• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Republicans frustrated with Romney campaign

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Will Mitt regroup in time to placate fellow Republicans?

link

Romney under fire from conservatives

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington


Prominent conservatives are grumbling that the Romney campaign may not have what it takes to defeat Barack Obama, and are not being shy about it.

First there was Rupert Murdoch, who took to the Twittersphere over the weekend to offer his unsolicited advice to Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president. “Met Romney last week. Tough O [Obama] Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros. Doubtful,” tweeted the head of News Corp.

Then Jack Welch, the one-time chief of General Electric, chimed in. “Hope Mitt Romney is listening to Murdoch advice on campaign staff ... playing in league with Chicago pols ... No room for amateurs”.

Some conservatives have been enraged by an apparent tactical decision by the Romney campaign this week to break ranks with senior Republicans on Capitol Hill over how to respond to the Supreme Court’s healthcare decision.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a top Romney adviser, said in a television appearance that a financial fee at the heart of Mr Obama’s healthcare legislation was a “penalty”, not a “tax”. The distinction has implications for Republicans trying to hammer the White House for imposing a tax on the middle class. This line of attack arose from Chief Justice John Roberts’ tiebreaking decision last week that found the law to be constitutional because the fee was a tax, not a penalty.

“After Thursday’s [Supreme Court] decision, many of us took solace in the fact that Obama would have to defend his tax record,” said Ben Howe, a conservative blogger on RedState.com. “[The Romney campaign] seem to have destroyed the only glimmer of optimism we were able to pull out of that judicial tragedy.”

Eric Bolling, a host on Fox, was equally exasperated, saying about Mr Fehrnstrom: “Do us all a favour – take a vacation, come back November 7 after the election, because it’s a tax.”

In March, Mr Fehrnstrom inadvertently underscored accusations that his candidate was a serial “flip-flopper” by saying that his candidate could pivot on policy issues in the lead-up to the November election like an “Etch-A-Sketch”.

A Romney spokesperson said: “Governor Romney respects Rupert Murdoch and also respects his team and has confidence in them.”

While one Republican strategist told the Financial Times that such sniping is “cyclical” and expected in politics, other Washington insiders are quietly expressing concern about the state of the race so far.

Mr Romney’s team have proven to be stellar fundraisers and have not had any major missteps. But the campaign has failed so far to offer a compelling response to blistering attacks from the Obama camp on Mr Romney’s business record.

A new advertisement released the day before the July 4 holiday by the Obama campaign accuses Mr Romney of investing in companies that were “pioneers in outsourcing US jobs to low-wage countries”.

Mr Romney is not the only one to suffer hits from his own side. Mr Obama’s campaign came under scrutiny in May after it launched an advertisement critical of Mr Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital.

Cory Booker, the Democratic mayor of Newark, New Jersey, called the attacks “nauseating”. Those criticisms have died down for the time being after recent polls signalled that the Bain ads were effective.

“There are rhythms and cycles in campaigns, the Obama campaign went through a down time, now the Romney campaign’s turn has come,” said Charlie Cook, a political analyst.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
That's par for the course in politics: everyone's a critic and no one is happy.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
774
126
Maybe it's Romney's strategy to not call the mandate a tax because Romney was caught on video saying his own mandate wasn't a tax either. Kinda easy to just loop it on tv commercials. Plus Romney has to etch a sketch his way to be more appealing to the general population too.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Maybe it's Romney's strategy to not call the mandate a tax because Romney was caught on video saying his own mandate wasn't a tax either. Kinda easy to just loop it on tv commercials. Plus Romney has to etch a sketch his way to be more appealing to the general population too.
Is that why? Damn, talk about being constricted. Do you have a link to the video?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Is that why? Damn, talk about being constricted.
It's not like everyone didn't know all along that this would happen. Even the dolt in the sweater vest would tell anyone who would listen that Romney would be tossing out one of the biggest Republican "rile-me-up" issues if he were chosen the candidate.

Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, too. Republican tears are like sweet nectar. :)
 
Last edited:

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
12,842
325
126
I personally think Romney is a very decent person, but it's his party's base that will simply puppet-ize Romney that repels me from getting to know him better.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
WEEEEEEEEEEEl, if Mitt Romney is a GOP turd, its still not too late for the GOP to mounts an anyone but Mitt movement in advance of the GOP convention.

After all look at all those better qualified 2012 POTUS GOP candidates that the Republican
electorate should have chosen.

Lets start out with Michelle our belle Backman, or Tom Palenty who dropped out early. Or Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Or God's gift to all Women in Herman Cain. Or who can forget Next Gingrich who has been playing hard to get for 14 years, but in a blessing to our rudderless country, Newt finally agreed to save the GOP and our country.

Why why and why did the GOP once again choose the weakest candidate in their field of stellar 2012 candidates?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Why why and why did the GOP once again choose the weakest candidate in their field of stellar 2012 candidates?
I realize you're being tongue-in-cheek, but the real irony is that they didn't. Any of those other stooges would lose to Obama in a landslide.

The real question is why none of the good potential GOP candidates would run this year.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,154
14,363
136
Conservative Repubs never wanted Romney, anyway. They wanted Colbert's mythical "Rick Parry", the candidate who doesn't exist, the kind of "true Conservative" that'll appeal to independent voters without them realizing that "true Conservatives" are Social & Economic Luddites trying to recreate the Gilded Age & all that entails.

In the long run, they're screwed by their own ideology, their own insular appeal to a narrowing segment of the shrinking White majority, by the purging of rational thinking among the Faithful. They're fighting a rearguard action, trying to keep the gains they've made for the True Bush Constituency over the last 30 years, regardless of who's made to suffer as a consequence.

Romney isn't a conservative at all, except in the sense that he favors the wealthy Lootocracy above all other groups. When he spouts the Party line wrt social issues, he's unconvincing even to people who desperately want to believe him, the same way that they believed Santorum, Bachmann, & Perry.

In order to actually be a contender, Romney needs to woo independent voters for whom the "conservative" pitch is steadily losing favor. It's not like he'll lose the votes of Conservatives, anyway, given that Obama hate has become their reason to live...
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
They're going to be even more disappointed as long as he keeps acting like this....



:p
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,197
3,520
136
Doesn't matter how much Romney screws up. The conservative's deep hatred for Obama and the resultant fear that hatred brings is all that matters to them. Romney could fall prey to an exceptional case of Touretts and they'd still vote for him.

I don't envy the Repubs at all IRT replacing ACA with a plan of their own, because they've already been saying for the longest time how ALL social programs should be either privatized or completely gotten rid of.

Having Romney lead that charge is just so much comedy because of his ties to the similar health care program he promoted as Governor of Mass.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,939
20,891
136
Mitt can beat Obama.

But Republicans can't

this is what pisses them off, but they don't understand that.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,939
20,891
136
I personally think Romney is a very decent person, but it's his party's base that will simply puppet-ize Romney that repels me from getting to know him better.
So you're saying it's like what happened to McCain?

When the Republicans finally decide to jettison the minority fundies that hope to morph this country into a Christian caliphate , they will have a party again.

Until that time, they will continue to be the laughing stock of the world's political parties.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Doesn't matter how much Romney screws up. The conservative's deep hatred for Obama and the resultant fear that hatred brings is all that matters to them. Romney could fall prey to an exceptional case of Touretts and they'd still vote for him.
Yeah, this is just the media being the media and outputting words that fill the air for the moment. All will fall in line for the actual campaign as the alternative is to hand the other side a victory.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Doesn't matter how much Romney screws up. The conservative's deep hatred for Obama and the resultant fear that hatred brings is all that matters to them. Romney could fall prey to an exceptional case of Touretts and they'd still vote for him.
The irony is that this is exactly why he does things they don't like. He knows they are not critical voters -- their vote is in the bag. So he can simply take them for granted, knowing that no matter what he does, they will still vote for him because they hate Obama.

This is why politicians focus on the center. Those with extreme positions -- and that includes most of the Republican Party these days -- don't need to be catered to because they aren't discerning. Anyone who was paying attention knew that this would happen.

The more you are driven by hatred of the other guy, the less important you are to your guy.

Romney is a thin shell filled with a vacuum. He has nothing to offer, he has no real appeal, he has no core principlies. He's just raw ambition and "not Obama".
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Right, but that itself is a statement about their party and Obama. Because if someone beats Obama in 2012, that means instead of 2016, they are looking at 2020, and 8 years is a long time for many politicians.

So they have basically stated, in very loud terms, that despite all the right-wing rhetoric about how easy Obama would be to beat this year, they really think he's going to be re-elected.

In this, as in other ways, 2012 is a replay of 2004, but with the roles reversed. A president with moderate support who should be beatable, likely to win re-election because he's facing an unpopular, milquetoast, out-of-touch rich guy.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Right, but that itself is a statement about their party and Obama. Because if someone beats Obama in 2012, that means instead of 2016, they are looking at 2020, and 8 years is a long time for many politicians.

So they have basically stated, in very loud terms, that despite all the right-wing rhetoric about how easy Obama would be to beat this year, they really think he's going to be re-elected.

In this, as in other ways, 2012 is a replay of 2004, but with the roles reversed. A president with moderate support who should be beatable, likely to win re-election because he's facing an unpopular, milquetoast, out-of-touch rich guy.
I mainly agree, although I think there is one difference between 2004 and 2012. In 2004, the Dems ended up with Kerry as their candidate because he was the best of a very mediocre field. In 2012, the Republicans ended up with Romney because the current political climate ended up with almost all the other primary candidates being ridiculous alternative candidates instead of GOOD candidates. When the primary field is filled with Bachmann, Trump, Cain and Perry, there's not a ton of room for non-joke candidates. Santorum and Gingrich were a bit more reasonable (which isn't saying much), but still not serious choices, IMO.

In other words, I think it's about the Tea Party backlash. The right was so eager to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon and the general dislike of the country's direction that the Republicans ended up with a bunch of prank candidates. And while Romney might not be the greatest Republican candidate ever, he at least seems like a reasonable guy for the job. Better than someone like Perry, who couldn't even remember all the federal agencies he allegedly felt super strongly about shutting down.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
If they don't win this year enough people will see the benefits of the ACA or Obamacare that repealing it would be nigh impossible by 2016. Their window for repealing it doesn't really extend to 2016 without use of major shenanigans.


It happened with Social security. When it was still new back in the 40s/50s conservatives ran on repealing it. It didn't help them so much once enough people saw how it could benefit society. Now it's being hurt by dipping into the 2+trillion dollar trust fund to pay for general government stuff.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
The right was so eager to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon and the general dislike of the country's direction that the Republicans ended up with a bunch of prank candidates.

I think that you would find that a lot of people who are in the tea party voted for Bush and cheer leaded him in everything and then when things weren't all rosey at the end of his two terms... (maybe not a majority but a sizable percentage)

They were able to convince themselves that they didn't like Bush's spending nevermind the fact that funding the two wars in the M.E. was a major part of the ballooning deficit in the early years of this century.

And the Tea party lets them shift their stance a little with out having to engage in much thought.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I mainly agree, although I think there is one difference between 2004 and 2012. In 2004, the Dems ended up with Kerry as their candidate because he was the best of a very mediocre field.
They put JFKerry up because he was the most moderate and because he was a better puppet than the others were.
 

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,497
436
126
And just who will they bring forth in 2016 who doesn't bear the taint of the fringewhacks? Will he be a "Real Conservative!"?

My money is on Jeb Bush the actual smart one.

recently he said something that pissed off Grover Norquist

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-jeb-bush-ronald-reagan-taxes.php

Bush told reporters at Bloomberg LP’s New York headquarters that “ack to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan support.” Reagan “would be criticized for doing the things that he did,” the former Florida governor said, blaming both sides for partisan gridlock.
“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said, as quoted Monday by Buzzfeed.
After cutting taxes early in his presidency, Reagan proceeded to raise taxes many times in subsequent legislative compromises with Congress — a fact that is largely ignored by anti-tax conservatives who revere the former president.



Seems even being a little less than hardline on taxes causes Mr. Norquist's blood pressure to spike.


Of course maybe Gov. Jeb Bush said this and then Mr. Norquist jumped on him to make Jeb Bush look better to swing voters for 2016.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
27,110
12,667
136
My money is on Jeb Bush the actual smart one.

recently he said something that pissed off Grover Norquist

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/grover-norquist-jeb-bush-ronald-reagan-taxes.php




Seems even being a little less than hardline on taxes causes Mr. Norquist's blood pressure to spike.


Of course maybe Gov. Jeb Bush said this and then Mr. Norquist jumped on him to make Jeb Bush look better to swing voters for 2016.
While Jeb would be a good candidate how can he get the nomination when he announced he is no longer a conservative?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY