Article

2012-09-19 -Election 2012

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2012-09-19 06:23|| || Front Page|| [11137 views ] Top

#1 Willard has got to get off the apology tour, take the 47% issue, sort out valid recipients, flesh it out with skyrocketing Food Stamp increases, Social Security disability fraud, unemployment facts, and drive it home!

This is a winner if he can craft the argument properly and STOP using terms like "inelegant".

Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-19 08:54|| 2012-09-19 08:54|| Front Page Top

#2 I saw the Mother Jones 52 minute video or at least most of it. The video gave a good look at the Romney that doesn't come across in the 24/7 news cycle sound bites. Mother Jones was probably hoping for red meat that just wasn't there. The 2 min they thought was going to be harmful is only so in the minds of the donks who will vote for "O" even as he fiddles or the Titanic is sinking. Another distraction--time to move on--nothing to see.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-09-19 09:08|| 2012-09-19 09:08|| Front Page Top

#3 WaPo, so it's just FUD.

But, Mittens is a lousy campaigner. I worked on his '94 Senate campaign. He sucked then and hasn't gotten any better. Running against Obama should be easy. Mitten just isn't the guy to do it.

I don't think Mitt can win, but I do think Obama might lose.

Posted by Iblis 2012-09-19 09:30|| 2012-09-19 09:30|| Front Page Top

#4 I can envision a worst case scenario where this muslim outrage thing graduates from burning US Embassies to hostage taking, beheadings, and domestic violence here at home. Champ's alleged handling of foreign policy is rapidly being revealed for what it is. He knows he can't pick the turd up from the clean end, so he's attacking Willard with everything he's got.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-19 09:36|| 2012-09-19 09:36|| Front Page Top

#5 But, Mittens is a lousy campaigner. I worked on his '94 Senate campaign. He sucked then and hasn't gotten any better. Running against Obama should be easy. Mitten just isn't the guy to do it.

If Romney loses, I think the post-mortem will be that Romney didn't have the political skills to win the presidency, due to his inexperience in politics. He overpowered his GOP opponents in 2012 because (1) he spent more money than all the other candidates combined, thanks to business sector support and (2) he had one liberal opponent who dropped out early, whereas the conservatives stayed in till the end. If the trailing conservatives had made a pact to pull out a little earlier, there would have been a united front against Romney. I almost want to say that if there's a place for campaign finance limits through Federal funding, it's in the GOP nominating process, so that guys like Romney can't simply pummel his opponents into submission with unlimited amounts of money.

Look - I don't blame the losing conservatives for sticking it out until the last minute - many gave a year or more of their lives seeking the nomination. At the same time, I think the most experienced politicians are also the ones with the best political instincts, in the sense that they have a better feel* of what wins votes and what doesn't. Romney's single term as MA governor is nowhere near enough political experience to give him an understanding of how to win elections.

Even Obama had more political experience than Romney when he ran for the presidency. Despite being an arriviste from Hawaii who parachuted into Chicago politics, he managed to win an Illinois State Senate position against authentically black race hustlers, and then won a Democratic Senate primary against significant Democratic opposition, thereby catapulting him into federal office. All told, he spent 12 years in politics before running for the presidency. But in a sense, he's been running for the presidency all his life, with his book-length musings on the strategic and tactical aspects of getting political power. Bottom line is that Obama has sunk 20-30 years of his life figuring the practical ins and outs of winning elections. Romney has 4. In retrospect, it's not entirely surprising that Obama steamrolled Hillary Clinton *and* John McCain.

* The reason I use the word "feel" is because vote-winning strategies change. Goldwater's use of defense issues failed miserably, even though Kennedy's myth-making about the "missile gap" worked for him.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-09-19 09:46|| 2012-09-19 09:46|| Front Page Top

#6 If this episode leads the Romney campaign to loosen the bonds on Ryan it could get interesting. Mitt is a manager, not a leader. Ryan has leadership/motivation potential. That is why his nomination reconciled the base. Free Paul Ryan.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-09-19 09:51|| 2012-09-19 09:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Please, please, Mitt. Do not go John McCain on us. Embrace your 47% remark. It was the best thing I've heard you say so far. WAPO is gonna hate you anyway. Run with it. Go for it.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-09-19 11:37|| 2012-09-19 11:37|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, IMHO, for the past four years I've watched all the Karl Roves and their ilk in the commentariat say, "If it only weren't for Sarah Palin we'd have prevailed against Obama; please give us a more professional candidate and we PROMISE we in the rest of the party will actually act professional this time."

Well, they got their dream "act professional" candidate, but PROFESSIONALISM DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

The Press is going to play the same damn gotcha games against Romney they did against Palin, and guess what? It's a little too late to actually start learning the rules of the game and to start fighting back, there's basically only a month left in the campaign.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-09-19 12:19|| 2012-09-19 12:19|| Front Page Top

#9 We should have been fighting back against all this garbage in 2008. And 2009. And 2010. And when they accused Palin of murder.

Late September 2012 is a horrible time to go down to the Barnes and Noble and pick out your copy of "Fighting Back For Dummies."

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2012-09-19 12:21|| 2012-09-19 12:21|| Front Page Top

#10 I agree with the 47% remark where the lazy live off the Government just like the same amount do in the UK who vote Labour.

Labour=Dems.
Conservatives=Republicans.

Posted by Paul D 2012-09-19 12:30|| 2012-09-19 12:30|| Front Page Top

#11 Labour=Dems=Socialists

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2012-09-19 13:21|| 2012-09-19 13:21|| Front Page Top

#12 You shouldn't worry about the "47" video for much longer. It's already been proven the tape was cut out during that part of the speech he gave. Scumbag who posted it claims it was "a mistake of 1-2 minutes but the context was already shown". Yeah, sure it was. And the damn video-camera, angle and all, didn't move an inch in the before and after part that was cut off. LegalInsurrection is all over it.

Posted by Charles 2012-09-19 14:08|| 2012-09-19 14:08|| Front Page Top

#13 Zhang:

One nit to pick. Romney is not an inexperienced politician. He's been running for one thing or another for 17 years, give or take. It's just that, with the exception of one term as governor of MA, he always loses.

I don't want to be the dark harbinger of doom here. I still think Champ will lose. If any incumbent president is beatable, this is the guy. I'm just really disappointed that we went with Mitt. We had much, much better options. It will be nice to see Champ retreat to his Hawaiian paradise in January, but I'm not looking forward to spending the next 4 years fighting the same battles against a president of our own party.

Posted by Iblis 2012-09-19 14:51|| 2012-09-19 14:51|| Front Page Top

#14 You're the man lblis

Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-19 14:55|| 2012-09-19 14:55|| Front Page Top

#15 Don't forget about the Congress. If we elect another 20 Reps and 10 Senators with Tea Party leanings, Mitt will be more malleable in that direction.

Posted by Bobby 2012-09-19 15:05|| 2012-09-19 15:05|| Front Page Top

#16 The missus is Jewish and said she would vote for a ham sandwich so long as it's not Obama. I figure that's pretty serious.

There just may be a lot of people in the 47% who don't count themselves as living off the government--they just want a job and don't want to be in the position they are in. Romney stacks up fairly good when compared to Obama. Obama is a fraud, an empty suit, an empty chair. He doesn't do well without a teleprompter. A skillful debater could make him crumble. There is so much low-hanging fruit surrounding this guy and his administration just waiting to be picked for the debates. His record is terrible. His administration is not good on the issues of the day. He is good on promises and give-aways. His ideology sucks. He just might crumble in a withering debate or resort to lying. If he resorts to manipulation of the truth and Romney is prepared, he should be able to handle that. He is aware of this tendency in Obama and mentioned it on TV--I'm surprise the media didn't go ballistic--they are nearly as bad as the islamists who see cartoons that make them crazier.

Posted by JohnQC 2012-09-19 15:22|| 2012-09-19 15:22|| Front Page Top

#17 The MSM and the WH are trying to push the fiasco in Bengazi, etc.,below the fold. So just about anything Mitt did would be a "campaign misstep"

Heck, he could have spilled catsup on his tie at a Micky D's and they would have made a front page story out of it.

The bigger issue is they are just wagging the dog to get attention diverted from the complete disaster brewing in the ME and how screwed up BO's foreign policy is.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2012-09-19 15:41|| 2012-09-19 15:41|| Front Page Top

#18 Does anyone remember how many people showed up and waited in long lines, FOR A CHICKEN SANDWICH? All across the nation, wherever there was a Chick-fil-A!

That is what is coming on election day. I'm not voting for Romney, I'm voting the Commie off the island.

Posted by Secret Asian Man 2012-09-19 16:49|| 2012-09-19 16:49|| Front Page Top

#19 I will low crawl to our polling place if I have to.

Posted by Besoeker 2012-09-19 17:01|| 2012-09-19 17:01|| Front Page Top

#20 The MSM and the WH are trying to push the fiasco in Bengazi, etc.,below the fold.

?

Posted by Shipman 2012-09-19 17:09|| 2012-09-19 17:09|| Front Page Top

#21 I would vote for a syphalic camel before I'd vote for Bambi.

Syphalis can be cured - socialist stupidity can't.

So I'm supporting Romney and donating to his campaign, and to the House/Senate campaigns of fiscal conservatives (I think the federal gummint should butt OUT of social stuff - leave that to the individual states).

I will admit I hadn't donated to Mitt before he named Ryan as his running mate; intended to, but just hadn't gotten around to dipping into the war chest yet. He got a very large donation from me the day after he named Ryan. That's when I got excited.

Posted by Barbara 2012-09-19 18:49|| 2012-09-19 18:49|| Front Page Top

#22 Shipman, "below the fold" is newspaper-speak for pushing articles to lesser places within the paper so that they do not assume any importance and are consigned to irrelevancy. Other variant sayings are "put on page 10" or "with the obituaries".

The argument then can be made that "we published it". Yes, but it's like a Congressman addressing the House floor after the day's session is over. It's for the record only.

Posted by Pappy 2012-09-19 21:18|| 2012-09-19 21:18|| Front Page Top

#23 Iblis: One nit to pick. Romney is not an inexperienced politician. He's been running for one thing or another for 17 years, give or take. It's just that, with the exception of one term as governor of MA, he always loses.

Would you call someone who's failed the police exam 12 years an experienced cop? An experienced politician is someone who has held elected office. Romney has repeatedly run for elected office, but only served in elected office for 4 years. This means that he has only spent 4 years thinking about the art of winning office. Someone who was serious about politics would have moved to a solidly red state where he could have (1) done more good and (2)spent years in office working with the legislature and getting re-elected. Romney is a dilettante who thinks winning office is just another consulting gig you can parachute into. This is why Obama will probably defeat him in November. Relative to Obama, Romney knows everything about running a business and nothing about politics. The art of winning political office is probably no different from anything else - the more you do it, the better you get at it. Romney's been spending too much time doing things other than politics - he hasn't been willing to make the sacrifices needed by moving to a red state and holding office, and is now paying the price for his lack of attention.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-09-19 21:53|| 2012-09-19 21:53|| Front Page Top

#24 Why was Bush a much more effective politician than Romney? Because he managed his dad's campaigns and was a GOP governor in a conservative state for 8 years, a position where you can do a lot more than being the GOP governor of a liberal state like MA.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-09-19 22:02|| 2012-09-19 22:02|| Front Page Top

#25 Zhang Fei:

Romney is an experienced campaigner. Is that better?

Experienced, but not skilled.

And prior to being elected president, Obama had held public office for 4 years, exactly the same as Romney.

One last point. I am sick unto death of hearing about how Romney's hands were tied because MA is a blue state. Rubbish. Pawlenty managed to run a blue state as a conservative, more or less. Romney ran in MA to Ted Kennedy's left.

Posted by Iblis 2012-09-19 22:21|| 2012-09-19 22:21|| Front Page Top

#26 And prior to being elected president, Obama had held public office for 4 years, exactly the same as Romney.

The number is 12 years, 8 of them as an Illinois state senator.

One last point. I am sick unto death of hearing about how Romney's hands were tied because MA is a blue state. Rubbish. Pawlenty managed to run a blue state as a conservative, more or less. Romney ran in MA to Ted Kennedy's left.

While in office, Romney dealt with a legislature that was 80% Democratic. When he ran against Kennedy in 1992, the legislature was also 80% Democratic.

As MN governor, Pawlenty came into office with one house that was majority Republican and another that was evenly balanced. Having said that, I think Pawlenty was an excellent candidate. Although he's as colorless as Romney, I don't recall him making any gaffes. The guy simply did not have the resources to get the GOP nod. If he had Romney's money, he'd have won the nomination and be polling ahead of Obama today. The guy's been in some political office or other since 1989. I think if he runs again in 2016, he's got a solid shot at the nomination, assuming Romney loses this year.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2012-09-19 23:41|| 2012-09-19 23:41|| Front Page Top

00:08 JosephMendiola
23:47 JosephMendiola
23:43 rjschwarz
23:41 Zhang Fei
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:07 Gomez Claque7232
22:57 trailing wife
22:21 Iblis
22:02 Zhang Fei
21:53 Zhang Fei
21:18 Pappy
20:33 Barbara
20:07 Frank G
19:49 Scooter McGruder
19:42 Eric Jablow
19:37 JosephMendiola
19:29 JosephMendiola
19:21 Procopius2k
19:18 Mike Kozlowski
18:55 Ebbang Uluque6305
18:51 Barbara
18:49 Barbara
18:26 swksvolFF