt), he will crash and burn. That might make some fellow ideologues excited, but it would be terrible for the country and terrible for the Republican Party.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:08 am
85 is the reason Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance as well.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:10 am
83. Flagkeeper, you’d get more readership and response if you broke up your thoughts into manageable bites. You posted one big block of text and it almost just looks like gray paint.
December 30th, 2011 at 1:54 am
87,
Yeah, you’re right. I’ll keep that in mind.
I was just ranting a bit. I would have probably melted my buddy’s ear off if I were speaking it, too!
December 30th, 2011 at 1:57 am
Here is what I see-
An American Revival being successfully spearheaded by a Mormon got the attention of a lot of folks. Many felt compelled to get involved reasons other than those on display at the movements true pinnacle – Restoring Honor. Add to that the audacity of another Mormon running for the presidency. Mr. Vander Platts/Jefress types surely could not abide that. BUT these are only symptoms of the real problem.
Sadly I have also seen The Blaze quickly degenerate to what is largely a peeing contest between hateful condescending atheists vs hateful condescending “Christians” vs. trolls, who sometimes team up against them “mormonites”. Never mind winning friends, everyone needs to win the point. Who cares if they can hear you, as long as you get to speak. Not even so much as the good ol’ the tripping of your neighbor to feign helping them up. The flags only wave when needed to cheer their ABR candidate de jour.
Gotta say, I am highly disappointed in what the movement has become. It seems we tend to forget the spirit of the law when we are too busy trying and use the letter of the law to cut others off. This is not really about religion, per se, but the kind of people we are as a nation. We have lost a lot over the years, and it seems that many want us to be fixed so fast that they rush to quick solutions, yet they fail to see that what they prescribe will not work. If I decided I was just going to get up and run 5 miles at my old Army days pace, I may well do more harm if I have failed to prepare. I am not the nimble and invincible 18 year old anymore.
To that, I would ask, have we maintained ourselves as a people whom our Founders envisioned The Constitution for? Some yes, but most, no. Do we really think that America will be saved if we continue to refuse to look in the mirror at the weak diseased fatbody staring back? The facts are, we can have all the knowledge in the world, the greatest Constitution and George Washington as President, but if we only give it lip service to legitimize porn, indecency, filth, extortion, dishonesty, divorce, abortion, etc, it will not work no matter how hard we wave that flag. The things we desire individually are far more important. Many fail to see that liberty was never licentiousness.
It is time to stop the mob cheering or jeering from the bleachers, and time to live what it is we believe to be right and good, because it will be tested. The party is over. Whether or not we fail to rise to this greatest of occasions, I presume will be evidenced by what our children have become. Ask the WW2 generation about that one…
December 30th, 2011 at 2:15 am
America doesn’t elect ideologues… but Republicans might in 2011-12.
The Republican party seems to have a death wish.
I’m so sick of the games. I’m so absolutely sick of the “Anyone But Romney” bigots, it is going to take a whole bunch of support to convince me the Republican Party is worth any effort.
Republicans are just as dishonest, just as corrupt as any Democrat. Look at Rush Limbaugh! Look at how Demint started to endorse then chickened out! Look how everyone who dared support Romney (the only real candidate, for Pete’s sake) if you dared say that out loud… you were shouted down by the bigots like Ericksen.
This has been a very damaging Primary. I will never trust Fox News or Talk Radio again.
If Romney wins in spite of the hate mongerers… then he will be a strong candidate to go against Obama.
But beating Obama is the goal, not helping the Republican Party. The Party isn’t worth a dime of time or effort. It’s full of hypocrites.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:31 am
90. “The Republican Party seems to have a death wish.”
Sadly, I’ve wondered that at times myself.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:34 am
79. Riccardo, I’ve come to the conclusion that Romney wins one way or the other with Iowa. He’s literally worked Iowa to a “stale mate”.
December 30th, 2011 at 6:54 am
84
MWS keeps things interesting also.
December 30th, 2011 at 7:04 am
I couldn’t be happier about Mitt’s general election position.
He dispatched crazy person after crazy person in the primary, and he did it without pandering and being put in anybody’s pocket. Obama would love to attack our nominee as being in the Tea Party’s pocket, but so far, Mitt has pretty much ignored them and definitely NOT been the tea party candidate. And Fox News for MONTHS has been propping up other candidates. Rush and other conservative talk radio guys? -Nope, sorry Barrack, you can’t use those against Mitt either.
And for some reason Mitt has been branded as the “Moderate.” Read his book – the guy checks off every conservative box there is.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:26 am
marK,
I think you’re pretty right here. There are three brackets in this tourney. The Not Mitt bracket is Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Newt. The Not Not Mitt bracket is Mitt and J-Hunt. Paul is his own bracket, and not really in the Tourney.
So naturally, all the Not Mitt candidates have to eliminate each other to advance to the finals. J-Hunt, however, is the only one who has to eliminate Mitt to advance to the finals. But nobody’s really paying attention to him.
I suspect Iowa will pretty well settle the Not Mitt bracket. Then you will see more direct attacks on Mitt. If the Not Mitt bracket is still muddled after Iowa, that’s definitely good for Romney. In that case, South Carolina will settle the Not Mitt bracket.
The Not Not Mitt bracket will be settled in New Hampshire. Jon is almost out of time. He pretty well needs a hail mary, a two point conversion, an on-side kick, and a field goal to win that- all in the last two minutes.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Mark PA,
Mitt has done a better job laying off the pandering, but Team Obama will still effectively use the Tea Party as a wedge (no matter who is our nominee), in the same way we used the anti-war left against Kerry in ’04.
Obama will press our nominee to profess his true feelings for the Tea Party, in great detail, repeatedly, before a national audience. He knows the Tea Party demands undying love and devotion. He also knows any nominee who gives them that, will have trouble with Indies.
It’s a no-brainer for Obama, and it’s coming regardless. Santorum, Perry, Newt, and Bachmann have already proposed to the Tea Party of course. Mitt has not, but it will be interesting to see how he handles them next Fall. Historically, he has not been good at finessing thorny issues.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:31 am
Romney shares my American values. I would appreciate seeing his competence, preparation, and hard work pay off. They have him get to work for my interests. Go man.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:33 am
You know, one other point. Other candidates and posters here lament frequently what an awful system we have. I can appreciate that Romney studied it for what it was, didn’t whine or lament, and just got to work doing the long tedious things that win you support. Give the man credit, win or lose, he has the American work ethic. Doesn’t expect anything for free.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:38 am
Saveor,
For all the crap I give Mitt and all his faults, there are a few things I’ve always admired in him.
1. His work ethic.
2. His seriousness of purpose.
3. His personal ethics.
December 30th, 2011 at 8:59 am
The only thing I’m truly certain about, even at this late moment, is that the Bachmann campaign is over. She is going through the motions, and the only thing left to determine is when she pulls the plug. Perry may continue, but as a non-factor. Santorum’s surge should finish them off.
99: Romney is a very good person, principled and a very hard worker. These are great qualities. They are not accentuated enough by the people who love him the most. Stop looking under the bed for all of the bigots. Just because they are real doesn’t mean that they are there. My objection to the religion thing is not its validity, it’s sadly valid. It is this flimsy, lazy rationale that his religion is the real thing holding him back and if it weren’t for that then America would embrace him. You’re dreaming, and you’re wrong. The abortion issue and to a lesser extent the healthcare issue are the real reasons people don’t get behind Mitt. To the people to whom the issue of life matters the most, they don’t trust Romney. Right or wrong, that is what it is.
I want him to succeed because I think given the context of this race in this cycle that he is the best choice going forward. I am realistic about his flaws but appreciate his strengths.
December 30th, 2011 at 9:03 am
I also think given the nature of this discourse, there might be some reality setting in about where this race is heading. IA is always a wild card, but I think the outcome of this race at this point appears to be that Romney is going to take the nomination. Anything can happen I know
December 30th, 2011 at 9:07 am
Romney’s religion doesn’t bother me because he made it in the godless den of finance / Wall Street. That means his religion doesn’t cause him to come unhinged or to lose focus. Whatever Romney’s personal beliefs are, we can know he’ll not act on them.
December 30th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Alvin,
#100 I agree about the trust issues. Though for some, it’s not health care and abortion per se, but what they represent- the idea that Mitt will say anything to get elected and lacks core beliefs.
December 30th, 2011 at 9:44 am
103 – Huh? How does RomneyCare prove he will say anything to get elected?
December 30th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Jax,
He touted it in ’07 as his signature achievement, and proof of his Can Do abilities. Now he treats it like the proverbial red headed stepchild.
December 30th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Nobody attacking Romney? Really? Have the last six months been a figment of my imagination?
December 30th, 2011 at 10:08 am
105 – No he doesn’t. He has defended it every time it is brought up. People have turned on it (obviously). Why on earth would he be emphasizing something that people don’t like?
December 30th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Jax,
“He has defended it every time it is brought up.”
He’ll defend it, but he doesn’t bring it up anymore. He also soft peddles it (well, it was mostly the Democrat legislature, I was just trying to make it less bad). He has also stopped touting mandates, like he did in ’08. He shifted from it being his baby in ’08, to him just being a temporary foster parent in ’12.
But Romneycare probably makes people question Mitt’s conservatism more than his tendency to say whatever it takes to win.
December 30th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Matt,
I like your “bracket” analogy. It is spot on, in my opinion.
December 30th, 2011 at 10:19 am
108 – Of course he doesn’t. Do you think he is insane? Your logic baffles me sometimes. Pure objective analysis though, right?
December 30th, 2011 at 10:23 am
Matt.95:
You forget the Grand Slam, three ringers, and a last minute header into the net. Even then he won’t win unless Mitt lands on Boardwalk.
December 30th, 2011 at 10:30 am
“Whatever Romney’s personal beliefs are, we can know he’ll not act on them.”
Econ,
Romney acts on his religion every day by being a good person, by staying in a committed relationship, by treating his wife well, etc. He just doesn’t wear it on his sleeve and will never try to make it part of the national government.
December 30th, 2011 at 11:20 am
101
I find it hard to believe that abortion is the issue holding Mitt back. He changed his position years ago and as governor was consistently pro-life and has been so ever since. Other candidates over the years have changed positions on abortion and been elected (e.g. Reagan).
I think that the negative campaigning by McCain and to a lesser extent Huck and the evangelicals last round painted an inaccurate picture of Mitt that stuck.
Flip flop is one of them — and it’s really not that true, but it stuck.
The clips of his Kennedy debate have been rather damning, too — even though when you watch the entire debate, you see that he was quite conservative then, too.
So, as a staunch Romney supporter, I’m a bit baffled by the resistance of folks.
In talking with Matt MWS, a couple of months ago, he finally admitted that he likes most Mitt’s policies and positions but just doesn’t believe him.
And, that’s probably the case for many.
But, for many more, it’s a case of having been exposed to the inaccurate picture of him. And, for many, as they begin to see the real Mitt, they’re pleasantly surprised and find themselves ready to support him.
December 30th, 2011 at 11:23 am
MWS,
I think what you are saying is true. In a larger sense, there are the trust issues in general. The abortion one is the biggie though. Winning IA is hard for him because of the evangelicals, but instead of reasoning that it’s because he’s Mormon I tend to believe it has everything to do with the life issue. Romney has been good in explaining his change of heart, but it remains to be seen if he’s convinced the electorate or not. If so, then he can and probably will win IA…bigotry and all
December 30th, 2011 at 11:24 am
114,
Fair enough. But it matters to a lot of people, and a lot of people don’t believe him. Other people switch their positions on subjects all the time, and they are scrutinized to a much lesser extent. If not the fact of mutability itself then the content of those changes must be considered
December 30th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
It’s Romney. Trust no politician, but if you have to get behind one, this is the guy.
December 30th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
[...] of our regular commenters, Matt “MWS” wrote on another thread (emphasis added): … There are three brackets in this tourney. The Not Mitt bracket is [...]