December 15, 2011

New Rasmussen poll shows Gingrich down to 19% in Iowa.

Romney's at 23%.

Romney's always at 23%, isn't he? He's the embodiment of 23-percentageness, as far as I can tell. But, consistency! Above all: consistency! If there's one thing I think of when I think of Mitt Romney, it's consistency. He's consistently at 23%.

79 comments:

Tim said...

History, especially recent history, is unavoidable. Gingrich's history was always going to be the limiting factor in his quest for the presidency, either now or in the general election.

Better for the Republicans to cull the field than for Obama to have a cakewalk to another four years of hollowing out the American dream with his agenda.

BarryD said...

Could he do better than 23% in the general election, though?

I suppose that running against Obama is anyone's ace in the hole, but still. OTOH he probably won't scare off as many people as Gingrich posters done by Thomas Kincade would.

MadisonMan said...

How is Anyone But Mitt doing in the poll?

Scott M said...

Could he do better than 23% in the general election, though?

That depends on the actual size of the ABO vote. I would suggest yes.

Pogo said...

Meh. I don't much care what them Ioweejuns think.

Heckfire, they preferred Obama in 2008. How smart could they be?

I also don't care what Minnesotans think, and I live alongside the religious leftism that spawned Garrison Keillor, Fritz Mondale, and Paul Wellstone.

Oh, and Al Franken. So we Minnesodans love socialism, and cheating to beget socialism.

Original Mike said...

Is Keillor still beating the help?

Bob Ellison said...

Yes, as Pogo says, the Iowa contest is a distraction from reality. It's a caucus, it's in a conservative state, and it is overplayed in the media by about a thousand percent. It is unimportant.

edutcher said...

The questions being asked are starting to have an effect.

Good enough. The one hole in Newt's rise always seemed to be, once we got past him destroying godZero in the debates, there was very little there there.

And, if Milton has his 23% back, it would seem to be coming off Newt's back, which would tend to indicate that, like Bush 41 after the Gulf War, a lot of his support may be soft.

JohnJ said...

"Heckfire, they preferred Obama in 2008. How smart could they be?"

The Iowa Dems, in their caucus, are required to make a public display of support for their particular candidate. Given certain sensitivities, imagine displaying for your neighbors that you do not support the first serious black candidate for president.

Freeman Hunt said...

Maybe now Hitler can relax.

(I hate that there's a 13 second ad on the front of that, but what can one do? It's worth it anyway.)

DKWalser said...

Could he do better than 23% in the general election, though?

That's the question. The answer appears to be yes, he could do much better than 23% in the general election because Romney polls better among independents than he does among Republicans. Since independents make up the largest group of voters (followed by Republicans and then Democrats), Romney supporters argue that he'll do better in the general election than in the primaries. That's why they claim he's more electable. The national polls support this theory. Romney has been polling even or slightly better than Obama for months. Gingrich, in contrast, polls well behind Obama.

The counter argument is that Romney cannot win without a base of enthusiastic Republicans. If enough Republicans sit out the election, Romney would not win.

Gingrich supporters claim he would excite the Republican base and would win over enough independent voters to win the national election. There's little polling data to support this theory. More than half of independents say they won't vote for Newt. Among independents Newt trails Obama by a wide margin.

It's possible that Newt could win over enough independents to overcome this trend, but it's doubtful a rabid Republican base would help in this cause. Independents tend to be scared by "too much" enthusiasm for a candidate from the left or right -- that's part of why they're independent in the first place. They are suspicious of what they view as extremes in either direction. A lot of Republican enthusiasm for Gingrich would reinforce Obama's claim that Newt is a right wing extremist. So, what Newt's supporters tout as a strength -- his ability to excite the base -- might work against him as he tries to draw independents toward him.

David said...

We are the 23%!!

Pogo said...

"Given certain sensitivities"

Again, one must question the intelligence involved.

So are we better off in terms race relations than we were four years ago?

No, clearly things are worse. The race riots in Milwaukee are just a small example.

Hard to see that one coming, though. Whodathunk that electing a class socialist would balkanize rather than unite Americans?

Unexpectedly!

Eleanor said...

What I learned in the 2008 election is that primaries and caucuses are a joke. It doesn't matter who the people want their candidate to be. The party insiders will decide who is going to run, and they will do anything they have to do - lie, cheat, steal, change the rules midstream- to make it happen. We might as well go back to the conventions choosing the candidates in backroom deals. It would save everyone a lot of money and the result would be the same. All of this is just done to make us feel like we have a say, and we don't really.

David said...

Romney-Rubio

Original Mike said...

"The counter argument is that Romney cannot win without a base of enthusiastic Republicans. If enough Republicans sit out the election, Romney would not win."

I really don't think that will be a problem in this election, no matter who the Republican candidate is. My only fear is a 3rd party bid.

Tim said...

"Independents tend to be scared by "too much" enthusiasm for a candidate from the left or right -- that's part of why they're independent in the first place."

Hmmmm, I think that's generally true, but in '08, these over-the-moon-cultists didn't scare independents off Obama.

If '08 taught us anything, it's that America voters can be dumber than ever feared. '12 will teach us if they can learn from their mistakes.

sonicfrog said...

He is the 23%.

Signed: The Occupy White House Team!

Scott M said...

'12 will teach us if they can learn from their mistakes.

'10 seemed to indicate that we can learn. '12 will let us know if it sticks.

Lem said...

Romney is an Obama lite.

Its a gut thing.

I cant prove any of it.

WV: goadised.. goaded and/or dised into liking Romney.

garage mahal said...

My biggest fear is the UN Blue Helmets stealing this election!

lgv said...

I think it was the withdrawal of the Gary Busey endorsement that led to the fall in support.

The Republicans may be saved from themselves after all.

I warned about the pitfalls of Perry. Now Gingrich is wearing off. Bachmann wore off quickly.

Now we are back to the closest thing we have to the "generic" candidate that beats Obama in all the polls.

Any candidate needs the independent vote to win. Romney is it.

Spread Eagle said...

He's consistently at 23%

And that 23% is not the R base. It's RINOs, with some Mormons thrown in. The base can hardly stand Romney, even less than Gingrich. That's what this Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Newt razz-ma-tazz has been all about: the base is saying anybody but Mitt. Wouldn't a brokered convention be great?

Joe Schmoe said...

Freeman, thank you for the Downfall parody link! I'd forgotten about those after the production company got them yanked from youtube. Good stuff.

Scott M said...

My biggest fear is the UN Blue Helmets stealing this election!

SQUIRREL!

WV - "foomprog" - I have no idea, it's just fun to write and say. A really, really, really fast amphibian?

America's Politico said...

GOP supporters: Don't think, just support Newt. You love Newt! Remember that.

The ticket that WILL NEVER happen: Romney/Jindal.

So, support Newt/Perry now. In general, I will count your support to Obama/Biden.

Sounds good, GOP?

Hagar said...

Romney might be able to keep the bureaucracy functioning (after a fashion at least) while Congress turns over during the next four years.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Gingrich loses support in Iowa? I'm not surprised. After all, Gary Busey has withdrawn his endorsement.

Freeman Hunt said...

And that 23% is not the R base. It's RINOs, with some Mormons thrown in.

It's not just RINOs and Mormons. Fiscally I am well to the right of most Republicans. Having gotten to see plenty of the candidates running, I support Romney. I can't be the only one.

garage mahal said...

I have no idea, it's just fun to write and say. A really, really, really fast amphibian?

I can shoot with my left hand, I can shoot with my right hand, I'm amphibious!

Original Mike said...

"Wouldn't a brokered convention be great?"

Ryan!
Ryan!
Ryan!

Joe Schmoe said...

Romney is an Obama lite.

Its a gut thing.

I cant prove any of it.


It's easier than you think, Lem. Just look at his record as MA guv.

ricpic said...

Paul is gonna blow up their whole crafted script.

MadisonMan said...

And that 23% is not the R base. It's RINO

Why is a RINO not a R? Maybe the R Base should be NORR? (Not A Real Republican)

Who gets to decide? The Republicans who put up unelectable candidates like Santorum and Gingrich? Or the Republicans who actually get elected?

Original Mike said...

The term "RINO" gives Republicans undue credit. It assumes that real Republicans are conservative.

I wish that were true.

Scott M said...

Why is a RINO not a R?

Hey! That's OUR word! Anyone else using it is offensive enough to incite violence and random thuggery.

Carnifex said...

Ealeanor said...
What I learned in the 2008 election is that primaries and caucuses are a joke. It doesn't matter who the people want their candidate to be. The party insiders will decide who is going to run, and they will do anything they have to do - lie, cheat, steal, change the rules midstream- to make it happen. We might as well go back to the conventions choosing the candidates in backroom deals. It would save everyone a lot of money and the result would be the same. All of this is just done to make us feel like we have a say, and we don't really.

WE have a winner. This is the driving force behind the Romney campaign.

@Garage

I don't worry about the UN. The UN couldn't steal money from MFGlobal. I worry about the DOJ.

Pastafarian said...

Eleanor and ricpic, I disagree -- I don't see anything scripted or predetermined in any of this.

The general election is less than a year out, and we still don't have a firm idea of who the Republican candidate will be. Hell, it's not even whittled down to two. And we might see a brokered convention, and it's possible that we'll have someone drafted who isn't even currently running.

In my lifetime, at least, I don't recall this ever happening.

I think it's great. It gives the press that much less time to assassinate the character of the nominee; and it gives the ultimate nominee that much more exposure, as the press covers this from the horse-race aspect of it.

Maybe Thune still has a chance after all. Or Paul Ryan.

Carnifex said...

PS @ America's Politico

You sir are either the greatest satirist ever, or just a giant douche. I still can't decide , so Bravo. Bravo. (JKing) I do like your commentary.

The Crack Emcee said...

Above all: consistency! If there's one thing I think of when I think of Mitt Romney, it's consistency. He's consistently at 23%.

Hey, that beats you! What would YOUR consistency rating be?

Women are always rating men. What if it went the other way,...

Salamandyr said...

Romney is Dole...he's Kerry. He's the guy you nominate when you really don't want to win, but somebody has to show up.

traditionalguy said...

I do not believe that an opinion from 40% of the Iowa "likely Caucus Attendees" makes a sample of anything since 60% of them are undecided, as anyone would be when another pollster asks every 12 hours.

My gut reaction is that Gingrich will prove immune to the latest poison gas attacks launched by the GOP that seems primarily to be interested in the House and Senate Majority Leader's perks which can be sold to the highest bidders to fight Obama for 4 more years.

mccullough said...

The relevant polls are always Obama v. Gingrich, or Perry, or Romney, etc.

Obama won Iowa last time. W. won it in 2004 and Gore won it in 2000.

Apparently the Republican caucus-goers don't have a strong track record of picking the electoral winner.

It would be fun to see Ron Paul win Iowa. He's definitely a conservative.

Psychedelic George said...

Plot Summary for
The Number 23 (2007) More at IMDbPro »

On his birthday, Walter Sparrow, an amiable dog-catcher, takes a call that leaves him dog bit and late to pick up his wife. She's browsed in a bookstore, finding a blood-red-covered novel, a murder mystery with numerology that loops constantly around the number 23. The story captivates Walter: he dreams it, he notices aspects of his life that can be rendered by "23," he searches for the author, he stays in the hotel (in room 23) where events in the novel took place, and he begins to believe it was no novel. His wife and son try to help him, sometimes in sympathy, sometimes to protect him. Slowly, with danger to himself and to his family, he closes in on the truth. Written by

Walter Sparrow is a family-man married with Agatha Sparrow, and works catching dogs in the Department of Animal Control and has a teenager son very close to his wife and him. On the day of his birthday, he is bitten by a dog and comes late to meet Agatha. While waiting for him, Agatha buys a detective book with a novel about the mystery around the number 23 in a bookstore as a gift to Walther. He becomes captivated with the story and obsessed with the number 23, finding many coincidences with his own life, and he decides to find the author, believing the story is about him. His further investigation discloses a mysterious situation that makes Walther paranoid.

Carol said...

It doesn't matter who the people want their candidate to be. The party insiders will decide who is going to run,

I actually did some polling of Republicans, and I hate to tell you this but McCain won overwhelmingly, because they knew who he was, had seen him on cable news all the time..all the other candidates were just unknown factors to most people.

It's just a hyperalert 20% of us that keeps up with all this. Probably much less.

bagoh20 said...

Mitt's inconsistency is the very reason he is consistently at 23%.

bagoh20 said...

Mitt is the conservatives' gift certificate - you keep looking for something better, and you know it's out there, but come Christmas Eve, you give up looking, get on Amazon and send it.

But you can't be sure what you are actually buying.

Hagar said...

Actually I think "the party insiders in the smoke-filled rooms" would probably do a better job of selecting candidates than the primaries do, and the candidates would not be so compelled to make such absolute fools of themselves in public even prior to the election campaigns.

The party insiders above all else want their man (or woman) to win and they generally know their candidates pretty well. I cannot imagine the party "wise men" selecting such candidates as Kerr/Edwards, f. ex. - not even the Democrats.

Freeman Hunt said...

Remember when I said Palin wasn't running, and some on this very blog thought I was a big, Palin-hating meanie for it? Good times.

Freeman Hunt said...

Hagar makes a good point.

Freeman Hunt said...

Based on Facebook and the email I receive, I'd say that the average primary voter is not particularly well informed.

Of course, that's not entirely the fault of the voter. The media does an awfully dismal job of informing.

Tim said...

bagoh20 said...

"Mitt is the conservatives' gift certificate - you keep looking for something better, and you know it's out there, but come Christmas Eve, you give up looking, get on Amazon and send it.

But you can't be sure what you are actually buying."


Sadly, yes.

I have no "conservative" expectations from Romney other than to defeat the incumbent and to then stem the bleeding.

Honestly, Hillary and half a dozen or more liberal Democrats would be better presidents for America than Obama.

So complaining that Romney isn't conservative enough, to nominate a candidate in Gingrich with too much baggage, too much self-appreciation, too little discipline, a candidate who shares blame for the ultimate failure of House Republicans in '06 yet somehow, inexplicably gets a pass because he isn't Romney, a candidate who would be (next to Ron Paul - seriously?!) Obama's dream match up, makes no rational sense.

It's unfortunate, it isn't what I want (maybe Romney makes Ryan VP?), but it's the necessary choice unless and until someone better jumps in.

Simon said...

DKWalser said...
"'Could he do better than 23% in the general election, though?' That's the question. The answer appears to be yes, he could do much better than 23% in the general election because Romney polls better among independents than he does among Republicans."

And because (one hopes that) once the choice is between Romney and Obama, rather than Romney and [insert hypothetical idealized conservative] the party will grow up and unite behind Romney. It's true "[i]f enough Republicans sit out the election, Romney would not win," but one has to hope that very few people are so dense as to do so.

Eleanor said...
"What I learned in the 2008 election is that primaries and caucuses are a joke. It doesn't matter who the people want their candidate to be. The party insiders will decide who is going to run, and they will do anything they have to do - lie, cheat, steal, change the rules midstream- to make it happen."

Yep—that's how Hillary won. It's funny to think that if it wasn't for those party insiders rigging the process for their preferred candidate, that neophyte Senator from Illinois could have won!

Tim said...

"Of course, that's not entirely the fault of the voter. The media does an awfully dismal job of informing."

So true, but it isn't like the information isn't out there, hidden away in some remote, secure location.

More importantly, engage in some critical thinking - if a politician is telling you something and you believe it because it appeals to self interest (e.g., that idiot woman in Florida who thought Obama was going to pay her mortgage, or better yet, public employee unions) - question that, hard, and confront the reality of why you want that. Is it really in the public's interest? Pimping socialism is attractive for this reason, yet it is completely unsustainable.

If you don't really know what you're doing, or why you're doing it, don't do it.

Scott M said...

Yep—that's how Hillary won. It's funny to think that if it wasn't for those party insiders rigging the process for their preferred candidate, that neophyte Senator from Illinois could have won!

It's also funny to realize that the party of the "working man" cares so little about the working man vote that they have incorporated "superdelegates" into their method of choosing a candidate. Party aristos with FAR more power than lowly primary voters.

Simon said...

David said...
"Romney-Rubio"
and Tim said...
"[M]aybe Romney makes Ryan VP?"

Romney will be in the McCain dilemma of needing to pick a conservative to balance the ticket and unify the party; unlike McCain, I don't think he'll have the extra burden of having to make a game-changing pick to deflate the media's coronation narrative. I really don't think Rubio's a viable candidate.

mccullough said...
"It would be fun to see Ron Paul win Iowa. He's definitely a conservative."

Was that sarcasm? He's a libertarian revolutionary—I don't think he has a conservative instinct in his body.

Salamandyr said...
"Romney is Dole...he's Kerry. He's the guy you nominate when you really don't want to win, but somebody has to show up."

You think the Democrats didn't want to win in 2004? Kerry was picked in '04 precisely because they wanted to win; he was regarded as their best shot. And truth be told, he came damn close.

Original Mike said...

"Actually I think "the party insiders in the smoke-filled rooms" would probably do a better job of selecting candidates than the primaries do, and the candidates would not be so compelled to make such absolute fools of themselves in public even prior to the election campaigns."

I've long said primaries are a bad idea.

Simon said...

Scott M said...
"It's also funny to realize that the party of the "working man" cares so little about the working man vote that they have incorporated "superdelegates" into their method of choosing a candidate. Party aristos with FAR more power than lowly primary voters."

That's defensible, because party aristos have a far better sense of what's possible than lowly primary voters. Party aristos didn't propel Michelle Bachmann to a victory in the Ames poll. Party aristos didn't propel Rick Perry into the race. Party aristos didn't do a 180 on their line in 2008 and elevate Herman Cain to the top tier, and party aristos didn't then propel Gingrich to the front of the pack. I am quite certain that party aristos understand that we can't win without independents, but I quite frequently am left to wonder whether the lowly primary voters understand that there are people who members of neither the tea party nor OWS.

Scott M said...

That's defensible

It's NOT defensible given the world-view of those who practice it.

Lyssa said...

Freeman said: It's not just RINOs and Mormons. Fiscally I am well to the right of most Republicans. Having gotten to see plenty of the candidates running, I support Romney. I can't be the only one.

You're not. On pure fiscal policy, I'd support Ron Paul (who I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole on other issues). And it's not about electability or independants, either. He's simply the best candidate.

I cannot understand the people who think that Romney's too liberal, but somehow find Gingrich perfectly acceptable. That seems right on par with voting for Obama because McCain wasn't conservative enough.

Simon said...

Scott M said...
"It's NOT defensible given the world-view of those who practice it"

Clearly it is, since I just gave one (even if you don't agree with that defense). And the world-view of those who practice it, by-and-large, is that of Thomas Bracket Reed: One party is going to govern, the other is going to watch, and on balance I'd rather govern than be governed. By contrast, if anyone's insisting on misguided purity tests, it's far more likely to be "lowly primary voters" than "party aristos," who generally accept all of the Buckley rule: not only the most conservative candidate but the most conservative candidate who's electable. (One could argue that everyone agrees that we must pick an electable nominee, but a distorted sense of electable can produce the same result.)

Scott M said...

Simon, I don't believe we're talking about the same thing. The Democrats use superdelegates, not the GOP. I doubt the Democrats would subscribe to anything Buckley had to say about elections.

traditionalguy said...

The first four actual voting results should decide who is in and who is out.The money needed to run dries up overnight for losers.

Romney cannot win unless all of the others chances are poisoned by propaganda strikes that make them suddenly dis-respectable.

That is a strange way to select a President; and one that is designed to a T for the poker faced Cardboard Man.

When will supporters of Conservative values get the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them?

Original Mike said...

"When will supporters of Conservative values get the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them?"

Whom do you have in mind?

rcommal said...

When will supporters of Conservative values get the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them?

Is the problem really that supporters of Conservative values don't have the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them? Or is that there really aren't enough supporters of Conservative values of a particular type to elect such a candidate on their own,, without needing others who are not exactly like themselves, and therefore some supporters of conservative values--like, for example, Freeman, Lyssa and Simon--find that it makes sense to take that reality into account?

BarryD said...

DKWalser, I agree.

The possibility certainly exists, though, that neither Romney nor Gingrich can beat Obama, for very different reasons. That's even with Obama polling at "no confidence" levels. You outline why: our electorate is split into three general groups -- actually four, but the fourth is heterogeneous (third party supporters don't agree with each other much).

rcommal said...

Due to a various factors and a confluence of events in a very fluid environment, I don't really think the result of the Iowa Caucuses is going to have that big of an impact this time around, in the long run (not even as much as in 2008), though it ought to go without saying that of course I could be wrong. That noted, I do take the upcoming Republican caucuses seriously in terms of deciding for whom to cast a ballot in them. Unlike the Democratic Caucuses, where a certain threshold of support must be met publicly, and if it's not, caucus supporters of various candidates must publicly regroup and even lobby each other in order to reach the threshold, the Republican Caucuses employ a single, private ballot and then move promptly onto other party business, such as party platform, delegates to conventions and whatnot. In that sense, deciding whom to support in the Republican Caucus feels much more like going to the polls than than a mini-convention, which is sort of how the Democratic Caucuses feels. I think this is also why it's harder to suss out how the Republican Caucuses will go in an election season as turbulent and changeable as this one.

traditionalguy said...

Original Mike...To each his own candidate's personality.

I really like Cain, but his train ran off the trestle like Old 97.

I never liked the Old Aggressive Newt much. But I do respect and admire the skills of the New Newt who wants to be a good President with them.

Maybe there is a cultural bias. The very sound of Bachmann and Santorum's voices whining at how only their political positions support God revolts me. God doesn't need them.

I respect Romney's record on several levels, but I still feel NO attraction to him... I only feel that he wants to use me "to make me better, like he is"...and that is a sneaky insult from a Mormon Elder.

Perry would be acceptable, but he wants to eliminate Civil Law suits against the rich folks by the poor folks, while he talks like the Hee Haw announcer to the poor white folks. That offends me.

damikesc said...

When will supporters of Conservative values get the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them?

But all of the candidates have either shaky levels of knowledge or some ideas that are just a wee bit out there.

I could handle Cain's experience because he did run a large company --- but he didn't know anything about foreign policy at all. While I want a President to defer to an expert on a subject he puts in a Cabinet position --- he needs to have some ideas. The sex stuff still reeks of an Axelrod set-up job since it did silence REALLY quickly once his poll numbers faded.

Perry seems like a solid manager and he might be way smarter than we give him credit for...but he didn't blow me away. He's one I'd like another glance at.

Gingrich debates well and has tons of ideas --- but when your President, there is less of an editing process to stifle your bad ideas.

Pawlenty dropped out way too quickly, Paul has some laughable foreign policy beliefs, Johnson can't get any traction at all, and Santorum seems, well, bitchy more than anything else.

Romney isn't my first choice, but it is one I am quite comfortable making. Nobody will be all I want in a candidate except me.

There is a reason why nobody has been able to knock Romney off the top of the list for any length of time.

damikesc said...

In the end, my state (South Carolina) will end up, as usual, deciding who the nominee will end up being.

Simon said...

rcommal said...
"Is the problem really that supporters of Conservative values don't have the courage to pick a human candidate rather than believe all of the slanders about them? Or is that there really aren't enough supporters of Conservative values of a particular type to elect such a candidate on their own, without needing others who are not exactly like themselves, and therefore some supporters of conservative values--like, for example, Freeman, Lyssa and Simon--find that it makes sense to take that reality into account?"

Exactly. I have zero interest in nominating a candidate who's perfect on paper yet who loses 49 states. We don't have the luxury of just picking the candidate we like best; electability matters. I'm significantly to the right of the electorate as a whole, so if we pick a candidate who thinks like me, we're going to lose. Don't have to like it, just have to accept it.

Simon said...

damikesc said...
"I could handle Cain's experience because he did run a large company"

He ran a koi carp. Not a minnow, but hardly a whale.

Patrick said...

That is Michael Jordan's Jersey number, Ryan Sandberg's Jersey number. and a movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_23

At the end of the film, viewers can see the Bible reading from Numbers 32:23: "Be sure your sin will find you out."

God's will apparently

Patrick said...

Maine is the 23rd state. There are no Mormons in Maine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine

The 23rd Infantry Regiment is an infantry regiment in the United States Army originally formed on June 26th 1812. The 23rd saw action in 14 battles during the War of 1812.

23rd Psalm
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name' sake.

Will Cate said...

Clearly Newt-mania has peaked, and that's a good thing. Those of us who want Obama out in 2012 need to stop fucking around and get behind the most viable candidate, and that is Romney.

Cedarford said...

Joe Schmoe said...
Romney is an Obama lite.

Its a gut thing.

I cant prove any of it.


"It's easier than you think, Lem. Just look at his record as MA guv."

And it is easy to prove Reagan a RINO if you look at his record in a state that was already predominantly liberal and democratic in the 70s.

1. Raised taxes several times for big gummint spending programs.
2. Was photo'd several times with gay and democratic friends. And Hollywood types of dubious Christian morals.Even partied with them in the Governor's mansion and at his ranch.
3. Signed the most liberal abortion law in the country.
4. Publicly announced he would regularly betray true believing conservative purity by saying in working with the Dem legislature - he was happy if he got 70-80% of what he wanted.
5. Was a flip-flopper. Went from a FDR union Democrat to a willing to bend conservative Republican.
6. Inspired a new generation to become filthy flip-floppers. The Reagan Democrats. Which some rightwing purists claims disqualifies the flip-floppers from office as Republicans..

Joe Schmoe said...

Cedarford, I like your list, but I think it's slanted. You've cherry picked and exaggerated a few things.

First, Reagan started to turn away from being a Democrat when he was on the board for the Screen Actors Guild. He was repulsed by communist influences within the community. He named names of commie sympathizers.

Then, before becoming governor, Reagan was a spokeman for GE, touring the country giving pro-capitalist, anti-business, anti-communist speeches.

So Reagan had a very consistent one-way conversion from Dem to Rep.

As guv, Reagan raised taxes when first elected but he also froze govt. spending in an effort to balance an out-of-control budget (sounds familiar).

Reagan also worked to reform welfare. He wanted to get people back to work. He spoke out against welfare in terms that Mitt never approached as MA guv.

Ask the people of Berkeley if they thought of Reagan as a RINO. While guv he sent in the cops and national guard to clean up the protesters in the area.

He also advocated for reinstitution of the death penalty in CA.

These are all hardcore conservative positions. The libs in CA hated Reagan.

What did Mitt do? When campaigning he suddenly became pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Then he signed off on universal health care! The libs in MA? They don't hate Romney. In fact, some of them might even vote for him.

Seriously, I'm not trying to be coy here. Mitt, like the rest of the GOP field, just poses significant difficulties in supporting him. If you've already come to grips with Mitt, good for you. I'm conflicted with the whole field.

Revenant said...

At this point I'm sort of hoping that the Republicans will run out of "non-Romney" candidates and be forced to nominate Gary Johnson for lack of an alternative. :)

Scott M said...

At this point I'm sort of hoping that the Republicans will run out of "non-Romney" candidates and be forced to nominate Gary Johnson for lack of an alternative. :)

The first time I read that I thought you had wrote "Gary Larson" and I brightened up immediate thinking...hey, Revenant's on to something here.

I don't think he would run though...