Monthly Archives: February 2012
In 2008 I wasn’t on Team Romney but I didn’t hate him either. This time around I hate him with a burning passion. I’ve been trying to figure out why and I think last night’s debate finally clarified it for me. Romney is an internet troll.
We’ve all been in the comment section of a blog when some idiot comes along and starts making outlandish statements that derails the conversation. They are impervious to facts, unconcerned with their obvious contradictions and every time they are cornered they simply say something more idiotic so that you start chasing them down that rabbit hole. All the while they ignore all the links you offer to refute them and refuse to provide any to support their claims.
Take a look at last night’s debate and you’ll recognize typical troll behavior from Romney.
And let me — let me — let me mention one more — the reason we have Obama Care — the reason we have Obama Care is because the Senator you supported over Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter, the pro- choice Senator of Pennsylvania that you supported and endorsed in a race over Pat Toomey, he voted for Obama Care. If you had not supported him, if we had said, no to Arlen Specter, we would not have Obama Care. So don’t look at me. Take a look in the mirror.
Wait, what? How about we blame Specter’s parents. I mean, if they hadn’t had him, he wouldn’t have grown up to be a lousy Senator.
I disagreed with Santorum and George W. Bush’s support for Arlen Specter but this is ridiculous. No one had any clue who Barack Obama was in 2004, let alone he’d win the presidency someday and 6 years later Specter would change parties and vote for a specific bill.
Now I get why Romney doesn’t want to talk about ObamaCare now but remember, he won’t be able to talk about in a general election campaign against Obama. Of course, Obama will bring it up all the time and Mitt won’t be able to change the subject with lame deflections like that.
Santorum also pointed out that Romney was a hypocrite for attacking him on earmarks while as Governor and head of the Salt Lake City Olympics Romney asked for and received hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks.
ROMNEY: I didn’t follow all of that, but I can tell you this — I would put a ban on earmarks. I think it opens the door to excessive spending, spending on projects that don’t need to be done.
I think there are a lot of projects that have been voted for. You voted to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” I think these earmarks, we’ve had it with them.
ROMNEY: If Congress wants to vote in favor of a bill, they should take that bill, bring it forward with committees, have people say — vote it up or down on the floor of the House or the Senate, have the president say yes or no, and move forward. But the earmark process is broken. There are thousands and thousands of earmarks, money being used inappropriately.
And I’ll tell you this — he mentioned coming to the Olympics, coming to the United States Congress, asking for support. No question about it. That’s the nature of what it is when you lead an organization or a state.
You come to Congress and you say, these are the things we need. In the history of the Olympic movement, the federal government has always provided the transportation and security. So we came to the federal government asking for help on transportation and security.
I was fighting for those things. Our games were successful. But while I was fighting to save the Olympics, you were fighting to save the “Bridge to Nowhere.”
So earmarks are good and virtuous when Romney asks for and receives them but wasteful and corrupting when others do? The “logic” of a troll.
When asked to use one word to describe himself Romney said, “resolute”. In what way, beyond his personal ambition, is Mitt Romney “resolute”? His record of flips and flops is long and well known.
Romney once again claimed last night that he “enabled our state police to enforce illegal immigration laws”. This is misleading at best, a lie at worst. But Mitt, like a troll simply makes assertions without any regard for the truth. They both hope you are simply to stupid to catch them.
Mitt gets away with this in the primaries because his opponents aren’t very good at knocking him down, have their own problematic records, don’t have the resources to do enough research (though all you need is a couple of interns and Google) or the money to exploit his weaknesses. Romney on the other hand has no qualms about lying and enough money to repeat the lies enough that people think they are true.
It’s a strategy that will likely be enough to get him through the primaries (barely) but if his supporters think it won’t all come back to bite him (and us) in the butt in the general they are fooling themselves.
It’s pretty amazing to see so many conservatives going after Rick Santorum for his conservative religious and moral beliefs.
It wasn’t all that long ago many of these same people were going after Obama for claiming so many small-town voters, “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Or Jack Murtha when he took a break from calling Marines cold-blooded murders to call his rural constituents racists.
Now there’s a GOP candidate speaking the language of those voters and connecting with them and many Republicans and conservatives are looking down on Santorum in much the same way Obama, Murtha and other Democrats do.
I think Santorum would be a disaster as a general election candidate because of how he talks about these issues and I don’t share his enthusiasm for big government so long as it’s supporting the “right” ideology but that doesn’t mean we on the right should be attacking him in the same way Democrats do.
- Mitt will say something stupid that will make conservatives roll their eyes and hate him just a little bit more.
- Santorum will say something stupid about freedom being overrated and how we’re all going to Hell.
- Newt will say something that will make people say, “why don’t we like Newt again?”. Then he will later say something that will make people say, “Oh right, that’s why we don’t like Newt”.
- Ron Paul will say a lot of things but he will say them so fast in his Hee-Haw and will go on for so long people will start falling asleep.
And we’ll wake up Thursday and start the whole thing all over again.
Sorry Social Conservatives: America Isn’t Going To Elect Someone President Who Wants To Talk About How Sex Out Of Wedlock And Contraceptions Are Bad
I don’t care if it’s in the Bible, I don’t care if you can point to all sorts of studies showing how it leads to bad economic outcomes or even health problems. People will not vote for Rick Santorum once they see things like this:
(Warning DKos link)
One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”
It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.
Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.
This will lead to Obama winning states that he wouldn’t even dream of trying to win right now.
Sorry, it’s just the truth.
Link via BaseballCrank
Pretty amazing stuff from the magazine once considered the flagship of the conservative movement.
At the moment Rick Santorum appears to be overtaking Newt Gingrich as the principal challenger to Mitt Romney. Santorum has won more contests than Gingrich (who has won only one), has more delegates, and leads him in the polls. In at least one poll, he also leads Romney. It isn’t yet a Romney–Santorum contest, but it could be headed that way.
Santorum has been conducting himself rather impressively in his moments of triumph and avoiding characteristic temptations. He is doing his best to keep the press from dismissing him as merely a “social-issues candidate.” His recent remark that losing his Senate seat in 2006 taught him the importance of humility suggests an appealing self-awareness. And he has rightly identified the declining stability of middle-class families as a threat to the American experiment, even if his proposed solutions are poorly designed. But sensible policies, important as they are, are not the immediate challenge for his candidacy. Proving he can run a national campaign is.
NR has been trying to clear the field out for Mitt for awhile now so I guess this shouldn’t be a surprise. The interesting thing is their “logic”. Yes, Santorum has won more states than Newt (he’s also only won as many as Mitt so far) but none of them awarded delegates directly, unlike SC which Newt won. If Newt is going to make a comeback or make life rough for Romney it’s going to be in the southern states on Super Tuesday. Why exactly should he drop out now and not wait three more weeks and see what happens? It’s not like this race hasn’t changed before in less time.
Yes, yes, Newt called for Santorum to drop out at one point. It was kind of goofy for him to do it but candidates do things like that. Supposedly neutral arbiters (hint: NR really wants Mitt to win but don’t tell anyone) however don’t.
If National Review wants to be considered a leader of conservatives, they need to make their editorial position clear and knock off the passive/aggressive nonsense.
As for Mitt, National Review has some advice for him on how to pitch himself to voters and for voters on how they can convince themselves why it’s ok to vote for him.
Romney is a transactional politician rather than a charismatic one. Maybe he should make the most of it: Tell conservatives what they will get out of a Romney presidency. Entitlements brought under budgetary control. A more market-oriented health-care system. Judges who know their place in the constitutional architecture. Fannie and Freddie extinguished. The defense budget protected. Tax reform, and tax relief for families. In some cases making this case will require that Romney commit to more detailed proposals than he has thus far; in others that he will do more to emphasize things he has already said.
I admit to not liking Romney in the least but this is the best pitch he has to make. His constant talk about being a movement conservative (a sever one at that!) who has been on the front lines of the fight is simply not supported by the facts (opposing The Contract with America and the Bush tax cuts come to mind).
The problem Mitt has at this point is if you are already inclined to believe what he’s said then you’re set, if you’re not, there’s nothing he can do to convince you at this point.
It’s no secret around here that I’m not a Mitt fan but I’m honestly confused why I’m supposed to believe Romney circa 2011/2012 but not Romney circa 2010.
As for Santorum, sit down you’re about to be shocked…Jen Rubin suddenly discovered he’s a social conservative and he might have written and said somethings that won’t play well in the general.
Santorum will have to deal with the words he wrote, and, if his views have evolved, he should say so quickly and definitively. The issue is potentially critical because it goes to his electability and because it makes a positive — his strong social conservative stances — into a negative. It’s time for him, or someone on the campaign, to go back and read the book and figure out what he can live with and what he can’t. He can’t afford to lose women voters as he heads into critical races in Michigan, Arizona and the Super Tuesday states.
Why, it’s almost as if Rubin was using Santorum as a stalking horse for Romney and now that he is a real threat to Mitt, he must be dealt with.
I really wish Mitt’s Amen Corner in the conservative media had the guts to just come out and endorse their guy.
The post not-so-Super Tuesday spin has been pretty weak tea. No, no delegates were directly awarded (which means despite his awful night, Newt is still in second place!) but none were in Iowa either and they were happy to claim victory there, for awhile anyway.
The big argument for Mitt has always been “electability” and “inevitability” because of his money and organization. Well, his money and organization should have carried him through last night and it didn’t. So what exactly is the point of the Romney campaign?
Yes, he’ll (probably) win Michigan and Arizona because they are primary states but mostly because he’ll spend a boat load of money destroying Santorum and Newt in both places (plus his ties to MI). I get that winning is the name of the game but in the long run it’s going to cost him. He’s not winning the nomination, he’s simply subduing the party.
Mitt wins when he wildly outspends his opponents to run tons of negative ads and unleashes his team of questionable surrogates. Yes, winning is the name of the game but doing it the way he is will cost him in the end. He will not be able to unite the party because “Fear Obama” won’t overcome all of the “Hate for Romney”. Don’t believe me? You don’t think that Democrats hated George W. Bush as much as Republicans hate Barack Obama? How’d that work out for the last nominee from Massachusetts? Funny, I can’t seem to recall a thing about President Kerry’s administration.
At this point I think we are down to deciding who we’d rather lose with. It’s hard to believe that’s what we are facing given the need to rid this nation of Obama but yet here we are.
In many ways this isn’t Romney’s fault. He is who he is. The real indictment is of the GOP and conservatism. We have simply not produced a credible set of challengers. Part of that is due to the Democratic wins in 2006 and 2008 which destroyed much of the bench. The failure of other candidates to run or the flame out of those that did (I’m looking at you Rick Perry) also isn’t Romney’s fault. Mitt should be a perennial also ran but through a combination of luck and skill (all the money he raised probably kept some challengers out) he’s likely to win the nomination but rrip much of the party apart in the process.
I just sent this in an email to some folks but I think it’s worth repeating….
Serious question about Romney…when was the last time he did or said anything that you could remotely say, “ok, yeah, that’s good” on a policy proposal level?
He seems to have decided not to do anything. He’s just going around and giving his stump speech, having his surrogates attack the rest and letting his Super PAC and campaign ads do the work.
I guess this is smart in the sense that he’s not taking any risks and basically running, “come on, you’re not going to vote for one of those guys, are you?” campaign. There’s nothing nimble, fresh or positive about it. I’m not saying he’s should be scatter shot like Newt but there’s no there there. Maybe he’s going to “turn it on” come the general but I get the sense…this is it, he going to run a Seinfeld campaign about nothing. If that’s the case, baring an economic meltdown, he’ll lose.
One think I should have added to that email…yes, ideally this election should be about Obama and a referendum on the last four years. Being bland can work in that case. The problem is, Romney has made too many gaffes, too many flip flops and is too easily caricatured to be a blank slate. Tim Pawlenty or Mitch Daniels might have been able to pull that off but I don’t see how Romney can.
Shouldn’t Romney be rolling out a new proposal a week? Something that he can make a theme out of and draw a contrast with Obama and Senate Democrats? How about a month? Hell, a new proposal a quarter would be an improvement. It’s seems Romney has made his pitch to investors, er, voters and they can look over the PowerPoints and investment perspectives but no, there won’t be any additional ideas forthcoming. What you see is what you get, take it or leave it.
Maybe things will be bad enough in a year but maybe this new “normal” will have taken hold and there’ll be enough “good news” for the media to spin that people won’t be all that angry at Obama anymore. Then what does Romney have to run on?