Mar 21 2012

Romney Campaign Admits To Being All Snake Oil

Published by at 12:02 pm under All General Discussions

Flim-flam artists are gifted in telling people what they want to hear in order to gain their trust – and then steal that trust. Usually it is in the form of money, but in politics it is in the form of votes. Team Romney has come out of the closet and admitted they are the penultimate ‘say anything to get elected’ type we on Main Street have come to loathe:

He defended Romney’s appeal to a broad base when asked if he’s concerned that, under pressure from Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, the candidate is tacking too “far to the right” in his positions and therefore alienating moderates.

“I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom said, and compared the change to an Etch A Sketch.

I warned Team Romney they would lose if they ever created the impression they were not able or willing to support some basic ‘keep out’ promises. And here we are less than 4 weeks later and they step into it up to their eyeballs.

All this means is Romney’s commitments don’t last beyond the sunset on the day he gave them. His team is prepared to say anything to win. And Team Romney wonders why no one is rallying to support him? I have said it many times – if he is just a faint version of slick talking, no meaning Obama he will lose and lose big.


53 responses so far

53 Responses to “Romney Campaign Admits To Being All Snake Oil”

  1. Redteam says:

    ivehadit, why wouldn’t he? because he’s now a politician. He didn’t slash any budgets in Mass did he? He seems to have been a very good businessman, where the object is to make a profit. that is not the goal of a politician. The goal of a politician is to be reelected and that means keeping everyone as happy as you can, and that means giving them freebies and goodies, which aren’t free to the government. most people consider George W Bush to be a conservative, but a conservative would not have passed prescription coverage at the cost that he did.
    I don’t want anyone to think that just because I’m not a Romney fan makes me into a Santorum fan. I don’t care much for him either.

  2. jan says:


    Your are a bit of a conundrum for me. Your responses are cogent and thoughtful, and the general philosophy you espouse seems almost spot on with my own..and, yet, we see the candidate selection so differently! It’s like we have the same math numerals, but are adding them up to opposing sums.

    Perhaps, one reason our final conclusions don’t sync, is because we each are starting out with clashing premises. For instance, you seem to have viewed Romney as a big spender, dishonest politician from the get-go. I saw him as a blah kind of man, mostly involved in business, secondarily in politics.

    For you then, everything Romney does and says first goes through the filter that is encrusted with sediments that he is a dishonest person with no core values.

    However, when Romney goes through my own filter, the sediments of Romney being vapid or uninteresting are far less hardened or entrenched than your’s, Consequently, these sediments have been easier to dissolve in reading/researching Romney, past the weeds of what the left and ABR’s want you to believe about him, which has shown him to have both elasticity and strength in his belief system and policy making. For me, his even temperament and ability to weave policy, gleaned from both sides of extreme ideology, is an attribute, not a weakness.

    For instance, here is an opinion piece by Romney, published on the anniversary of Obamacare, citing what he would do if he were elected president:

    The reforms I propose for the country could not be more different from Barack Obama’s. They entail no new taxes, no massive diversions of funds away from Medicare, no tax discrimination, and no new bureaucracies. At the same time, they increase consumer choice, lower health care costs, decrease government spending, and give states responsibility for dealing with the uninsured. Whatever the Supreme Court decides about the constitutionality of ObamaCare, we already know that it is bad policy and wrong for America. Abolishing it and putting sensible changes in its place will be one of my highest priorities as president.

    Taxes and fees are interchangeable, in that more money is generated from the public by the implementation of either/or. So, I see your point about having a disclaimer, as such. However, as we all know, there is more built-in opposition to the word “taxes” than there is to “fees.” Also, there seems to be more longevity to tax hikes than fee changes. But, again, I do see what you are saying.

    As for Romney’s term as governor in MA, which ABR’s grouse about and point critical fingers at, here is Ann Coulters’s latest column, full of facts dealing with Romney’s single term as governor, along with comparing and contrasting his record there with Reagan’s as governor of CA. I know you currently don’t like Coulter, but it is well worth the read if you are truly interested in pursuing an honest appraisal of the candidates. Here is but a small tidbit from that column:

    Republicans are able to contextualize Reagan’s record -– it was California! — but seem unable to contextualize Mitt Romney’s record, even though he had to govern a state far more liberal than California was half a century ago.

    When Reagan was governor, the California Assembly was majority Democrat, but the Senate was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats.

    Gov. Romney had to contend with a 200-person state Legislature that included only 29 Republicans.

  3. jan says:


    Santorum’s loose comments, IMO, will have more far reaching ramifications than the etch a sketch gaffe made by Romney’s senior advisor.

    Withdrawing my endorsement of Rick

    Also, here is more from Ed Morrissey: No Senator Santorum, Obama and Romney aren’t the same.

    I will go to the caucuses tomorrow. I expect Senator Santorum to have recovered his sense of reality and apologize for that statement by that time. If not, I may end up arguing for another candidate when we meet to discuss the next phase at our Republican caucus.

    Addendum: One last point. People who enter primary contests should be prepared to support the eventual product of that primary and unite behind that candidate. If a candidate can’t do that, he has no business asking his party for the nomination in a primary contest in the first place. Santorum didn’t explicitly say he wouldn’t support Romney if Romney won, but that statement comes pretty close to the mark.

    I have heard from other bloggers that if Santorum had not jumped on the etch a sketch bandwagon, in order to take a shot at Romney, giving him the benefit of the doubt for a flub by an advisor, they would be more inclined to do the same for Santorum on this one.

    But, as one person said, “it’s Rick’s karma coming back to bite him.”

  4. dbostan says:

    You want this guy to be our nominee?


  5. jan says:

    Oh please! Did you even listen to that clip you so eagerly posted about Romney, dboston? What did it say?

    Besides having the riviting headlines, taken from buzzfeed (an Anti Romney site, BTW), Romney’s remarks centered around the fact he initially intended to run against the encumbent republican, who decided not to run. He then stepped in and “was not going to be a continuation of the previous administration, but was instead offering a new vision and focus for MA.

    The message Romney was conveying was that he was putting less emphasis on party affiliation than on bringing his own vision to MA as a governor. Considering that, at the time he was running, MA had a republican registration of 12%, don’t you think this was an appropriate way to frame his candidacy? How would being an ultra partisan person have benefited him?

    However, what happened with your post dboston is to look at these headlines, deriving only a cliff note type of interpretation, which you then passed along as ‘truth.’ Why don’t you dig deeper into these issues, before you start casting stones?

  6. MarkN says:

    Santorum was absolutely RIGHT. Poor mittens should withdraw from the race IMMEDIATELY.

    Conservatives may not like Barack Obama, but most other people do. And when faced with a guy you like and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, you’re going to go with the guy you like.

    AJ said it best: I have said it many times – if he is just a faint version of slick talking, no meaning Obama he will lose and lose big.

  7. Redteam says:

    jan, I basically agree with what you said above. I think we do basically see this election and the candidates similarly. I think the difference is: in my opinion there is not one single good candidate running for the office of president, on either ticket. I get the feeling you feel similarly but with the exception that you think Romney is suitable. (I don’t you even think he is a ‘great’ candidate.
    But saying all that, why can’t we get good people to run for the office? I don’t know the answer to that.
    Ryan would be good, Palin would be great, not many others come to mind. It’s as if there is a ‘greater power’ out there with the intent to destroy the country and they have chosen to do it through having a Muslim lead us to so–c-i-a-l-i-sm, and to structure the whole thing so that he has no credible opposition. Now that may seem silly but I can think of no other excuse for what is going on now. I mean, just look at what we had in 2008, McCain vs Obama? and McCain never even attempted to actually win the election, he threw in the towel right after he got the nomination.
    I explained in what I wrote above why Ann Coulter has zero credibility with her statement that Romney ” didn’t raise taxes”.

    Once someone makes such a totally false statement, nothing else they say can have much validity.
    You said: “here is Ann Coulters’s latest column, full of facts” As I said, it can’t be ‘full of facts’ because her very first statement is the false one and most people quit listening when they know you’re lying.
    I have no reason to question Romney’s honesty or intents, but I then become skeptical of all people once they give up all that and become a politician. While many of them still have good intents, they get faced with having to pay off their supporters and the fact that the government is not required to balance their budgets allow all these giveaways. I think they fully intend to do what they promise, it just usually doesn’t work out that way.

    If, and I say if, Santorum actually said (I haven’t heard him say it so I’ll wait til I do) that voting for Romney would be the same as voting for Obama, then I recommend he (Santorum) drop out of the race.

  8. Redteam says:

    “”and a guy you don’t like who says he can fix an economy that no longer needs fixing, “”

    Where is this economy “that no longer needs fixing,” ?

  9. dbostan says:

    Oh man, how much I like people who twist themselves in a pretzel position to justify the unjustifiable…
    That’s why I am not invested in neither of the candidates.

  10. jan says:

    While I don’t agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy, he does have a point in his latest ad dealing with the etch a sketch malarkay.

    Redteam, I think you are right about the candidates of late. McCain was difficult to swallow. The only thing that made his candidacy palatable was his running mate, Sarah Palin. But, I have to say that I have been very disappointed in her since ’08, as much of her efforts seem to be in feathering her own nest and dealing with political involvement that would be more in her own best interests than that of the country’s. Maybe I am just getting either cynical or impatient, with many of the people who talk the talk but don’t seem to display the same kind of ‘walking the walk.’

    As for Romney, I am not going to throttle his candidacy any more than I have done. For some reason, though, I see potential in this man to do something significantly important and positive for this country if he is elected. I don’t see him as the cloying politician he is so often depicted by many. Instead, I see many of his decisions as being weighed and measured according to the circumstances at hand. This is how he governed MA, and he was able to make some headway there in a few short years, no matter what anyone says.

    I’m not looking for a miracle maker, nor a straight arrow ideologue. What I’m looking for in a president is someone who is able to thread the needle, between all the party rifts, and come away with a more workable agenda for this country which follows our constitutional principles. The next president needs to be conservative enough to nominate jurists who will not lead us over the cliff; someone who will be dedicated to eliminating much of the waste in present day government, while retooling our antiquated entitlement programs; someone who will swiftly do away with Obamacare, starting over again with health care reform that makes sense (as we need reform to keep costs at bay).

    I continue to think that Romney is equipped to do such a job…..

  11. Layman says:

    Well as long as EVERYONE is twisting themselves into pretzels…

    May I ask everyone to keep their eyes on the prize. You don’t have to be “invested” or “in love with” a candidate to do so.

    1. Remove Obama from office. This country cannot withstand 4 more years of him. Whomever is the GOP candidate will be better than Obama. If you’re going to go along with Santorum and suppose no change is better than taking a risk on another candidate (yes that is what he said) then you are suffering from RDS.

    2. Vote in a conservative (most important word) GOP Senate and strengthen the House. The President has great power but Congress controls the purse. I cannot see any GOP President vetoing bills sent to him by the Congress. Therefore it is up to us to elect a congress that will: repeal Obamacare, pass a budget, restrict/cut-back spending, simplify the tax code, reform entitlements, etc.

    I’d like to see a little more thought in these threads about accomplishing the mission as opposed to taking any stupid little statement by a candidate or a campaign staffer and trying to use that as proof of a candidate’s unsuitability.

  12. Layman says:

    I’m willing to forgive Gingrich for his ego and Ron Paul for coming off as an isolationist. I’m even willing to forgive Santorum for subjecting us to a picture of him with his shirt off.

    Can’t you forgive Romney because one of his aides made a stupid analogy?