Why Romney Cannot Win
You all probably remember my good friend Michael van der Galien. He's the guy who wrote an 'ironic' post about the star qualities of Gov. Palin which led to a little back and forth between C4P and his site, Poligazette.
In all seriousness, Michael actually is a good friend of mine. He may be wrong about one big thing (i.e. his blind, uncritical support for the Mittrosexual Man), but he is right about a lot of other things. If I'd have to pick a man to stand next to me in the trenches to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness against the socialist hordes of Obama & Co, Michael would probably be that man. But even the best of friends can have the odd argument, and well, he's asking for one with his latest post.
Unable - or is it unwilling? - to see the WaPo poll for what it is, namely a politically motivated push poll cut out of whole cloth for the purpose of 'phraming' Palin's farewell speech as Governor this coming Sunday as being merely another step on the inevitable road to oblivion, Michael decides to act as if the poll contains actually relevant pieces of data. I mean come on Michael, you're a serious citizen journalist. A poll that oversamples Democrats vs. Republicans by a good four or five percent (33D 22R), and that doesn't even use registered voters, let alone the infinitely more reliable category of likely voters, is not a serious poll and doesn't deserve to be treated like one. You know this as well as I do (as does your friend AP, whose anti-Palin hackery is getting beyond the stage of deeply tiresome), and still you decide to write about this poll as if it is divinely inspired. What possible motive could you have for this, apart from trying to promote the cause of your candidate by trying to damage that of one of his main contenders?
Well, two can play that game, Michael. In fact, I'll have a lot more to work with than you do. I'm not referring to the many serious objections to Romney's candidacy (his disastrous healthcare reform project in Massachusetts, his anti-Reagan statements in the early nineties, his flipflopping on a key issue like abortion) or the non-serious ones, like the fact that he's boring (as in: 50 people, Michael. 50. And half of them were probably on Romney's payroll. Then again, boring men sometimes do end up winning their party's nomination. They always lose in the end, but that's another matter), or the fact that he's a Mormon (who cares - apart from Mike Huckabee, that is?).
No, I'll limit myself to the most serious, and potentially most deadly, objection to Romney, which is that his own party's voters simply don't dig the man. Just look at the data from this poll by Democratic pollsters PPP (before you ask: it's a registered voters survey, with party ID 42D, 35R, 23I - a reliable survey basically, unlike the one you used for your post). The figures make pretty devastating reading for Romney-fans. Among all Republican voters, Romney is 12 points behind Huckabee, 22 points behind Palin. Among conservative Republicans (75 percent of the electorate in the GOP primaries), the gap with Palin is even wider: 23 percent (81-58). Oh and before you get your hopes up about Romney somehow making up this astronomical difference through his support among moderate Republican voters: forget it. Even among what should be his core constituency, Romney trails Huckabee by 8 percent and Palin by a whopping 19 percent.
Face it Michael: Romney's toast. He's a flipflopper, a fake, a phony, a guy who can't even decide which state he's supposed to be from (is it Michigan? Utah? Massachusetts? You tell me). People smell his fakery a hundred miles away, and they avoid it like the plague. That's the reason only 50 people showed up at that campaign event in New Jersey, that's why he finished third in the weakest presidential field the GOP had produced in the past hundred years or so. And that's why he's trailing the other main contenders for the 2012 nomination by at least ten percent - even among his supposed core constituency of moderates.
Three years is plenty of time to take away any lingering doubts voters may have about Palin's fitness for the presidency. But all the time in the world won't be enought to convince conservative Republican voters that Romney is really one of them. Because deep down inside, he simply isn't.
Now Michael, if you want more of this, all I can say is: bring it on. But I suggest you use the rest of this weekend to ponder the deeper meaning of Reagan's 11th Commandment. There is a war on for the soul of the American project, with an ultraliberal in the White House who is determined to change his country into a European-style social democracy, but for some reason moderate Republicans like yourself are more interested in fighting Gov. Palin. It reminds me of that old Churchill anecdote when an young backbench MP approached the great old man, pointed at the Labour benches and asked him what he thought of 'the enemy'. "The enemy?", he answered. "My boy, that is the opposition. The enemy is seated behind me."







71 comments:
Oh, it's on.
The Gay Mafia of the entertainment/news media complex will destroy Mittens and the Church of Latter Day Saints if he's the nominee of the Republican Party.
It *might* even be on the same level that the MSM has been trying to destroy Sarah for the last 11 months.
Why would the Republican Party put itself through this in the summer/fall of 2012?
I think it bothers certain people, shall we say, elites, that she was born with just an every day spoon in her mouth, and she didn't lawyer up to higher office.
Romney's dilemma is that he's the type of candidate who can attract people from both parties and some Independents in a general election, but he CANNOT make it to the general election because not enough of the base will vote for him in the primaries.
As long as he keeps polling low with Republicans, he cannot make it out of the primary - period.
And let's face facts. He did well in 2008 because Romney was not the establishment candidate. He was "the outsider" and McCain was the establishment, so Romney was attractive to the base for that reason.
Proof? He won most of the caucuses, and to win those, you need to attract the rabid portion of the base; the intensely political wing of the party will go duke it out at caucuses, and Romney had most of those folks.
But in 2012? He is now the establishment candidate and he'll be up against 2 candidates who are attractive to the base - Palin and Huck.
Romney's only chance early on is New Hampshire; he won't win Iowa (caucus), Nevada (caucus) nor South Caroline (the South). If Palin or Huck win those 3, the momentum is with them for Super Tuesday.
Iowa will be important.
In Denison, Iowa in 2008 Romney got a crowd of 75 people who ate Mitt’s sweet rolls and sipped his coffee. 75 people seemed to be Romney's peek in Iowa.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/29/polit...
Palin:
Des Moines — Hy-Vee Hall - capacity crowd of 10,000 (Obama needed Oprah's help to fill this venue.)
http://iowaindependent.com/7536/more-than-10000-greet-palin -in-des-moines
http://iowaindependent.com/7518/palin-in-obama-america-peop le-are-not-free" target="_blank">http://iowaindependent.com/7518/palin-in-obama-america-peop le-are-not-free
Dubuque - 5000
http://iowaindependent.com/8046/palin-draws-tri-state-audie nce-in-dubuque
Sioux City - 5000
http://iowaindependent.com/7518/palin-in-obama-america-peop le-are-not-free" target="_blank">http://iowaindependent.com/7518/palin-in-obama-america-peop le-are-not-free
http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/33605364.html
In the Georgia senate run off, Mitt Romney embarrassed himself campaigning for Chambliss. In Savannah only 100 people wanted to see bland old Mitt.
http://www.news4jax.com/news4georgia/18178922/detail.html
Mitt's Atlanta crowd was about 300.
http://www.ajc.com/henry/content/metro/stories/2008/11/21/romney_ch...
5 million people live in the Metro Atlanta area.
Palin, on Monday morning, December 1, 2008, drew 6,000 at the Gwinnett Civic Center in Duluth
http://www.georgiawomenformccain.org/Palin_Gwinnett.htm
She also drew:
2,000 in Savannah;
3-4,000 in Augusta; and
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/story
/sarah_palin_tells_augusta_crowd_to_get_out_and_vote/
2,500 in Perry.
BTW, only 10,000 people live in Perry, GA!
Don't think crowd size matters? Ask Thomas Dewey.
Awesome post Joshua! You articulated what many of us ordinary barbarians think about Romney. He's an uninspiring flip flopper who is not particularly conservative or likeable. In short, as RAM has noted, Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry.
Duh!
Of course Palin is the farrrrrr stronger candidate
which is precisely why the MSM is putting out stuff trying to show Romney as the stronger candidate and Palin the weaker.
Whatever the MSM says and puts out re the GOP '12 POTUS nominees -- ALWAYS DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE!!!
But I think readers here already know that.
AND DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT ZOGBY SAYS --
"Zogby: GOP Faces Risk of Extinction
Pollster John Zogby says the Republican Party could be "teetering on the brink" of extinction as it fails to appeal to the fastest-growing demographic groups in America
http://www.newsmax.com/index.html
You know, I had very high hopes for Michael Steele -- but he just doesn't seem to have the stuff; doesn't seem to quite get it -- seems like he's too much the same old same old...
What say anybody else on this?
I wish I were wrong, but Steele seems more concerned with a broad bland consensus of old party thinking, rather than firing up the base of conservatives -- which will draw more voters with excitement and enthusiasm -- ala Sarah Palin!
Josh,
What's the point of this post? Couldn't you argue with Michael about his article over at Poligazette?
I don't Palin cares very much about the Washington Post poll at this point or the prospect of competing against either Huckabee or Romney.
Keep Your Friends Close... But Your Enemies Closer...
So, this seems to be getting confusing, doesn't it?
>>> Who Is The Enemy...?
Joshua, re: the Churchill quote in your last sentence...
" ... a young backbench MP ... pointed at the Labour benches ... asked him what he thought of 'the enemy'.
"The enemy?", he answered.
"My boy, that is the opposition.
"The enemy is seated behind me."
I guess this means that Sarah needs to keep the Republican party "enemies" close to the vest... for self-preservation.
This is gettin' weird, huh?
This is the gist of what I have been writing about the entire week that Romney is in a vulnerable position due to his shrinking numbers across-the-board with Republicans.
I believe it could be a one-time blip on the radar due to the healthcare debate in which like McCain who was severely damaged by the illegal immigration bill in the Senate, Romney may be able to eventually recover his standing among Republicans.
Frankly I don't know but I am not as pessmistic as Joshua about Romney's chances. If I were Romney here is what I would do to regain my standing among the GOP. Offer to go from state to state doing free fundraisers and committing to helping Congressmen to get elected in 2010. Then I would do everything in my power to throw some love towards Mike Huckabee to keep him in the race and by the same token subtly marginalize Sarah with evangelicals by invoking misogyny and 'the Palin family tabloid saga and Levi Johnston' and the lack of economic leadership skills of Sarah.
And then I would fight Palin for the moderate Republicans and moderate independents who are permitted to vote in GOP primaries.
My strategy would be to get around 35% of the vote in each state with Palin coming in at about 30% and Huckabee 25% and Gingrich 10%.
Romney could win by coming up the middle.
Of course this strategy is highly dependent on Huckabee having the credibility to inflict huge damage to Sarah among evangelicals and the wherwithal and will to stay in the primaries long enough so that Romney is seen as the most likely nominee.
i agree that Palin is better than Romney, but your last paragraph on the 11th amendment falls a little bit flat considering the tone of this post
but that's another matter), or the fact that he's a Mormon (who cares - apart from Mike Huckabee, that is?).
Maybe Glenn Beck - We shall see
Here is the "One Thing"
I have never understood how a Mormon can be Libertarian or for that matter how a Libertarian can be a Mormon.
Hold on just one second:
Maybe I confused Mormon with Scientologist and Glenn Beck with Tom Cruize? Wait a second, Tom Cruise is not a Libertarian.
I doubt that Ayn Rand ever knew any Mormons at least not well enough to have over for dinner.
Sometimes the politcal and religous worlds become awfully confusing. Maybe that is why our founding fathers.....
Palin 2012- Upbuilding the American Dream.
RomneyCare anyone?
------------------------------
"Healthcare cost increases dominate Mass. budget debate," Boston Globe, March 26, 2008.
"We've said from the beginning that the basic problem with the reform is that if you don't restructure the system, it becomes rapidly unaffordable and the commitment to cover people begins to fade," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a government-run health system like Canada's. "We're seeing that begin to happen."
…….
[Mass. State Budget Official] Kirwan said the state expects to spend substantially more for insurance subsidies than the $869 million Governor Deval Patrick proposed in his 2009 budget just two months ago, because of increasing enrollment and higher payments to insurers. In private briefings, she has told coalition members that the cost could be $100 million more, according to several who were present. The administration declined to confirm that number.
……..
Meanwhile, healthcare costs statewide are rising by about 10 percent a year. A council established by the health reform law has developed some proposals to reduce cost growth, and several bills are pending in the Legislature. But the task is daunting.
…………..
"Expanding coverage is easy compared to controlling healthcare costs," said Nancy Turnbull, a Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector board member and associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health. "Nobody has to give much up to expand coverage, but in controlling cost there will always be losers."
-------------------------------
Good thing the guy leading this charge was a hard headed articulate republican businessman, well schooled in the issues, and seasoned by insider experience.
Massachusetts has about 6.5 million people. The U.S. has about 300 million. You do the extrapolation.
Really Hardy, I cannot see the signal!
Ted said...
AND DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT ZOGBY SAYS --
"Zogby: GOP Faces Risk of Extinction
Pollster John Zogby says the Republican Party could be "teetering on the brink" of extinction as it fails to appeal to the fastest-growing demographic groups in America
http://www.newsmax.com/index.html
===============
Zogby or whoever commissioned this poll just doesn't get it.
In my opinion the terms Democrats and Republicans are just meaningless labels especially with open Primaries
What is important are the breakdown among
1. Conservatives
2. Liberals
3. Libertarians
4. Others
Palin 2012 - Upbuilding the American Dream
The antipathy between Huckabee and Romney will ultimately help Sarah, because Romneybots will switch over to her. If Sarah does run, she should keep the Romney bashing to a minimum in order to soak up his supporters later on. Huckabee has already burned his bridge with the Romneybots. I'd prefer it that Sarah bash only Obama and his policies, and ignore Romney and Huckabee as much as possible. In the debates, she'll eat them alive, but nicely. The 'quitting' meme against her will be old news by then and ineffective.
I love Palin, but if she isn't going to be running in 2012, I hope Romeny isn't the candidate. I'm sorry, he isn't that great. I don't see why people think he is so awesome. I honestly would rather take Pawlenty any day than Huck or Romney.
Tammy Bruce is talking about Palin
http://wms141.netromedia.net/tammybruceshow
Tammy says after her speech in Wasilla a guy yelled out, "We want you to be our commander in chief", and she saluted him. :)
And she says Palin will be on Tammy Bruce show soon.
My guess is that SP will be drafted by the masses to run in 2012 and that she is too patriotic to turn them and America down
Palin 2012 - Upbuilding the American Dream
The only credibility Romney has is economic,right now, very important.Sarah just needs some good economic planks and plans to overcome him. I definitely think that she has the ability and savy for that.
EdFab:
Don't be so sure that Romney and Huckabee will remain constantly at odds. Politics makes strange bedfellows. If Romney makes a huge political promise to Huck (implementation of the Fair Tax, VP or a major cabinet post)for Huck to stay in long enough to bleed away support from Sarah, Romney could prevail.
Do I think it will happen? No.
But remember I am a simpleton. If I could come up with this strategy there are far smarter politicos than I that could figure this out as well.
Dee,
I can see myself supporting T-Paw if Palin doesn't run. I know he's moderate, but after Palin, there isn't a conservative that I can see running in 2012. The rest are moderates and if I have to choose between moderates, I'll go with Pawlenty.
tim c said...
The only credibility Romney has is economic,right now, very important.Sarah just needs some good economic planks and plans to overcome him. I definitely think that she has the ability and savy for that.
_____________________________________________-
One of the polls, I think it was Rasmussen, showed Palin tied with Romney on the economic credibility factor and she led him when it comes to national security. So it wouldn't be far-fetched to say she can steal Romney's cred on the economy, especially if she starts hammering away at Cap and Trade and ties it to economic and national security.
I'm sick of voting against someone. If Snow White's not running, I don't think I will be able to support any of the dwarfs.
The dwarfs are what gave us the Obama disaster.
techno, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah takes away most of Huckabee's support well before the primaries. She's got plenty of time to do it.
EdFab:
I think that will happen as well, but I never count my chickens before they're hatched.
The two things that I admit that I am not that conversant with is:
1)The sway or lack of sway of Huck's personality over evangelicals because he was a former preacher
2)the intensity of misogyny in the evangelical community in relation to voting patterns
There's going to be (if there isn't already) a GOP civil war for control of the party for the next three years. Between the "intellectuals" and the flyover state conservatives.
The intellectuals already have seemed to have handed Romney the nomination already. The flyover conservatives see Romney as a used car salesman.
But it goes far beyond them. Limbaugh was spot on on the mindset of the Bos-NY-DC corridor's overall attitude towards the flyover conservatives.
They way the conservatives treated Bobby Jindal after his GOP response to the Obama joint session address is another example. The way Kay Bailey Hutchinson has been adored by the intellectual while turning their back on Rick Perry for his "Independent Texas attitude" has also infuriated flyover conservatives.
Nobody knows what's going to happen between now and then but with propped up GOP future leaders fading away and the flyover conservative leaders getting attacked the time is now for Palin, Jindal, and Perry to step up and take this party back from the "intellectuals" before Washington becomes a city of two letters ( R & D) but only one party.
The RNC establishment is in the hot seat. If they alienate themselves from the base by attacking (or not defending) Sarah, then they really are in trouble existentially. A 'Conservative Party' is not an impossibility. If twits like David Frum amd Bay Buchannan (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/25/palin-debate-frum-vs-coulter-vs-bay-buchanan/) along with jerks like Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker are to be the RNC's spokespeople, then the hell with the RNC.
Tottally unnecessary post. Can we save the Romney/huckabee bashing for the comment sections?
It's not that I disagree with you....just think being humble will win you more in the end.
Sarah is a voice for all consevatives. Even those who love Romney.
Just keepin it real.
I can't help but believe if Sarah runs that she will slaughter these guys in the debates.
She is an excellent debater. Those town hall type debates she will be such a natural because she is so comfortable with people and connects with them.
As long as she has a command of the issues she will shine bright in debates. This will propell her past Romney and Huck.
Add to that her fired up base and even conservative talk radio being on her side, I think that the nomination is still hers to lose.
She needs to get educated on key issues, not do anything stupid personally, collect IOU's and raise lots of money.
If Sarah wants to be POTUS, she has to go for it now.
talking about polls: Rush says something that keeps reminding me giving me great hope and courage...and that's: The liberals and MSM are telling us who our next nominee should be...the one they fear most. And that is Sarah. They are not fighting Huck or Mitt actually they want Huck or Mitt to win the nomination because they know both are weak. The liberals running this country may be radicals but not stupid. So take courage. Sarah is the REAL deal.
Hmmmm.
Notice Tammy doesn't seem to be called on to sub for Laura Ingraham anymore?
Could be she's too pro-Palin?
And if someone's theory is that Laura's ticked Sarah hasn't gone on her show is true, then Laura's NOT going to be happy if Sarah goes on Tammy Bruce ...
Tammy just said to those calling for Perry/Palin,
"Listen, Palin's never going to the d##### #2 on the ticket again. If you want her again, she's going to be on top!"
Dee,
I agree that Tim Pawlenty is an interesting candidate and one if Palin seeks the nomination should be strongly considered for VP. As far as Romney, I agree with all that he is a fatally flawed candidate, but he does have money and it seems the backing of the establishment wing of the party, i.e. the Bush clan.
Below is a theory:
The Bush clan has been involved in the party for a long time and are the de facto kingmakers in the party. This has been the case since back when Reagan ran and chose George Bush senior as vice president. Since then, by virtue of attaining the presidency, the Bushes have managed to place their folks all around the GOP establishment and essentially have an iron lock on the nomination process.
They controlled the Bob Dole nomination to make way for George W. They controlled the McCain nomination because they owed McCain for the terrible assault on McCain in 2000. Nonetheless, when McCain actually tried to win the election selecting Sarah Palin, George W. (not ironically) sunk the economy right when McCain/Palin were ahead in the polls. So the question for all of us is what are the Bush team up to in 2012?
We know they don't like Palin (try listening to Rove talk about her) because she is a true believer in taking power from the establishment and giving it back to the people; in other words a true conservative. I think that they like Romney, but with Jeb Bush still in the mix it is unlikely that they will allow him to become president without a guarantee that Jeb is on the ticket as VP. Romney has gone out of his way to get in the good graces of the Bushes, recall his "great Mormon speech" at the Bush library. So I suspect he will play ball. However, Palin's poll numbers among conservatives and republicans (consistently over 70%) have to be dealt with otherwise she will upset the establishments wishes as Reagan did in 1980.
Look for the Bush clan to recruit another one of their acolytes, Mitch Daniels to divide the conservative vote to make way for a Romney win. Romney will run as a moderate, actually embracing his universal health care scheme in Massachusetts, and rely on Daniels to do what Fred Thompson did for McCain. Then Romney will choose a "conservative" to be his VP, who will be none other than Jeb Bush. Indeed I suspect that Jeb Bush will also run in 2012 to also weaken Palin's conservative support, but will only do so to get on the ticket. So I see the contenders in 2012 to be a wide field including,
Sarah Palin
Mitt Romney
Jeb Bush
Tim Pawlenty
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
All of these people's arrows will be directed at Palin. Especially Mitch Daniels and Mitt Romney. Jeb Bush will not attack Palin to retain credibility with the conservative base for the time that he is chosen as VP. Huckabee and Pawlenty are outsiders to the establishment's game, so are candidates that Palin make look to align with against the establishment.
No matter how all this shakes out, I know that the Bush clan is not fond of Palin and I know that they are the power in the establishment. I know that they have designs to secure the presidency in some way to get their guy in. Who they use and how they use them is pure speculation, nonetheless this is a scenario that in my mind goes to their thinking for 2012. Obviously, these guys are strategically at a higher level than I am since they have been at this for the last 20 years or more. The question is whether Palin is agile enough to play this game having the establishment against her, the democrats dead set on her, and the media?
WIth all this arrayed against her I would not be surprised if she just decided to leave politics altogether.But if she doesn't, which is our hope, should would have proven her mettle to lead this country having overcome all that they are going to put in her way.
Well, we know Palin sat by Barbara at the Alfalfa dinner ... will be very disappointed in the Bush clan if they do anything like this.
But you're probably right, considering Rove's and Perino's comments.
Still soooooo disappointed in Perino ...
Steven,
Well put. The players in 2012 will be interesting to watch, for the reasons you mention above.
Which is why I think Sarah did what she did. Whereas she knows the establishment within the party is lined up against her, she also knows she holds a lot of power with the voters. Her move was a first warning that:
1. She's coming after them to damage their power base
2. She will not divulge her plans to them and let them wonder and stew if she'll ruin their chances by declaring 3rd party.
Do I think she'll go 3rd party? No. Do I think she wants them to think she will? Yes, I do.
Oh yea, saw Daniels on CSpan at some function, and he did NOTHING for me.
He screamed "politics as usual" to me.
Steven:
As you know I never discount or dismiss any theory or speculation out of hand.
This is why I think Sarah is trying to cultivate the friendship and support of both Dick and Liz Cheney and John Bolton to neutralize the Bush influence on the party.
LMAO
Funniest thing I have seen in a long time
watching CNN....
Anchor is interviewing Ed Rollins (I think) and his final question is (paraphrasing) "She is no longer running for anything... she is no longer governor... why are we in the media even covering her anymore?"
Ed rollins goes on to answer the question (She was the VP nominee, GOP needs a leader) and The anchor thanks him.... and IMMEDIATELY segways into a promotion for their 7 pm show tomorrow night... SARAH PALIN'S FAREWELL SPEECH SPECIAL... LMAO
hrh, I noticed that a couple of weeks ago. Tammy used to be Ingraham's normal substitute, but not any longer. Ingraham is an inside-the-beltway-Kalthleen Parker-look-a-like now, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't listen to her anymore. (Remember, Ingraham is a loihhya) I never liked the sound of her voice anyway - too nasally and whinny. I loved it when Tammy subbed for her. Tammy's got a voice tailor-made for radio.
it'd be interesting if palin does indeed go on the talk show of a gay conservative i.e. bruce
1.3 million gay people voted for mccain/palin, and a lot of them are from the "leave me alone" philosophy of gov't
Brian Davidson:
CNN trying to cling on to their past false reality of 3 weeks ago that Sarah was getting out of politics for good and 'going celebrity' and thus becoming a non-factor but knowing that they cannot afford to be upstaged by the reality of 'Sarah unleashed' who appears to be among the frontrunners for the GOP nomination in 2012.
That is the definition of AMBIVALENCE.
If Sarah had stayed throughout her term, the ethics complaints would have kept on being submitted through to 2012, with investigations continuing long past that. It would have been political suicide for her.
EdFab:
When I crafted my theory months ago why Sarah should not run for re-election I was not aware that ethics complaints could still be filed legally against Sarah two years after she left office.
That info would have been cherry on the cake as far as I am concerned.
But you just don't understand....Romney is such a celeb in the DC cocktail party circut.
(sarc)
I know, Techno... I was just laughing at the fact that the CNN anchor was bemoaning the media coverage of Sarah Palin, and with the next breath he promoted CNN's coverage of her farewell speech tomorrow.
Irony.
Yea, I forget about the Bushes hold on the Republican Party.
I just do not know how much street cred, the Bushes, have with the conservative base at this time (although Jeb was pretty popular in Florida, correct?).
But, no doubt the Bushes and their ilk are the power brokers of the Republican Party.
If she can aid/assist Republicans electoral politics in 2010, she might garner more respect with the Bush clan.
I believe time is on her side, however.
Frankly, forget the Bushes (country club republicans--who have decided to align themselves with Wall Street) who have lost touch with conservative values and traditions.
How can anyone say Romney has economic creds any longer. After all, he is behind the fiscal debacle which is the Massachusetts Health Care program (which he gambled on to help him run for POTUS).
Now with the utter failure which is MassRomneyCare, he has NO standing to criticize the national version of RomneyCare, ObamaCare.
Let me preface this with saying I like Rudy....
But, over at Free Republic, this post went up and garnered a lot of attention. As we all know, the FReepers dislike Romney intensely and if Romney thinks this is going to be a cakewalk, all he has to do is look at what FR did to Rudy during the '08 primaries.
FR banned all Rudy supporters and went on a tear to damage Rudy because he is not conservative. FR has a lot of clout on the Internet and its bloggers and supporters are active and vocal within their communities.
They are determined to get the truth out about Romney and they're determined in their support for Palin.
I just went through their archives on the old Rudy and Mitt threads, and these FReepers are serious.
I'm thrilled they're on Sarah's side, because their volume and reach is much larger than race42012.
Sarah's in good hands over there. :)
Poor Mitt.
Excellent article, Josh.
All facts, and not a wasted sentence.
Romney supporters will continue to attack Sarah - they feel emboldened by the attitude of the MSM. And they will feed off the lies spun by the MSM, taking cheap and nasty shots.
Question is retaliate or just keep accepting it? The first breaks the 11th and could be detrimental to the GOP, the second is tiresome and insulting.
techno:
I always enjoy reading your analysis, and generally agree.
But, I think you are looking at sarah versus others in the primaries in a "politics as usual" type way. Conventionally. Sarah has broken just about every political convention so far, some big ones too: a woman, from alaska, impact of VP on votes, crowds drawn by a VP candidate, debate style, post election importance of a failed VP nominee, survived the most sustained smear campaign ever seen, resigning, and a national figure that is seen as a regular person by many/most americans.
Its Sarah, and Sarah alone that will determine the outcome. With the caveat that she is in, that 3 years is a long time and many things can wrong, it is hers for the taking, IF ...
She gets substantive, if she gets a professional and polished team behind her (forget loyal, she needs objective and experienced support), and if she controls some of her strong mindedness.
If that happens, its all over, on day one of the primaries, bar the shouting. There isn't anyone that could come close.
Chances in the presidential election? Depends on the economy and Obama of course, and is harder to predict.
Yogi41 --
FR is where that Romney slimeball GOP consultant Matt Braynard was outed.
The Romney purge is coming. It's inevitable. The founder of FR despises him. He despises McCain as well, but shocked everybody over there when he threw his support to the ticket after Palin came on board.
Great argument. I think you could have summed it up in one line tho.
Romney cannot win because he couldn't even beat McCain...
Romney comes off, to me, as being "slick", and that's not a good thing. Too calculated IMO. I don't think he's at all what he tries to portray himself to be. It's about him and not this country. I'll not vote for another person that I don't believe is in it for America & the American people above themselves.
"red fox, July 25, 2009 6:59 PM
It is utter nonsense to suggest that Jeb Bush - or any other Bush -has any viability whatsoever on the national stage anymore. Sheer nonsense."
Yes. But they believe or hope they can change it. What else have they got? They ARE the republican establishment far far more so then Romney. And they are a problem at moment.
"Western, July 25, 2009 5:54 PM
Yea, I forget about the Bushes hold on the Republican Party."
It will diminish over time. The party is lost at the moment. Desperate. These are the establishment clingers we rail against.
Redfox,
I would hope that you're right, but make no mistake, there is an establishment wing of the GOP backed by some in the media that will not countenance a Palin nomination. She is a populist, a true believer in conservatism. Remember conservatism is just a brand to these folks to pacify the masses, but attaining office is all about the special interest. Palin actually wants to implement the branding when she gets into office. She must be stopped. So they will find a way, not to say that they will ultimately be successful, just that they will definitely attempt to derail this woman. They are obviously doing that now with their acolytes in the media and will continue to do so until their person is the nominee.
Now who are these power brokers? I have no doubt its the Bushes after witnessing what Bush did to hurt McCain in 2008 and how the Bushes ran Bob Dole against Clinton in 1996 to make way for W. Recall Colin Powell was contemplating a run in 1996 and probably would have won that election on the heels of the 1994 revolution, but inexplicably the GOP nominated Dole when Powell declined to run.
My thinking is that whether Jeb Bush is viable or not with the public at large, the Bushes left such a mess for Obama that they know they can position Jeb for the future if they can get him on the 2012 ticket. That's my theory based on Papa Bush's desire to see this before he goes and on what the Bushes have done in the past. So Palin has to be aware and I hope that she doesn't look to get into their good graces, because they are what's wrong with our politics. We need conservatism finally to be enacted to save this country.
Good stuff Redfox! But remember these people including the media make a living taking down populist candidates from both sides of the aisle. The media is an establishment institution (obviously due to who owns the media). Their whole rationale is to keep the establishment in power. Why then does a prick like Chris Mathews like Romney and McCain and has them on his show, but cannot say two words of good about Palin? Their job is to stop populism less the people gain control. This is what strikes the fear of God in them about Sarah Palin. She is Reaganesque, in that she has the potential to upset the political order.
I agree that Romney can't win, but I disagree with the reasons. My three reasons are: he's a Mormon (so am I), he looks like the same old thing, and (at least on TV) he has zero personality. These are huge problems if you're trying to defeat an incumbant Obama.
I think Stephanie stated it correctly.. I knew I really for some reason do not like Romney.. its nothing personal or religious.. but that he appears "slick".. and bingo! that's what it is.. he just seems too slick.. and I don't trust that in people.. b/c I always feel they are in it for themselves and not the good of the country..
sorry.. but this dem will not vote romney.. there will be very few romney democrats.. but there will be many many palin democrats like myself.
--palin dem
We need both Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin to help lead conservatism back into the GOP and then back into the White House. We need to be unified in our battle with liberalism/socialism. Articles and blogs like this will only end up hurting the cause of liberty and helping liberals destroy our country.
IT'S ON!!!!!!!
Sarah better book and CONFIRM her slot at CPAC VERY EARLY.
Sarah's People need to prepare to storm the place before the Romneyites buy all the tickets up and jack up the straw poll results.
That is where Romney's first loss will be.
We need to annihilate him on his own home field.
If the Romney camp fires on us,
WE bury the SOB, burn him and powder the bones.
OK, not literally, but you get the picture.
:)
Tim,
I can confirm it from sitting near him at his CPAC speech.
He is wooden, slick, and just not really trustworthy.
Like McLame, Mitt is the globalists' Repube candidate.
Sarah: stay out of the CFR, the Tri-lateral Commission, Bilderberg, et al and you'll be fine.
I will NOT vote for another anti-American, globalist freakazoid.
Let's roll.
Sarah will not break the 11th.
She is a good person and will only argue their policies or their words, but she will not be negative against another Republican unless that Republican goes absolute medeival on her.
If the Romney camp attacks her unfairly though, WE must come to her aid and provide the smackdown on their camp.
Let them know that if they start it, we will finish it for Sarah.
I believe it is very simple. If Sarah does well or extremely well in helping the mid-term elections she will have it made. That is the key in her getting the nod from most everyone.
Interesting that Laura Ingraham isn't having Tammy Bruce guest host...I love T.B.!
And Laura's radio voice (and often her personality) is terrible--a real drone.
I seriously doubt the Bush "clan" controls who the GOP nominates for President and I have no reason to believe that President Bush doesn't love Palin as much as we do.
Jeb Bush has almost zero chance of running for office because the electorate has had enough of anyone with the last name Bush.
In addition, a big part of Palin's 2012 campaign will be Energy and Jeb Bush voted against off-shore drilling for Florida--this is a "no go" for her, I would imagine, particularly after wrestling with McCain over ANWR.
I loved this piece about Romney's inelectability! Every bit of it is true.
If the GOP picks Romney as the candidate in 2012, we will lose (again).
He's McCain without even the war hero story as cover--Boring. Squishy. Liberal.
This posting is disappointing. This is the time that we should all be united behind defeating pending measures that could destroy our way of life forever.
We have plenty of time to sort out the nominee starting about a year and a half from now.
Mitt has his strengths and is a genuinely intelligent, talented man who would do a very good job. Sarah Palin has her strengths too, and her base is very faithful and will work hard for her.
I just see it unnecessary that we beat up other potential nominees at this time. Sarah doesn't do it! Mitt won't do it, and I doubt that they really appreciate it when others do so.
The WAPO poll was pretty meaningless in that it was of all adults, and not of registered or likely voters.
Romney's best chances are that Huckabee, Palin, and Pawlenty all run. Huckabee and Pawlenty drain off enough of borderline Palin voters to cause her to not win in either Iowa or SC. If that happens, she would be forced out early, and Huckabee won't get many of her supporters. Pawlenty and Mitt would split her voters and Huckabee may get about 10% of them. If that scenario develops, Mitt runs away with it.
The best path for Sarah is to get rid of Huckabee early, then go one on one with Mitt, which would probably be a close in many states. Her main problem is Huckabee, not Mitt. Huckabee having a decidedly inside advantage at Foxnews should be seen as a conflict of interest, and we all need to be making some noise about that.
God bless you all!
Post a Comment