April 20, 2012

"After months of depicting Mr. Romney as the ultimate squishy, double-talking, no-core soul, Team Obama is shifting gears."

"Senior administration officials, along with Democratic and campaign officials, all say their strategy moving forward will be to tell the world that Mr. Romney has a core after all — and it’s deep red."

Suddenly, Mitt Romney is a big old right-winger.

88 comments:

prairie wind said...

That's good. If Romney is seen as a big ol' right winger, he has a better chance of winning the election. Even if he is squishy, if the expectation is that the country needs a right winger, maybe he'll squish right. We know for certain which way Obama skulks. The contrast is good.

Keep it coming, Dems.

Scott M said...

Suddenly, Mitt Romney is a big old right-winger.

That's going to be a tough row to hoe especially given Team Romney's announcement that Richard A. Grenell, an openly gay man, is joining their foreign policy team as spokesman.

Brennan said...

A deep red stater with a heart of blue stater statism.

Does Team Obama really think they can paint the guy that passed the precursor to their signature legislation of the last 40 years with a heart of "deep red"?

pm317 said...

He is a REPUBLICAN!

Sloanasaurus said...

Unfortunately, Romney is not a big right winger. His election will be way better for the country than another Obama term, but not as good as if a much more solid conservative were elected...

Still, what this country needs is someone who gets things done - i.e. a business man with a track record of success. Obama has proven that he doesn't get things done, and when he does (Health Care) they are temporary at best.

Obama has been a failure at ending the government's fiscal crisis. Obama blames it on Republicans. But a good leader would get something done. A good leader would find the compromise with Republicans. Obama has failed at that because he is unable to compromise. Obama has to go.

Rusty said...

Bush is going to figure in there somewhere. I just know it.

rehajm said...

In 2008 the righties said Romney is the rightest righty. In 2012 the rightest righties say Romney is the leftist righty. Now the leftest lefties say Romney is the rightest righty. All, righty- who's right?

Scott M said...

All, righty- who's right?

If you keep talking like that, the Architect will send agents out to track you down and put you back in the power station.

Patrick said...

That's so predictable that I'm surprised you blogged about it.

traditionalguy said...

The social cons are the easily attacked enemies of the independent voters.

What rebel by nature independent voter would want Mormon Religious constraints placed upon them?

The economic system war is the fight now a the finish of the USA. The indys will not neglect that truth over a fear that a Mormons will outlaw sex...will they?

The Drill SGT said...

reeks of Obama desparation to me. The quivering stench of Axelrod's befouled pants at the thought of a loss of both the WH and the Senate going down also.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It's only April and team Obama has already worn out the clutch.

Peter said...

Because the Left can call those who are right-of-center Nazis (or at least extremists) with impunity.

But if the Right calls those who are left-of-center Communists (or at least extremists), they are shut up by the "You're just like Joe McCarthy" chorus.

Gavin Buckley said...

Hence gushing Obama fan-boy Andrew Sullivan writing a reaching-so-far-he's-probably-hurt-himself blog entry a week or so ago that claimed that Mitt Romney is, "further to the right than any candidate who has ever run for the presidency in modern times."

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....is-romney.html

It's a ridiculous piece following months of open laughing that conservatives don't like Romney because he isn't conservative enough. Romney is a lot of things - but the notion that he's a hard-core hard-right nutcase is a shockingly weak argument.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... If you keep talking like that, the Architect will send agents out to track you down and put you back in the power station..."

Nerd.

Christopher in MA said...

Suddenly, Mitt Romney is a big old right-winger.

Of course he is. Just like John "Maverick" McCain transformed from a principled pragmatist to a nearly senile, drool cup-ready, bomb-crazy neanderthal once he announced his run for the presidency.

I have to agree with Patrick. This is such a dog-bites-Obama story that I suspect it must be a slow news day chez Althouse.

Matthew Sablan said...

Remember, every Republican is the right most ever, if only they could be as moderate as previous Republicans who were not so far right.

Give it a few years, and people will fondly remember the moderate Bush. Heck, wasn't Obama praising Regan a few weeks ago?

Scott M said...

This is such a dog-bites-Obama story that I suspect it must be a slow news day chez Althouse.

The dog biting Obama, at this point, would be news.

ricpic said...

Romney's got the right idea. Don't get into the defensive posture of answering the ever shifting attacks from the Liar In Chief and his minions. Go on pure offense and point out over and over and over again that the AA punk converted a downturn into a depression. A simple "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" will turn this election into a rout.

Scott M said...

A simple "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" will turn this election into a rout.

I saw a pic of Romney behind a podium yesterday with "OBAMA DOESN'T WORK" on the front of it. That's in line with what you're saying. They need to come up with some play on the "Office Of The President Elect". If that bit of hubris wasn't a full-blown, bull-moose mother of all dramatic foreshadowing, I don't know what is.

Mitchell said...

Team Obama is not shifting gears.

Perhaps it is now driving on a different street but that doesn't really work, either.

cubanbob said...

Peter said...
Because the Left can call those who are right-of-center Nazis (or at least extremists) with impunity.

But if the Right calls those who are left-of-center Communists (or at least extremists), they are shut up by the "You're just like Joe McCarthy" chorus.

4/20/12 8:34 AM

And what is wrong with that? Old drunk Joe was proven right in the end, there were communists in the government during the FDR and Truman Administrations.

Romney isn't a 'far right winger' but better than the current president. But then again, according to the progressives anyone slightly to right of Uncle Joe Stalin is a rabid right winger.

RonF said...

Good luck on that one. The knock on Romney so far has been that he's not a conservative, he's a Republican. So we'll see how successful they are on this.

Matthew Sablan said...

This isn't about winning any votes, so much, as scaring the base. Obama's base is, at best, only slightly aware of the Republican nomination fight. No reason not to say what you need to say to prime your team to vote.

Sloanasaurus said...

A simple "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" will turn this election into a rout.

This is not the way the question should be asked. It should be asked: "Is you view of the future better today than it was four years ago."

The answer is a clear no. Thew future was pillaged by Obama in his quest to redistribute wealth. Four years ago we were assuming all these problems would have been solved by now. But none of them have. And when you let debt get worse, it gets harder to pay off. Thus, the future is more grim than ever.

The only upside is that perhaps another 200 million chinese will be entering the middle class over the next 20 years. That will at least prop us up for a while.

RonF said...

I've got a slogan Romney can use to make sure that his staff stays focused on a winning strategy:

"It's the economy, stupid."

It's worked before and it'll work again.

Roger J. said...

My take: the dems have their internal polling data, and it appears to me it isnt going well for them--per Drill's comment: they are throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks. On a related MSM front, now that the horse race is over the Rs, the next horse race is about Romney's pick for the VP--for the MSMs its all about ratings.

Romney seems to be on message, ad given the GSA troubles, the Secret Service troubles, and Ms Rosen's comments, the Ds are getting desparate.

Roger J. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
prairie wind said...

Office Of The President Elect

ScottM...thanks for the reminder! I'd forgotten that howler.

Sloanasaurus said...

Another issue that needs to be discussed is Obama's green energy future. Obama diverted Billions to this future. Yet four years later, nothing has been accomplished. Many of the new high speed rails fell apart on the drafting table or were not viable. There have been no breakthroughs in technology and many of the investments into creating a market for green products were non-viable and have gone bankrupt. Obama's vision of a green energy future has failed. IN fact, most people are excited about the "natural gas" future. That is what's creating all the jobs and attracting all the attention. Something Obama had absolutely nothing to do with and has prospered despite his opposition to fossil fuels.

This is a massive failure.

Writ Small said...

Or in the sturdy and forthright language of the Democrats: “Romney has not failed to disavow his lack of not not being not a Republican.”

Roger J. said...

Mr Romney visite an empty factory the other day--good PR move, IMO. Perhaps he should visit the Solyandra operation as well. And agree with Sloan's comment.

Chuck66 said...

Kind of like how John McCain, the Maverick Republican who almost every Democrat said they would vote for, suddenly became an evil right winger when he received the Republican nomination.

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... Kind of like how John McCain, the Maverick Republican who almost every Democrat said they would vote for, suddenly became an evil right winger when he received the Republican nomination..."

That's politics. They were accusing the Hillary campaign of racism when Bill and Ferraro made racially insensitive comments then Lo and behold, Hillary gets the SoS job and Biden gets the VP spot next to the clean and articulate black man.

It's all a game.

Bruce Hayden said...

My take: the dems have their internal polling data, and it appears to me it isnt going well for them--per Drill's comment: they are throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks.

The problem is that a lot of it is falling back and hitting them in the face. Latest being the dog stuff, and right before that Hilary Rosen and her "Ann Romney never worked" meme, etc.

Just waiting for the Dems to bring out the polygamist in the family tree thing (hint - Obama's father was already married when he temporarily married his mother, and his paternal line have been polygamists for generations). Or, maybe the "Mormons are weird" thing (they at least celebrate Christmas and accept the Old and New Testaments, as contrasted to Islam, in which Obama was partially raised, which does neither, but does accept polygamy, requires praying five times a day, as well as blowing up innocent people in the name of their Prophet).

The Dems have a big problem right now, and that has been illustrated by the Obama-ate-dog story. Not only is he a failure as a President, severely harming our economy in less than four years, but he isn't an American. Sure, he may have American citizenship. But, he doesn't share our history or our values. He spent his formative years in a culture where eating dog (snake, etc.), while ritually unclean, was acceptable, and even considered a delicacy, while most of us would likely starve before allowing our dogs to starve. He was born into a family of polygamists, while most of the rest of us come from a culture where polygamy has not been acceptable for several millenia. And, yes, he was raised by communists and socialists, while the rest of us were raised in a society that at least pretends to be capitalistic.

In other words, he is not one of us. He has never been one of us. And, the more this campaign goes on, I think the more obvious this is going to be.

Michael said...

Romney has been running against Obama for only a week or so and he is honing his message and he is demonstrating that he is not as hapless as his predecessor McCain. His team appears to be on top of every gaff that Obama makes and is ready to counter every foolish statement (silver spoon) that he makes in the form of an attack on Romney or his wife.

Importantly, Romney will appeal to those thousands of voters like our hostess who voted for the President for a number of reasons personal to themselves. They won't repeat that mistake. They might even talk up Obama in public but in the privacy of the booth they will pull the lever for Romney. Many people of good faith will abandon the guy who did not operate in good faith.

The Drill SGT said...

I work for a WV based firm, though I live in VA. Politics in WV are interesting.

Though notionally everybody is a card carrying union coal miner and votes party line Dem, last time around (2008) it went 14pts for McCain over Obama (at the say time Obama carried the nation by 7).

The Junior Senator says now:

Manchin (D) : I may not vote for Obama in November

not a word from thw WH, cause a vote in the Senate for Harry is worth a lot more than moving the needle a small amount in a lost cause in WV popular POTUS voting.

After the EPA got done, I expect Romney to go 60/40 in the state. Likely his largest win on a state basis in 2012.

Scott M said...

If Romney's team have as much on the ball as they appear to so far, they would have take a page from Inspector Clouseau and Kato. At any time, without warning, members of the re-election team could stop everything, run in with two podiums, and set up an attack debate beginning immediately.

I doubt Obama is going to be jumping out of any refrigerators at Romney, but you never know...'

In all seriousness, Romney could have a stellar few months in the press and lose those significant gains by performing badly in the debates.

If Romney pulls of a big win against Obama, look for the moderate and left-leaning pundits to start in with the "Of course he won. Look at the economy. How could he not?"

Roger J. said...

Scott great timing--my lady and I looked at the pink pather 2 when in fact cato jumped out of the fridge.

Great cinema--and no, I dont have a license for my minkee

edutcher said...

Since nothing else has worked for them, they go with the old stuff.

Wonder how they get RomneyCare to fit?

Scott M said...

Suddenly, Mitt Romney is a big old right-winger.

That's going to be a tough row to hoe especially given Team Romney's announcement that Richard A. Grenell, an openly gay man, is joining their foreign policy team as spokesman.


Hatman telling us he's a joke, unserious homosexual in 5, 4, 3,...

Sloanasaurus said...

Racial division is also a massive failure of Obama. The division in this country regarding race is the same or worse than it was when Obama got elected. Obama - half black/half white - was supposed to be another Lincoln. To finally bring the races together. Instead Obama is more divisive than ever when it comes to race and his Administration is also divisive.

The Drill SGT said...

Bruce said...but he isn't an American. Sure, he may have American citizenship. But, he doesn't share our history or our values

just wtach one of the pitches he throws:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSIwBWiPoU&feature=related

roesch/voltaire said...

They would be smarter to stick with the observations of Richard Cohen who cleverly points out that Mitt Romney is one of the smoothest public liars who doesn't even flinch when he makes up his many stories.

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama really is the great divider. He has come out at anytime or another and bashed this or that group. If you work for a bank, or insurance company, or drug company, or oil company, or foreign car company, or you have been a successful business person, etc... Obama has in one way or another bashed you and demonized you for political purposes.

Obama truly is the great divider. Under Obama we are not one nation. Instead we are a collection of groups struggling for power and wealth regardless of who created the wealth.

Bruce Hayden said...

Another issue that needs to be discussed is Obama's green energy future. Obama diverted Billions to this future. Yet four years later, nothing has been accomplished.

Of course it failed. I would suggest only the feeble minded truly believed that it would work. Or, those who believe that if they just believe hard enough, that the science and engineering will just magically work, or, will at least get them back to Kansas.

What the "green energy" program has been in this country, and, in particular, under President Obama, was a way to shovel large amounts of cash to favored constituencies, contributors, family, and friends. All of course, being borrowed in our name from the Chinese. Massive crony capitalism, comparable maybe to that seen in Italy and Germany during the reigns of Il Duce and der Führer.

What I can't figure out though is which Dem politicians actually believe in "green energy" policies as being both feasible scientifically and economically, which ones believe that what is important to the economy is government spending, so where it is spent is really irrelevant, and so we might as well spend it saving the world, and which ones are just plain cynical, knowing that green energy and Keynesian economics are both bogus, but push them both for political and economic power. I would put Nancy Pelosi in the middle category, but don't know where to put many of the rest. Biden, maybe in the third category. Obama? Maybe the one guy who can believe all three at once, without having a nervous breakdown.

Roger J. said...

To continue the pink panther thread: so who is the present equivalent of the Herbert Lom charaacter: I am thinking david axelross

Roger J. said...

Sorry--david axelrod

Sloanasaurus said...

What the "green energy" program has been in this country, and, in particular, under President Obama, was a way to shovel large amounts of cash to favored constituencies, contributors, family, and friends.

This is true. But, the main policitcal problem for Obama is that this "positive vision of the future" that he relied on in 2008 has been a total sham and disaster. Obama has no vision of the future anymore. Most "second term" presidents run on their vision being realized. So either Obama has to run on a totally new vision or he has to run a hate campaign... He has chosen the latter and it will fail.

Christopher in MA said...

They would be smarter to stick with the observations of Richard Cohen who cleverly points out that Mitt Romney is one of the smoothest public liars who doesn't even flinch when he makes up his many stories.

You know, RV, I really hope Axelrod is stupid enough to do that. The blowback from the Romney team would scorch him to a cinder.

bagoh20 said...

I just want to know who's driving the car now and why we are still in the ditch... and where is my big gulp?

Scott M said...

The blowback from the Romney team would scorch him to a cinder.

Yeah. And God knows Axelrod can't afford to lose what hair he's got left.

David said...

No matter whether he wins or loses the election, Obama's promise of hope, change and a less divisive political dialog is utterly destroyed. It is a tragic thing. The contrast between what he could have been, and what he turned out to be, is as stark as in any President in our history.

Quaestor said...

Roger J. wrote:
Romney seems to be on message, ad given the GSA troubles, the Secret Service troubles, and Ms Rosen's comments, the Ds are getting desparate.

Desparate. I know this is a typo, but it seems to me that a new and effective adjective to describe today's Democrats has been coined.

des•pa•rate [‘des-p(ǝ-)rat] adj incongruent and hopeless

Bruce Hayden said...

just watch one of the pitches he throws:

To be fair, Bush managed a major league baseball team, and Obama did not. And, I am not sure that I would have done much better than Obama, having sworn off baseball from my bad experiences playing Little League ball. Similar experiences with basketball. Like football a lot more, even to this day, because I actually played it for awhile.

But, this too, is just another example of how Obama didn't share our common experiences growing up. Sure, he now plays basketball - I suspect because it is a "black" thing to do, and golf, because that is an elitist thing to do. But he didn't grow up that way, like most of the rest of us did.

Still, watching the video, it is a bit amazing that a guy who prepped as well as George W. Bush did, could throw a strike from the MLB regulation distance.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Perhaps Team Romney could do a riff on the Train to Nowhere.

Obama...the Presidency to Nowhere.

If the Tea Party will also coalesce behind Romney, I think he will win easily. Even with the massive cheating and voter fraud that Holder is aiding and abetting.

Keep out of the social issues, which really, no one cares that much about. The crap that the Dems keep trying to distract us with. Aborton. Women's lady parts. Issues that the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES has nothing to do with and no control over.

If Romney goes Federalist on those issues....meaning that they should be at a State level, he will win the hearts of the Tea Party

Stay on focus on the economy, jobs,energy and foreign policy. THESE are the issues that people are concerned about.

Deflect those other distractions

edutcher said...

Considering Little Zero now needs to find some Negroes to work in his campaign for the purpose of optics, you have to wonder if he dislikes black people as much as homosexuals.

PS Doesn't he remind you of a combination of Louis Winthorpe III and the Duke brothers?

cubanbob said...

roesch/voltaire said...
They would be smarter to stick with the observations of Richard Cohen who cleverly points out that Mitt Romney is one of the smoothest public liars who doesn't even flinch when he makes up his many stories.

4/20/12 9:51 AM

Cohen being the liar and idiot that he is forgets that the Clinton's were the undisputed masters of lying. They are the reigning heavy weight champions of lying. Compared to them, O is a bantam weight.

roesch/voltaire said...

Sl the great dividers of this country are folks like Paul Ryan who twist religious theology to fit their ideology in order to justify tax cuts for the rich and food cuts for the poor-- why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.

cubanbob said...

Roger J. said...
My take: the dems have their internal polling data, and it appears to me it isnt going well for them--per Drill's comment: they are throwing crap up against the wall to see what sticks. On a related MSM front, now that the horse race is over the Rs, the next horse race is about Romney's pick for the VP--for the MSMs its all about ratings.

Since its impossible to pick a VP candidate any dumber than Biden it doesn't matter who Romney picks.

cubanbob said...

roesch/voltaire said...
Sl the great dividers of this country are folks like Paul Ryan who twist religious theology to fit their ideology in order to justify tax cuts for the rich and food cuts for the poor-- why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.

4/20/12 10:28 AM

How about the poor solving their own largely self created problems? Most poor adults that are not psychically and or mentally handicapped are poor because of their bad decisions in life. First there are not tax cuts, just rate reductions. Once you start with a false premise it can only go south.

Quaestor said...

David wrote:
The contrast between what he could have been, and what he turned out to be, is as stark as in any President in our history.

I understand your sentiment and I generally agree, yet I find this last sentence troubling.

"[W]hat he could have been..." Do you mean a messianic figure like the image invoked by this atrocity? If so, I must posit that a messiah has no place in a republic except as a matter of private religious belief. Totalitarian hells have messiahs, republics have elected magistrates with sharply limited powers and tenures.

If you mean someone who could lead the national economy to prosperity, I must reply that there was nothing to base that expectation on. Neither his background or his philosophy (and we that still know almost nothing about him now after four years in the MSM spotlight is horrifying) could lead a unbiased observer to conclude that he had the intellect, the experience, or the will to do that. More to the point, capitalism builds prosperity, not policy dictated from the White House. The best any government can do to promote prosperity is to live within its means and stay the hell away from attempts to fine tune the economy or to modify, temper or adjust capitalism in the name of fairness, social justice, or whatever nebulousity floats your boat.

Geoff Matthews said...

The knock on Romney is that he is a successful man who was raised by a successful father. He's never been dirt-scrabbling poor, so he shouldn't be president.
And his grandfather lived around polygamists, in Mexico, so that's clearly a problem. Plus, Mormons are weird. Too weird.
So don't vote for him. He can't relate to you. Unlike the guy who was raised, partly in Indonesia, partly by his grandparents in Hawaii, that benefited from affirmative action all of his life.

roesch/voltaire said...

Cub I suggest that you read up on the number of middle class folks who have lost jobs and are now making up the growing ranks of those in poverty as they hardly fit your description.

Sloanasaurus said...

I understand your sentiment and I generally agree, yet I find this last sentence troubling.

I admit that although I would never have voted for Obama, I had hope that he had a chance thay he could reduce the divide, that what he was saying about uniting blue and red would be true. But this potential was quickly ruined by the partisanship of his rhetoric and his policies. The stimulus, health care bill were both born out of bitter partisanship. And Obama's rhetoric in general is now very divisive, when pre-2008 it was about uniting the country.

I also agree that Obama really is incompetent. The idea that he is an intelligent person is a false one. Obama comes off as an intellectual, but he really knows very little about most things.

I think people would be shocked by how poorly he actually did in school. That is why he won't release his grades. The school grades would prove that while he may sound academic, he really isn't.

Remember when Kerry refused to release his academic record.... It turned out that Kerry - the smart one - was a poorer student than Bush.

Chip S. said...

And I suggest, RV, that you try to figure out whose economic policies have given us the jobless non-recovery. (Hint: not Bush.)

Or you can just keep posting silly "liar" claims about Romney.

cubanbob said...

roesch/voltaire said...
Cub I suggest that you read up on the number of middle class folks who have lost jobs and are now making up the growing ranks of those in poverty as they hardly fit your description.

4/20/12 10:52 AM

Right because the numbers of middle class folks who are unemployed has quadrupled in the last three and a half years. In the meantime how many have been on unemployment because they couldn't find any jobs? So your solution is lets tax more the very people who do the bulk of the hiring but somehow that will reduce unemployment.

gloogle said...

It is extremely satisfying to watch how Obambus runs a campaign in a fashion as catastrophic as he has run the country.

He has no clue, and can only flail at the demons that are inside his head.

Portia said...

Blogger Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

It's only April and team Obama has already worn out the clutch.


Hooray, you win the thread.

Sloanasaurus said...

Sl the great dividers of this country are folks like Paul Ryan who twist religious theology to fit their ideology in order to justify tax cuts for the rich and food cuts for the poor-- why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.

Only a budget with a cynical view of the future would not cut funding for food stamps. This country has a record number of people getting food aid. The point of a positive future is to hope that people will not need food stamps in the future because they will have jobs and will be able to support themselves. The goal of Ryan's budget is that... Not to cut food for people, but to make people independent of government.

Quaestor said...

The Drill SCT brought our attention to this video of GWB's opening pitch and Obama's opening pitch. Ok, so Bush throws a strike and Obama throws wild. But that's not the important difference. What's important, what's truly revealing is the style. Bush comes out dressed casually and throws a competent pitch with little fanfare and no accouterments. Obama wears a Nationals windbreaker and a White Sox cap, stupidly emblematic of impartiality. I say stupidly because the best way to show impartiality is to not wear any team livery. George W. Bush, the man held to be both stupid and evil by the likes of garage, shiloh and others who troll this site, could figure this out, why was this simple expedient beyond the smartest president evah? Then Obama dons a pitcher's glove (why?) and proceeds to do an inelegant (and unintentional) parody of a windup, complete with a high kick which produces a slow wild pitch -- a perfect metaphor of his entire presidency. As they say in Texas Obama is all hat and no cattle.

Portia said...

roesch/voltaire said...

Sl the great dividers of this country are folks like Paul Ryan who twist religious theology to fit their ideology in order to justify tax cuts for the rich and food cuts for the poor-- why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.


You're reaching RV, read the whole article from the original source, not some lefty rag.

garage mahal said...

Right because the numbers of middle class folks who are unemployed has quadrupled in the last three and a half years.

That's Winger Economics 101. They don't want more jobs. Ask George Bush and Scott Walker. The more number of unemployed people = shit wages & benefits for workers.

Bender said...

We can't nominate any real conservatives, we need to nominate some moderate, middle-of-the-road guy like Romney, someone like Romney who is reasonable and the only adult in the room, to appeal to those in the middle and so that the Dems can't attack him for being an extremist.

Obama camp -- Mr. Romney has a core after all — and it’s deep red

Nn s*** Sherlock. Really?? The Dems were going to call the nominee a right-wing extremist no matter who was nominated. That's why the Republicans never should have been afraid to nominate the real deal, rather than some squish, faux-conservative who thinks that Obama "is a nice guy."

Roger J. said...

Questar--you are too kind (desperate vs desparate)--actually spelling has never been my strong suit--I did enjoy your definition!

Garage--shit wages and no benefitsin the current economy are better than no wages and no benefits--its all relative.

Don M said...

The big difference between Obamacare and Romneycare is Romney care is legal (state plenary authority) and states are not permitted to print money, so it must be kept sustainable.

Add to that the Romney care penalty for not having insurance is large, to encourage responsibility, rather than miniscule like Obama care. Miniscule Obamacare fees provide a perverse incentive for people to not carry insurance and force the federal government to pay with yet more borrowed money.

Don M said...

As for morality, if you care to pay for someone elses food or medical care, noone suggests that you be stopped (with possible exception of Mayor Bloomberg).

Go at it.

If you have a "I need to steal your money, and I promise to give it to the poor." I don't think that is moral.

Here you go. If there is a lazy taxi driver who works half a shift, and a hard working taxi driver who works two shifts, how is it ever moral to tax the hard working driver more than the lazy? It is not moral to punish the virtuous in my religion.

Nathan Alexander said...

Something I've been wanting to say, waiting for the right topic.

I'm done waiting, might as well say it now:

Is anyone else struck by the contrast in Presidential leadership between Bush and Obama?

For any/all of Bush's faults, he attempted to lead the whole nation.

Meaning, when an issue occurred, he and his advisers analyzed the situation, and developed a course of action they felt was best for the nation's future, and then tried to sell it to Congress or The People (as appropriate).

He sought NCLB to improve education. He got Ted Kennedy to help write it.

He attempted to reform SS, and clearly not to benefit any crony, but because he was trying to preserve SS before it became a problem.

He spent hours selling the invasion of Iraq. That it failed among lefties/Democrats who would disagree if he said 2+2=4 was not for his lack of trying.

But Obama: instead of working with any GOPer in Congress, he told them: do what I say because I won.

There has never been a crisis or event that he didn't react to with the same canned responses, i.e., looking at the problem and proposing solutions from the perspective of a Democrat black man who believes in Critical Race Theory: the police acted stupidly, I'm all that's standing between you and the pitchforks, if I had a son it would look like Trayvon, siding with the Occupy movement and their grievances in claiming to represent the 99%, refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers for intimidation at the polls or putting out a bounty on someone, having his DHS claim the biggest terrorist threat to the US is conservative former military, using the executive branch agencies to impose rules when Congress failed to pass his agenda into law (which shut down power plants and refineries that caused energy prices to necessarily skyrocket), finding excuses to deny the oil pipeline AND accountability for the decision, never appearing in front of Congress to justify Libya action, demonizing private citizens, etc, etc, etc, etc

I don't think he's ever spoken to try to convince the entire US populace of anything...he is always campaigning against conservatives and the GOP, setting up strawmen about conservative views, attacking conservative principles and beliefs.

I don't remember even Bill Clinton being so hyperpartisan as President.

I think this needs to be pointed out and highlighted much more: Obama clearly never wanted to be President of the US, he wanted to be President of Democrats With Enough Power to Enact a Progressive Agenda.

Hoover said...

A hardcore right winger? From the state who elected Dukakis Gov 3 times, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy every six years for life, has all congressmen who are democrats and 90% of the state legislature.

As a current and lifelong MA resident, I can't name a politician in this state who is to the right of Scott Brown. So good luck to the desperate Obama campaign with that. They must be extremely desperate.

Christopher in MA said...

Why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.

I was unaware that mathematics had a moral base. I was also unaware that you let Catholic bishops influence your view. Do you also follow their guidance when it comes to abortion and sexual mores? Or do you use them as a rhetorical stick when they agree with your particular position?

That's Winger Economics 101

Back so soon, garage? I figured after the rally where you were all screaming for Scott Walker's beheading you'd still be in a post-orgasmic high.

Original Mike said...

"I just want to know who's driving the car now and why we are still in the ditch"

Every time I hear Obama's ditch metaphor it reminds me of a trip we took to Norway in 2010. We were driving up a mountain road and came across an old hippie-type who had driven his VW minibus into the ditch. We were the 3rd car on the scene. People were just standing around looking at it. We jumped out of our car, went to the front of the minibus and urged, "Come on people, let's get this guy out of the ditch." Ten seconds later, the minibus was back on the road.

Damn, pushy Americans.

jpg said...

To "Scott M.": So what if Romney hires an openly gay man for a job? Who cares? 10 percent unemployment and $4+ gasoline is what I care about. I'll bet most people do, too. Conservatives are live and let live. Just leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Contrast that with libs who want to run every aspect of your life.

Scott M said...

@jpg

I don't care one way or the other. It was pointed out in the context of this thread and my original quote of AA's comments. Please take another pass at all of that.

Bender said...

Keep out of the social issues, which really, no one cares that much about.

Oh, DBQ, you are smarter than that.

Do you really think that Romney running away from these issues, and thereby acquiescing and conceding, is going to be a benefit to him or anyone other than the left, who does care about these things very much?

Do you really think that we will have "peace in our time" if only Neville Romney seeks to avoid these issues?

Do you really think that a "September 10 mentality" on social issues is going to work?

Seeing Red said...

--Sl the great dividers of this country are folks like Paul Ryan who twist religious theology to fit their ideology in order to justify tax cuts for the rich and food cuts for the poor-- why even the elected Bishops of the Catholic Church had to point out the lack of morality in his budget.--

A. The Catholic Church is a tax-exempt org. Maybe if they paid their fair share there would be more money in the budget.

B. There is a study out there showing we're paying too much in food bennies because the formula is based on faulty math.

I have an idea, lower energy costs and food costs just might come down. Under this president, energy prices would necessarily skyrocket. How come one of the intelligencia couldn't have foreseen food costs would go up as well and hit the poor?

BTW, it looks like housing costs will go up, the environazis want to ban about 75% of the lumber used and PVC piping. Which in turn raises the costs of housing for the poor, see how that works?

And you'll just scream MORE MONEY It's not FAIR!

Blue@9 said...

What a dumb strategy. Romney's big weakness is that he's a waffler who will change positions when politics demands. Calling him a die-hard conservative makes him more palatable to a conservative base that is deeply suspicious of him.

damikesc said...

Heyyyy --- no concerns by anybody that one of Obama's top bunders for January - March 2012 was...Jon Corzine?

http://www.barackobama.com/2012-first-quarter-volunteer-fundraisers

Who was under investigation as of December 2011 for misuse of funds with the bankruptcy of MF Global.

Should a politician have a person who was in charge when over a BILLION dollars of deposits suddenly turned up...missing as one of his elite level bundlers?

Phil 3:14 said...

Which base are they trying to energize?

John Lynch said...

Republican candidates are always:

1. Stupid
2. Religious zealots
3. Out of touch
4. Old fashioned
5. Senile
6. Draft-dodgers

If some of these don't fit (like McCain not being a draft dodger or Romney being too young to be senile), then emphasize the rest.

Really boring and tiresome for me. It's always the same. There's a similar list for Democratic candidates, BTW, but I'll save it for later.

The Republican party consistently nominates the most liberal candidate.

Each election cycle the argument for a more conservative Republican candidate is simply, "No matter who we pick, he's going to get called a right wing nutjob, so he might as well be one."

And no one ever listens, because of Barry Goldwater.