Gingrichian forces construct the Mitt Romney story in such a way that what emerges is the Father of Potterville. Does Romney have the ground game to respond to the blunderbuss charges of greed, gluttony, villainy and a touch of evil? The assumption is that the Obama re-elect will lavish this scale of condemnation and more on Mr. Romney, and the Romney team is wise to anticipate these waves of fear-mongering. The general election will turn on a handful of states, and specifically will depend upon the vote of the independent professionals in those few states (NV, NM, CO, IA, MI, OH, PA, VA, NC, NH, perhaps FL). Does a female professional with children and a mortgage who has voted for both Democratic and Republican candidates in the past concern herself with the fairy tale of Romney the Dark Lord? Perhaps. It is the risk the GOP takes by endorsing a needy 1%er in the land of the lost 99%ers. A year from now, will we see a narrative that states that the reason Romney lost to Barack Obama was that he could not convince Middle America he was worthy because he was too rich to trust? Does Middle America keep Obama in place because it believes his shortcomings are acceptable? In a debate between them, does Mr. Obama accuse Mr. Romney of greed and pride? How does the Independent vote choose between a president who is amiable and unaccomplished and a rich man who is amiable and accomplished? Unknown. Mention that Salena Zito, PTR, tells me that the Obama re-elect in Chicago called her after her warm Romney profile piece on the Romney family values in order to complain that she was too one-sided. Team Chicago is fretful about the Pittsburgh vote being fooled by this chatter that Old Nick Mitt has a heart.
Would someone tell Gingrich that this isn’t “It’s a Wonderful Life” this is “Star Wars” . . .
Newt is Obi Wan, wise man who has seen it all and tried to do the right thing through all of it. Rick Santorum is Luke Skywalker, young man with great potential who has yet to learn that ways of the Force, I mean political duplicity, which Newt has mastered.
Both must team up against Mitt Romney as Darth Vader; the young Luke will see the good in him and turn him to the good side of The Force!
The final battle will occur in South Carolina and not on the Death Star . . .
As for Ron Paul, hell, that guy even looks like Yoda . . . .
President Obama? The Evil Emperor . . .
. . . whom Mitt Romney will defeat on November 6, 2010
:)
JB web guy/gal knock out that first one . . . going to drink that first cup of coffee now . . .
RT @KatrinaTrinko Romney camp: Gingrich and Perry's comments are "attacks on free enterprise"http://bit.ly/yTBLoX
From the WSJ Political Diary:
Romney's Wing Man
If Mitt Romney wins the GOP presidential nomination, he's going to owe Ron Paul a fee for services rendered. No one has done more to help Mr. Romney than has the libertarian candidate, who has no chance to win the nomination himself but has savaged the rest of the field while giving the former Massachusetts governor a pass.
Over the many GOP debates, Mr. Paul has almost never criticized Mr. Romney except in the most general terms when he's referring to the entire field of what he considers to be status quo Republicans. Even when offered an explicit opening to criticize Mr. Romney, Mr. Paul won't go there. In Sunday's debate, NBC's David Gregory asked Mr. Paul pointedly, "Do you believe Governor Romney now when he says that he is a man of constancy and that he'll stand up for conservative principles?" Mr. Paul dismissed the question as "superficial" and moved on to a familiar and general attack on TARP and the Federal Reserve.
The Texas congressman has no such reluctance in assailing other candidates, often in nasty personal terms. His attack ads ripped Newt Gingrich in Iowa as unethical, and in New Hampshire he has called him a "chicken hawk" for supporting a strong defense but not having served in the military.
His new ad in South Carolina calls Rick Santorum "corrupt" because he made money as a corporate lobbyist after he left the Senate. Asked about that ad in Saturday's debate, Mr. Paul said, "Well, it was a quote -- somebody did make a survey and I think he came out as one of the top corrupt individuals because he took so much money from the lobbyists." The source was a left-wing interest group.
Later, Mr. Paul went out of his way to change the subject and hit Mr. Santorum again: "But this thing -- back to Senator Santorum, you know, he ducks behind this -- for this balanced budget amendment but voted five times to increase the national debt by trillions of dollars."
All of this helps to block any other conservative from emerging to give Mr. Romney a one-on-one challenge. Mr. Romney understands this well, which is why he never criticizes Mr. Paul. Perhaps Mr. Paul figures that by attacking the others, he might emerge as the last challenger standing. But another possibility is that Mr. Paul figures his best chance to run as a third-party candidate is if Mr. Romney, as the establishment favorite, is the GOP nominee and doesn't give Mr. Paul enough prominence at the convention or in the party platform. Mr. Paul still hasn't ruled out a third-party run.
In any case, someone should ask the candidates what gives with their mutual nonaggression pact.
-- Paul A. Gigot
am told that RAND Paul is none too foggy about his Potomac Fever, and that RAND Paul spends a deal of time explaining his father's errors with regard foreign policy; and that RAND Paul is the reason the RON Paul will not third party.
JB,
RE: Ron Paul
Every man has his price.
JD
FLOTUS and V-POTUS (Jarrett) succeed in running off Bill Daley.
"FLOTUS and V-POTUS (Jarrett) succeed in running off Bill Daley."a
If you had screaming harpy/leftys after your scalp, you'd run away too.
When you think about a hardened Chicago pol, like Daley, unable to take the politics going on in the WH, it must be a real cesspool.
STATE SLOGANS:
New Hampshire: Live free or die.
Iowa: We can be bought with corn.
re screaming harpy lefties....
Totally a speculation: that the laughably unathletic BHO plays so much golf, so often, because it accords him off-premises, private respites from said V-POTUS and FLOTUS and that also permit any smoking and/or scarfing down of junk food that otherwise, if outed, would have serious public and private consequences.
I don't doubt it for nanosecond. He wouldn't be the first husband to use links as an excuse to get away from the ball-and-chain.
Gingrich's addiction to Pyrrhic victories persists.
From WSJ Political Diary:
Gingrich's Bain-ful Blow Up
Conservative groups are crying foul over Newt Gingrich's attacks against Bain Capital -- the investment company that Mitt Romney once ran. Reports are that Mr. Gingrich's Super PAC, run by former chief of staff Rick Tyler, may spend $5 million or more on ads in South Carolina portraying Mr. Romney as a corporate raider who "looted" companies and laid off thousands of workers. This could be the biggest waste of money in the history of American politics, and if the ads go forward they have a very good chance of being a knock-out blow -- to Mr. Gingrich.
Mr. Gingrich has blasted Bain Capital's business activities on the grounds that those who believe in "entrepreneurship and job creation would find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company." Mr. Tyler calls Mr. Romney a "corporate mugger." He's planning a blitz with a three-minute ad attacking Bain for laying off workers after it bought companies.
Except this is a distortion. Many of the companies that Bain rescued from bankruptcy would have otherwise had all of their jobs eliminated by going under. Layoffs in many cases were the only way to save failing firms. More importantly, Bain reorganized companies and put them back on solid financial footing. It also provided angel investment capital to start-ups like Staples that created tens of thousands of jobs.
James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute fumes that "Newt is using the same anti-capitalism attacks against Romney that Barack Obama will use." He says that Mr. Gingrich is trying to "make Romney out to be Gordon Gekko." Chris Chocola of the Club for Growth writes that the former House speaker's claims are "disgusting" and that "attacking Governor Romney for participating in free-market capitalism is just beyond the pale for any purported 'Reagan Conservative.'"
Jay Nordlinger of National Review says that Mr. Gingrich is acting like a "proud social-democrat. In the off season, they sound like Friedrich Hayek. When the game is on, they sound like Huey Long, Bella Abzug, or Bob Shrum."
That's just a sampling of the level of disgust with the Gingrich campaign's tactics. It's true that the Romney attack machine carpet-bombed Mr. Gingrich with negative ads in Iowa. But the 30-minute web video looks to be an anti-capitalism screed, and many conservatives believe that Mr. Gingrich has gone too far.
-- Stephen Moore
Very good article. All the talk that Gingrich would implode seems to be true.
I don't know why Gingrich wasn't smart enough to realize that what made him shoot up in the polls was his nonchalance in the debates -- standing apart from the fray and appearing to be to be the elder statesman.
Now, Newt just looks spiteful -- and that's not a nice trait.
Corlyss -
Things have taken an odd turn. A year ago, we were 'talking' here about how vulnerable Romney was: I said he would be fiorinaized by Obama -- meaning he would be attacked for firing people as part of Bain Capital -- as Fiorina was attacked by Boxer. I don't want to misquote you, but I think you thought Romney's vulnerability was his healthcare stance in MA.
Surprisingly, no candidates have really gone after Mitt until recently, as your article above about Paul explains. Newt's attack on Romney/Bain has backfired. It turns out that this is probably a bad strategy. In addition, it didn't help that Newt executed it very, very poorly. Clearly, being historical (and hysterical) is not the answer. Ted Kennedy had the right strategy, as JB showed in the commercial he posted here: Just use people talking about how it felt to be fired by Romney. I think Obama will still use this strategy AND he will do it properly.
On the other hand, had Newt been able to attack Romney on his healthcare program, this would've been the smart way to go. Unfortunately for Newt, he actually had liked Romney's health care program -- or said he did, anyway. During the election, Obama will probably continue to 'thank' Romney for his help in ObamaCare. This will hurt Romney. You know, flip flopper and all that.
I think everyone in Iowa and NH has voted on the basis that he or she thinks that Romney can beat Obama. This may prove to be very wrong.
A while ago, you mentioned that Gingrich was a colossal narcissist. How right you were. Of course, the same is true of Obama. Though, this seems to have been Gingrich's fatal flaw. The other side of narcissism seems to be to have 'thin skin'. I would've love to have seen Newt v. Barry. And still would. Two attack dogs going at it. Oh, the pleasure of it.
I wonder if Romney can criticize Obama enough to make him implode?
"Things have taken an odd turn. A year ago, we were 'talking' here about how vulnerable Romney was: I said he would be fiorinaized by Obama -- meaning he would be attacked for firing people as part of Bain Capital -- as Fiorina was attacked by Boxer. I don't want to misquote you, but I think you thought Romney's vulnerability was his healthcare stance in MA."
Right you are! AS I recall those were our positions, fairly stated. Obamacare was 2010's issue. The Bain thing has more staying power than I gave it credit for because people are not thinking about the corollary that lots more people would have been out of work if the Bain hadn't done what it did. Of course, I don't expect the SEIU or ACORN patrons to get it, or admit it if they did get it. Besides, it's about the past and not the future. As long as the narrative is Captialism=evil, state entitlements=good, we're not going to get intelligent discussions. Kohut said yesterday that exit polling showed 85% of voters listed either the economy or the deficit as their major concerns. The latter can't be spoken of without entitlements, including medicare and Obamacare, and of the voters polled yesterday, only something like 30-35% considered the deficit THE most important issue.
I think about such things, and I wonder how in the name of God voters could be stupid enough to re-elect Obama. The answer ranks right up there with String theory explanations in difficulty.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/10/supreme-court-hears-case-workers-fighting-union-over-dues-spent-on-political/
BAsed on reporting of questions asked on the bench, it sounds like some justices were horrified at the underlying practice. These non-union plaintiffs are only asking that the unions dues extorted from them not be used on political issues they don't approve of. The fact that neither Kagan nor Sotomayor to my recollection questioned the practice itself was shocking. One even sounded like all she cared about was the fact that eventually the workers who complained would eventually get their money back, months or years later.
California is truly the Sick Man of the US.
From WSJ Political Diary
Romney's New Hampshire Breadth
New Hampshire was Mitt Romney's home turf, but his victory Tuesday was still striking in its reach across the GOP coalition. According to the exit polls, he won a plurality of the vote or close to it across nearly all major demographic and ideological groups.
The former Massachusetts governor won 49% of Republicans, who constituted half of the electorate. But he also won 29% of self-described independents, losing only to Ron Paul's 32%. This is in contrast to John McCain in 2008 and in 2000, when the Arizona senator's New Hampshire wins relied on more independents. That could pose problems for Mr. Romney in the general election when he would need to win independents by a considerable margin. But New Hampshire suggests he is consolidating support among GOP regulars, which will make him difficult to beat for the nomination.
Also notable was Mr. Romney's appeal to those who strongly or somewhat support the tea party, who represented about half of primary voters. Mr. Romney won 40% compared to 22% for Mr. Paul. Reaching tea party denizens had been one of Mr. Romney's weaknesses, and there will be more of them in South Carolina than in New England.
One other point: Mr. Romney also did well among late-deciding voters, winning a third of the 46% of all voters who said they made up their minds on Tuesday or in the last few days. This was smaller than his plurality among those who had decided earlier, but it suggests the attacks on his record at Bain Capital had only a small impact.
Mr. Romney's biggest advantages continue to be a splintered field of conservatives who are dividing the non-Romney vote and the perception that he is the most electable in November. But his New Hampshire strength shows that more primary voters are getting comfortable with his candidacy. South Carolina may be the rest of the field's last chance to stop him. -- Paul A. Gigot
Mitt Marches On
Mitt Romney used his victory speech in New Hampshire last night both to push back (gently) at the GOP rivals who are nipping at his heels and to keep the focus on Barack Obama.
"President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him," said Mr. Romney. "This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation," he added. "I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success."
Despite embarrassingly unprincipled attacks from the other candidates on Mr. Romney's record at Bain Capital -- which sometimes seemed like attacks on free-market capitalism itself -- Mr. Romney cruised to victory with 39% of the vote. Ron Paul finished second with 23%, and Jon Huntsman, who had staked everything on a strong showing in the Granite State, was a distant third at just under 17%.
As important as his margin of victory last night might be the fact that Mr. Romney is expanding his reach across the Republican coalition. "Romney dominated not only the groups that favored him in Iowa last week, but also several of those that had resisted him there -- particularly voters who identified as either evangelical Christians or strong tea party supporters," observed National Journal political analyst Ron Brownstein. That "could signal a desire even among more conservative voters to begin consolidating around Romney while shifting the party's focus to the general election against President Obama."
Conservatives who are pining for a drawn out nominating process, even if it risks depressing GOP turnout in the fall, could still get their wish. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum -- none of whom could break 10% in New Hampshire or have much chance of becoming the nominee -- are continuing on to the South Carolina primary on Jan. 21. And Messrs. Gingrich and Perry are promising the mother of all negative ad blitzes against Mr. Romney.
Social conservative voters will play a bigger role in the Palmetto State, but with so many social conservative candidates splitting the non-Romney, Mr. Romney could prevail there as well, just as John McCain did four years ago courtesy of rivals like Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson. And even if Mr. Romney doesn't win South Carolina, where he currently has a double-digit lead in the polls, he's still got this going for him: No one in either party has won both Iowa and New Hampshire and not been the nominee since 1972. -- Jason L. Riley
What strikes me is how the Occupy movement, Obama and the MSM have changed the national debate. The Tea Party fervor has died down. It's clear there's no real enthusiasm for Romney, who seems to be cut from the Bob Dole, John McCain cloth.
In an election that's so important, very little that's important seems to be coming to the fore. All this petty squabbling gets us off course. Who is the national security candidate? Will Obama's solitary headline-grabber of killing UBL be enough to give him the edge on security? Can Romney talk with authority about foreign affairs or, if a crises emerges, can Romney be relied upon to be the one who is relied upon?
I mention the above because in 2008 the economic crisis came out of nowhere and determined events. I fear in 2012 it'll be a foreign crisis that comes out of nowhere. And, unfortunately, a foreign crisis could be to Obama's advantage.
"Bob Dole, John McCain"
Unfortunately, those are the kinds of flabby Republicans "independents" (read "former Democrats") love to vote for. Makes them feel so ecumenical, so not-liberals-in-thinking-man's-clothes.