The real question with Romney


Willard “Mitt” Romney is the GOP establishment pick for the nomination. Unlike the situation with Obama in 2008 where the Democratic establishment was secretly backing Obama over Hillary, here the Republicans have made no secret of their desires. They want Mitt. It remains to be seen how far they will go to make it happen.

The real question with Romney is whether he’ll gain enough votes from independents in the middle to compensate for the votes he’ll lose from the base. Romney’s strength (if you can really call it that) is that he is more likely to appeal to swing voters than an ideologically pure conservative like Santorum.

But what if the conservative base decides they are tired of holding their noses to vote and decides to stay home next November?

BTW – The Obamacrats need to show more class. This isn’t a pick-up basketball game and many people are turned off by trash talk. For examples of classy politics, see Clinton, Bill or Hillary.


This entry was posted in 2012 Elections, 2012 GOP Primary, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The real question with Romney

  1. votermom says:

    Wait, Fox is saying Romneycare won? I thought Little Ricky won? I am so confuzzled.
    And why hasn’t Hunstman dropped out yet anyway?

  2. guest says:

    And why hasn’t Hunstman dropped out yet anyway?

    Because nobody knows he is in..

    But what if the conservative base decides they are tired of holding their noses to vote and decides to stay home next November?

    ABO is strong enough that I hope they will do it.

  3. ainnj says:

    I believe even the rightest of conservatives will vote Romney rather than sit this one out as their main objective is that Obama does not win in November. I think most independents will vote for Romney as he will of course start moving towards the middle once he clinches the nomination (he too knows the republican base will turn out for him when left with the alternatives) and unless there is some unexpected or cataclysmic event which somehow turns the economy around on a dime while significantly decreasing unemployment prior to November, I think odds are very much in Romeny’s favor to win the WH. Obamas team will focus on Romneys flip flopping stuff, but as President, Obama himself is a lot more vulnerable to that charge (as are all sitting presidents running for re-election). I don’t think Santorum will last much longer in the primary game, especially if he starts teaming up with Gingrich who is starting to implode.

    • votermom says:

      Makes sense. The logical thing for Team Obama to do is to try and take Mitt out via unearthing some kind of dirt. Hopefully their timing will stink so that they damage Mitt before it’s too late to replace him as nominee.

      • r u reddy says:

        If “dirt” means “personal pecadilloes”, I doubt Romney has any. They could talk about callousness to animals . . . dog-on-car, that sort of thing.

        If they wanted to use “policy dirt”, they could talk about Bain Capital jobicide against American workers. But then Romney could ask why, then, does Obama seek to pass three jobicidal Free Trade Agreements? But then if Romney asked that, someone might ask whether Romney is promising then to abolish/abrogate the three jobicidal Free Trade Agreements if he is elected (supposing Obama gets them passed)? Obama and Romney might find themselves backed into a shared corner of shared contradiction.

      • Three Wickets says:

        He should make his recent tax returns public. But then again, who would be foolish enough to run for president while paying an effective tax rate that is lower than the middle class.

        • DeniseVB says:

          If Team WTF makes a big deal out of releasing Rom’s tax returns, couldn’t Team OMFGop make a big deal out of Obama’s sealed college and financial records ? Bring it on 😉

  4. votermom says:

    OT I guess The Donald hasn’t forgiven the peeps who snubbed his debate.

  5. ainnj says:

    I don’t think there is any dirt on Mitt. Part of his problem really, he is about as bland, noncharismatic and boring as they come. The dems will probably try to make him a poster boy of big business and blame him for the economic crisis since he worked in finance, they will definitely try and show him to be a hypocrite for the Mass. health care laws he helped put into place, will try to paint him as totally evil since he has lots and LOTS of money, and as we all know there are no Obama supporters who have lots and LOTS of money ;).

  6. DandyTiger says:

    Wow, that was a train wreck of an interview. Does Debbie Downer think she’s going to win hearts and minds with that approach?

  7. votermom says:

    LOLing at this seen on twitter (on McCain endorsing Mitt):

    The man who couldn’t beat Obama teamed with the man who couldn’t beat McCain.

  8. Debbie shouldn’t talk with her mouth full. OK, that’s sooo politically incorrect. Caught you laughing though.

  9. guest says:

    Life threatening disease like cancer changes people’s perspective but not little Debbie’s — she has taken to saving Obama’s ass too seriously. The way she talks and makes all those gestures she comes off as juvenile and immature.

    • She’s the best thing going for the GOP. Poke the GOP supporters just when they’re feeling apathetic and remind them how much Obama and his supporters suck.

  10. insanelysane says:

    Can anyone here remember when Presidents were non partisan? When the President was the President of us all. Eisenhower. Kennedy? At least they pretended to speak to all of us.
    It is now Us vs. Them in everything.

    With Obama being the perpetual campaigner, ( The only thing he does well.) things have become hyper partisan. There is little governance…….. just political grandstanding.
    From everyone.

    Where has Barbara Boxer been for the past 3 years? Did she get kidnapped or something? Where are any progressive voices?
    I just hear Silence from the liberal left.

  11. Lola-at-Large says:

    That interview at the top is a disaster. Why is Obama just attacking Romney, indeed? Could it because he wants to select his opponent, and is trying to do so by trying to engineer a fake electoral fight during the GOP primary? Always pick on the wimpy guy to try to draw his ire, and avoid the big, bad bully because you can’t beat him or her. Playground 101.

    • 1539days says:

      The MSNBC B-team has been off the air for a day or so, but now they are back, and boy do they hate Rick Santorum. And yes, we all get the oh-so-clever double entendres about coming from behind. This is exactly the reason why snarky liberals piss off Americans and make them vote for Republicans.

      Santorum will get his share of attacks / vetting, of course. Obama will not. I saw Crazy Larry on MSNBC with three anti-administration stories. Except, when they go into the news fun house, they’re not Obama’s fault anymore.

      1. Unconstitutional recess appointments. There was a bit of “I guess if a Republican did it, we’d be mad,” but it devolved into arguing Obama had to do it. Because you can piss on the Constitution if you REALLY have to go.

      2. Deportations. I guess O’Donnell was trying to say this administration’s record number of deportations was a good thing, because he kept talking about how it was so much more than any other president. His gripe was the case of a 14 year old who was deported, even though she was an African-American from Texas. Of course, it was ICE’s fault. I wonder if it would be Bush’s fault if it was during his administration.

      3. Teleprompters. Apparently, Obama is so super awesome when he reads a speech off a machine, that it still supersedes the ability of a politician to think and remember on their own. They’re going to have to start pumping amyl nitrate into the rooms if Obama’s speeches get any worse. Then O’Donnell can start defending poppers.

      • Sadly, that’s on a good day. If the folks at MSNBC had Obama dolls and were dry humping them on the air, I don’t think I’d be particularly shocked.

  12. Lulu says:

    Ignoring accepted rules for recess appointments is going to get messy very quickly. It is the primary tool that individual Senators have to force the White House to do something and in the current environment it is to turn over evidence. While Obama is using the consumer protection agency (which he does not give two hoots about and used Republican hostility to it to deep six that pain in the ass Elizabeth Warren) to run roughshod over the advise and consent requirement of the Senate, it is as usual a misdirection to advocate for something he thinks can be spun to the approval of the public. He cannot turn over evidence for the Congressional investigations because of the myriad laws broken probably tracking directly back to the WH, and the Senate is strangling the placement of cronies to facilitate and coverup the schemes. He was a US Senator but has nothing but contempt for their role in checks and balances because no one is to ever question him.

    • Lulu says:

      Then he recess appointed with three more to NLRB on the same day. The Consumer Protection Agency appointment is just a cover for the other ones. Bait and switch baby, bait and switch. He will not allow a Senator to tell him no.

Comments are closed.