Jan 24 2012
Romney NOT A Working Class American (Heck, He’s Not Even Working)
Update: Even the WSJ is beginning to see the light:
That’s the real lesson of South Carolina’s Saturday primary, where Newt Gingrich, the Che Guevara of the right, always interested in leading a rebellion, smashed Mr. Romney, the Harvard M.B.A. interested in carefully calibrated, data-driven change. The South Carolina story—and the story going forward from here—isn’t so much Newt vs. Mitt as it is the insurgents vs. the establishment.
In fact, that has been the story of the Republican Party since the tea-party uprising began in 2009. The drama now will play out anew in the remaining Republican primary calendar.
Sort of obvious, but I am glad others are beginning to wake up and smell the frustration. BTW, the WSJ also garners the best summary of this primary election cycle:
As for the current GOP field, it’s like confronting a terminal diagnosis. There may be an apparent range of treatments: conventional (Romney), experimental (Gingrich), homeopathic (Paul) or prayerful (Santorum). But none will avail you in the end. Just try to exit laughing.
Sadly, I can’t laugh off this mess.A great opportunity ws offered up by the serial failures of Obama, Reid and Pelosi – only to squander it with The Damnable 4. – end update
No wonder Mitt Romney hesitated to disclose his income tax returns. Technically he does not work since nearly all his income is through investment profits:
Mitt Romney offered a partial snapshot of his vast personal fortune late Monday, disclosing income of $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all of it profits, dividends or interest from investments.
Emphasis mine. Clearly, this is not someone who represents Main Street. He is currently unemployed, but not in way that connects with Main Street. They guy is set for life and for generations to come. Must be nice. How do I get Big “FILL IN THE BLANK” out of my way so I too can reach my personal end of the rainbow?
Romney is not like Herman Cain, who worked his way from the lower middle class to the upper class. Cain is someone I can relate to and assume he understands how hard it is to break free of the legislative chains that hold entrepreneurs downs. Romney is a corporate raider who made millions the easy way – the Haarvaaard way. He bought out struggling companies, leveraged their assets with massive debt, took his profits and left ruin and destruction in his wake. I want no connection with him. I am a small business owner, not a corporate raider.
Romney is a vulture, not a creator. Vultures have their purpose in nature and economics, but they are not what someone wants in a national leader.Will he dismantle big government, or twist it to help Wall Street? Does he even understand what the average person has to deal with? Not likley.
Sacrifice? Others sacrificed for Romney to gain his riches.
Innovation? Others provided the core product and services for those rare instances when Bain turned a company around instead of using it as a vehicle to collect millions and then run (what a great ironic coincidence to have Mitt’s Bain actually be his political ‘bane’)
Olympic Savior? I guess if it were not for him none of those dedicated athletes would have been able to compete?
I hear echos of Al Gore and his infamous Internet every time Romney lays claim to Olympic success.
In this instance, Romney is the epitome of Bullying Big Business who likes to implement Big Government solutions when in office. So how is this model going to beat Big Government Obama and his Bullying Big Business connections???? This is just not computing. It definitely is not uplifting and energizing.
Romney is about as far from the Tea Party ideal candidate as you can get without being a liberal Democrat. The Tea Party is a Main Street USA (small business, not big business) phenomena. It is opposes Big Government and is barely tolerant of Big Business (and their hooks now embedded in our political process). The Tea Party movement also distrusts Big Labor. Big is bad – individual is good. Helping others is good, destruction and suffering is to be avoided at all costs.
The Tea Party is all about enabling the individual, protecting the small business from Big Labor, Big Government and Big Wall Street conglomerates. It is Libertarian movement.
It is not Romney. And that is why he is failing. The disconnect between the establishment candidate (Romney) and the 2010 electorate is wide and glaring. And that is why Newt is gaining. Because as far as he is from the Tea Party ideal, he is miles closer to the 2010 backlash voter than Romney ever will be.
Mark brings up the one bit of Good News.
By the time the general election rolls around, there will be NO October Surprises left to throw out. Everything will have been on the table for eight months or so…and thus old news.
The key is for all of us to recognize that ANY of the Republican candidates is a tremendous improvement over Obama.
Rasmussen poll puts Gingrich up by 7 nationally
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/24/rasmussen-poll-puts-gingrich-up-by-7-nationally/
Sadly I have to say this. Newt broke my heart before, he’ll break yours too.
We have flawed candidates. At this point, I don’t know who I will vote for in our useless primary, but I am praying that in the end we get someone who can beat Obama and hasn’t been so damaged that he has no chance to win.
Jinny, I agree. We better come out of this mess with someone who can win. But don’t you agree half the problem is the GOP elite are trying to gag the 2010 ‘insurgents’ instead of dealing with them? Why else back a Romney???? Why else throw Cain and others under the bus?
It is their own stubborn arrogance that caused them to become so out of sync with the 2010 voters.
Mark, your Churchill comparison is spot on, as is your observation Obama is far from perfect and may not survive even with the media Super Pac.
Folks need to be clear here that while Romney’s wealth may be legal, it is not admirable. Ambulance chasing lawyers are legally wealthy, not admirably so. See also George Soros, Bill Clinton, etc. You can make a wad of money running a Don’s John’s enterprise.
While Bain was not an illegal operation, it was not one of those businesses that was awe inspiring, like Apple and others.
No one should think in gross generalities (profits are all good and pure) – that is the tone deafness Romney is noted for.
Think Ebenezer Scrooge verses his original boss Fezziwig in A Christmas Carol – that is the distinction. Two legitimate businessmen, one praise worthy and the other not.
It is said that time has a way of either diminishing or embellishing one’s memory about the details, causing a person to only remember what they want to.
I’m beginning to think that Gingrich’s big splash in the 90’s might be a good example of this.
He wasn’t that great of a speaker, only a loud and boisterous one, calling attention to himself, just like he is doing today. His reign in Congress was during a prosperous time in America with lots of revenue coming into the government coffers. In fact it was so good of a time that he and Trent Lott decided to ‘off” the spending caps that had been put into the balanced budget agreement which then increased government spending. Under Gingrich’s speakership earmarks doubled. How was any of this being a good Conservative, or exhibiting reasoned leadership encompassing a long view, rather than one that was mainly self-serving to get what he wanted done expeditiously?
Political expedience has been the name of Gingrich’s so-called legacy. Jennifer Rubin looks at his cacophony of ideas as being like “ping pong balls in a wind tunnel.” In fact according to this PJ Media article, Four reasons why Conservatives should think twice about Gingrich, Newt’s time in Congress leadership roles was “dysfunctional” and one of being a “failed communicator.”
Some of the most conservative members of Gingrich’s Congress remember him as going against conservative principles. And, even since that illustrious time as speaker, he has continued to “betray conservatives on key issues, ” such as the Dede Scozzafava affair, climate change, supporting ethanol subsidies (some of his major donors have come from this group), immigration, health mandates, big government ideas, and so on.
His edgy personality and pettiness has not changed much either, since the 90’s. In 1995, he felt snubbed by Clinton for not being able to ride up front with him on a trip back from Israel, and then having to exit from the back door of Air Force one at the end of the trip. Supposedly he had wanted to discuss budget issues with Clinton. But, afterwards he was piqued, and this is was led to him being more hard-nosed and ultimately shutting Congress down. Here is a link to that incident.
Today, Newt is also “piqued” over not having any applause being permitted during debates. Consequently, he wants this changed now and in the upcoming presidential debates, because this is where Gingrich soars, in his theatrical performances in which he needs the audience to reward him with their approval.
However, this is not a ‘play.’ It’s a serious contest of people running for office, to be judged on their merits and leadership qualities in hopes of finding the best person to turn this economy around. What I think we have in Gingrich is an actor, con artist, someone who re-writes history, does a lot of name-dropping and is trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes as to what competence really is. And, so far he’s doing a good job of that with republicans yearning more for a big mouth, full of big ideas, than someone who might be steadier, more pragmatic and is in the fight for the long haul.
If Newt makes it to the GE, though, it will be an entirely different story, IMO. A majority of the electorate will be looking at his flaws (personal and professional) as unacceptable, while so many in this primary season seem to think of them as only minor dings.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/01/24/pelosi_on_a_gingrich_presidency_that_will_never_happen.html
And I suspect whatever that is, a LOT of people know, too. That is one reason why former staffers of his are supporting Romney. One staffer when asked why he was supporting Romney said it was because he had worked for Gingrich and he wouldn’t make a good President.
I believe that.
Gingrich is *bad news* people. If you nominate him, Obama is re-elected, guaranteed. Just as I said Cain wasn’t your guy, and I was sincere, and one of his skeletons came flying out of the closet, Gingrich has more than a closet full of them.
Please, I am begging you, this is not a pro-Romney plea. If you want a conservative, get behind Santorum. Seriously, I am trying to save you embarrassment and am trying to save the party from losing the election and having to suffer four more years of Obama. If Newt is nominated, I guarantee we will see four more years of Obama.
The only redeeming thing about this is being thankful that Pelosi can’t keep her mouth shut.
Oh, and Romney isn’t “umeployed”, he is official retired.
Gee, are we supposed to listen to Pelosi or the demsheviks when we nominate our guy?
Are you kidding?
That’s why McCain/Dole/fill_in_your_repubic was selected by the media and the establishment and lost ROYALLY.
crosspatch
It’s all in one’s perspective and what they deem to be valuable, as well as unacceptable, in a candidate. I continue to see Gingrich as nothing but a “squeaky wheel fraud.” When his sound bites come on, I can’t even stand to hear his voice anymore. It took me two years to get to that threshold with Obama!
Consequently,I seriously think I will leave that part of the ballot blank should he be the nominee. He is just too much of an antithesis to my own values and view of what a president should stand for.
No, I am saying that what Pelosi knows, a lot of other people also know.
I’m done on this issue. Look, I have commented here for several years and I like the community here. I think I see people who I believe are generally good folks making what I believe is a serious mistake so I felt it was my duty to warn them. Newt is not your man. I’ve done what I figure was my duty to a community of folks I have enjoyed debating things with over the years. This isn’t political for me, this is ethical. Newt is NOT your guy. If he is nominated, he will lose and we will have four more years of Obama.
I’ve said my piece. Good luck, but go with eyes WIDE open, people
dbostan, and GHWB also
CP: “Gingrich has more than a closet full of them. ”
you owe it to us and Romney to get them all out of the closet. If you’ve dried your tears, maybe you’ll be able to see some of them.
I don’t see obama winning against any one of the four Repubs. So whichever one wins should be a shoo in. The Tea Party is gonna turn out in force, that’ll put Gingrich in. We shouldn’t let the Lame stream media make our selection for us.
Maybe you can propose a solution, then.
You see, Gingrich is no good.
I can tell you Romney will ABSOLUTELY be toast in the general election.
The same goes for Santorum, unfortunately, because I like him personally.
As for Ron Paul, he would a disaster to our standing in the world, despite his very good ideas regarding our freedoms vs. government and the FED.
So, what is the solution?
dboston, I don’t agree with you. Ok, lets look at the math:
35% of the voters are Republicans
33% of the voters are Democrats
Probably 2/3 of the Democrats are “center” Democrats.
32% are “other”. About 1/3 of the “other” are third party. Libertarian, Green, Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party, etc. Most of the rest are former Democrats and a smaller percentage are former Republicans.
The VAST majority of Americans are center right or center left, few are “staunch” conservatives or “staunch” liberals. Most identify as more conservative than liberal. There are even Democrats who identify as more conservative than liberal but most of those have left the party for “independent” status.
Going in to 2012 we have a huge number of Democrats and Independents who desperately want someone to vote for that isn’t Obama. The Democrats chose not to primary Obama. This leaves them with a choice of Obama or a Republican candidate. My first choice of candidates this year would have been Rudy Giuliani. If you have a huge number of Democrats who are looking for someone to vote for, you run a candidate who has won in a Democrat constituency and been successful. What you *don’t* want to do is run someone who is polarizing and will alienate Democrats in that situation. There is NO candidate who alienates Democrats more than Newt.
Republicans have only 35% of the electorate. That is not enough to get elected. You could have a candidate that gets 100% of Republican support and can lose the general election by 15 points. In fact, the higher the Republican support, the more likely they are to be alienating toward the members of the other party. A Republican can not win election without pulling in a lot of members of the other party. Reagan did it. Newt is no Reagan. Newt rubs Democrats’ noses in things every chance he gets.
Also, center Democrats love Clinton the way Republicans love Reagan. Newt Gingrich tried to destroy Clinton over the Lewinsky issue while he himself was doing the exact same thing in the speakers chambers (and got caught IN the Speaker’s chambers getting a BJ). There is no way Democrats are going to vote for him in the general election.
Democrats WILL, however vote for Gingrich in the primaries and through venues such as Democratic Underground, word has already gone out instructing members to cross over in open primary states and vote Gingrich.
Rmoney is a Republican that Democrats could vote for and is “conservative enough” for me to vote for. Primarily he is a Republican that believes in free market capitalism and that right now in this economy is more important to me than social issues. He probably won’t proactively push to cut government enough to suit me but he won’t stand in the way of a Republican House, either.
I’m not even considering what Newt would do if he were in office because I firmly believe he would be slaughtered in the general election by 10 or more points. That said, I will vote for him if he is nominated as the lesser of two evils. Romney is pretty much the same vote for me but I see Romney as actually having a chance to be elected. I also believe Santorum has a better chance of winning in the general than Gingrich would because I believe many Democrats would look at him and say to themselves that they don’t agree with Santorums politics but he is an honorable man who hasn’t shown the degree of corruption Obama has and they possibly can vote for. There is no way on God’s green Earth that they are going to vote for Gingrich. Not in a million years.
Romney could actually win the general. Gingrich, in my most sincere opinion, can’t.
dboston, I replied, it was too long, though and is stuck in the mod bucket.
“I don’t see obama winning against any one of the four Repubs. So whichever one wins should be a shoo in. The Tea Party is gonna turn out in force, that’ll put Gingrich in. —> Redteam
I disagree.
Obama is stronger than conservatives think. Over and over again I’ve head analysis of political races say there is only a small percentage of people with any political play in them.
The dems have a strong contituency of minorities, labor, people on entitlements, welfare etc.
The republicans have the conservative base, some moderates and indies in both parties.
But, there is perhaps 5-8% of the population who sways with issues rather than adhering to party lines. These are the people who will ultimately determine the election. The dem candidate is already chosen. If the GOP, though, picks a nominee too polarizing, too disliked or unlikeable, then this small margin of people will not support the GOP.
Gingrich will be like human garlic, and there will be people everywhere who will not support him. Santorum would have a less difficult time, but nevertheless would not make it either. Paul, no way. And, Romney has only a 50/50 chance, because people would dwell on his wealth.
From Atlas Shrugged: He was guilty of nothing except that he earned his own fortune and never forgot it was his. That’s Romney’s problem…
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/marco-rubio-mitt-romney-no-charlie-crist
BTW, IMO the teaparty will not be as strong in 2012 as they were in 2010. Some in the teas have moderated. Others are members of various groups, all over the country, and have differentiated themselves more and become more diversified as to their opinions and who they support. Still others, have had their enthusiasm wane, especially in lieu of the OWS movement which oftentimes tied the two groups together as far as being radical.
Here’s a portion of my previous post that’s in the mod bucket.
Republicans have only 35% of the electorate. That is not enough to get elected. You could have a candidate that gets 100% of Republican support and can lose the general election by 15 points. In fact, the higher the Republican support, the more likely they are to be alienating toward the members of the other party. A Republican can not win election without pulling in a lot of members of the other party. Reagan did it. Newt is no Reagan. Newt rubs Democrats’ noses in things every chance he gets.
Also, center Democrats love Clinton the way Republicans love Reagan. Newt Gingrich tried to destroy Clinton over the Lewinsky issue while he himself was doing the exact same thing in the speakers chambers (and got caught IN the Speaker’s chambers getting a BJ). There is no way Democrats are going to vote for him in the general election.
Democrats WILL, however vote for Gingrich in the primaries and through venues such as Democratic Underground, word has already gone out instructing members to cross over in open primary states and vote Gingrich.