Mar 21 2012
Romney Campaign Admits To Being All Snake Oil
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.
No surprise here.
We, the thinking people, already knew this is the guy.
AJ,
You are right.
If Romney tries to pull a McCain on us, his campaign, and, our country, I might add, will go down in flames.
We simply can not afford four more years of Obama, especially since he would be unshackled to implement his most destructive communist policies.
Another non-gaffe gaffe
There is such a trend of people who just can’t wrap their heads around Romney. They are constantly on the lookout for any trips or falls in the many statements that are generated by campaigns. It is usually the statements, though, with little context around them that spark negative reactions. This continues with Eric Fehrnstrom’s comments recently, causing some to again churd out the “flip-flop” accusations, and “I told you so.” Sadly, this kind of knee-jerk thinking also reminds me of the warmists, who continue to hang their hat on threads of distorted data to continue the saga of AGW.
In EVERY political campaign a candidate plays to his base in the primaries and then plays to the other side in the general campaign.
Neither party can get elected by their own voters alone. If the Democrats campaign to far to the left in the general elections, they lose the Independents and any possible crossover Republicans. Same if the Republicans campaign too far to the right.
That’s how American politics is done. Romney is going to attempt to pull the “Reagan Democrats” back across to vote for him and the Independents. The important thing here is to get Obama out of the White House, not to nominate a “more pure” Conservative.
It’s time to stop the Romney bashing and focus on Obama. After Louisana, Santorum is finished.
Well said CP. Can anyone name for me a single candidate in the last 50 years who won the Presidency by not tacking to the middle after he won the primary?
Obama won as a moderate race uniter.
Bush 43 won as the compassionate conservative and the education President.
Clinton won as a southern moderate.
Bush 41 won as a moderate Reagan
Reagan won by appealing to the moderate/conservative Democrats.
Carter won by pretending to be a southern moderate/conservative.
Nixon – who cares! He ran against raving libs.
In fact, the best analogy here is that some want a super “true” conservative who will run as far to the right as McGovern ran to the left. We all know who that worked out.
And in spite of the typo in the last sentence (how, not who) I’m stone cold sober. But as soon as Redteam hits the page I may have to go lock myself in the bar.
as dbostan said above, no surprise here. All candidates say and do what they think is the best course of action and words to get them elected. They usually try to follow their basic beliefs (lib or conservative) but what they really do is follow their political instincts. Most of them have no morals or scruples, they just want to get elected to get into the ‘now i’m gonna be powerful and get rich off the government’ club. Romney is no surprise, we all know he’s not conservative, but we also all know that he will pretend to be one if he thinks it will get him elected. Once elected he would then revert to whatever is in HIS political best interest. Very few, or no, politicians act to help the citizenry. only themselves. Look at what McCain did in the last campaign, he didn’t even seriously try to get elected. Makes you wonder why he got into the race. Most Republicans act differently in governing than Dimocrats do, The Dims want a s-o-c-i-a-l-i-s-t government and the Repubs don’t. That the main difference between the two parties.
Are these revelations are connected with Romney and, Obama meeting yesterday in Chicago?
Why would Romney meet with Obama? Any thoughts?
Is this guy SUICIDAL???????????????????????????? He’s in communications!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a dunce. He should be FIRED this second.
The only good thing is that we will have the Presidency AND the congress and senate where we will hold Romney’s feet to the fire.
Bart up, everyone. We have A LOT of work to do by November…. In honor of Andrew….
AJ:
What did I do to get into “moderation” limbo?
@ivehadit
Do you mean the Congress under Boehner and the Senate under McConnell will hold Romney’s feet to the fire?
Like the previously GOP controlled Congress and Senate kept Bush’s feet to the fire?
Are you kidding?
Or you are kidding yourself?
Bolshevik Grigory Zinoviev 1918:
“To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.”
OBAMA 1995: ‘SCAPEGOAT’ THE ‘TOP 5%’
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/21/Obama-Scapegoat-Five-Percent
The Vetting: Obama 1995: ‘Scapegoat’ the ‘Top 5%’
I guess we should be happy he wants to target “only” 5% instead of the 10% the bolsheviks killed immediately…
Jan& CP, two willing dupes to a lying scum. We suspected that robamaney was a fraud a pretend conservative. Now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even jen rubin aka mitt’s plural wife can’t spin this one away. Her” husband” just completely contradicted her tonight. Now the robamaney campaign is talking out of both sides of their mouths for all to see. Mitt is now unelectable.
dbostan
I’m not really sure what candidate would please you.
Santorum has more examples of supporting big government policies, unions etc. than almost anyone in the field.
Gingrich, talks big, takes credit for the glory days in the 90’s (of which there were many others doing much of the grunt work), but has done little to prove his conservative credentials since that time.
Romney has been active most of his life in the private sector, doing quite well there. Was governor for 4 years and, in my estimation, stemmed the liberal tide of deficits and health care policies that were ruining the state when he came into office. Redteam asserts that everyone knows he is not a conservative. Well, you can leave me out of that ‘everyone’ grouping, as I see him merely as not an ideologue. He sees life through a framework of what works, to what doesn’t work. This makes him more flexible in how he processes solutions, which many here see as flip-flopping. But one size doesn’t fit all, just as sometimes people have to go though many experimentations before reaching the one deemed a success. Just look at Edison, who had almost 2000 failed experiments before finding one that worked.
Anyway, I think people are falling all over themselves to grouse and find fault with these candidates — anyone which is better than Obama. As much as I find many flaws in either Gingrich, and now even more with Santorum, I would support either one of them as being far superior than the commander in chief who we are already saddled with.
…and, just who is Jennifer Rubin’s husband. What did he say? Link?
This DNC ad, implies that Romney will not be able to shake off the conservative stances he has stressed in his campaign. The warning here is, “Be careful because Romney is more conservative than you think!”
Meanwhile, all the conservatives are lamenting that Romney’s conservatism isn’t real enough, and they’re projecting that he is going to go ‘moderate’ in the GE, leaving conservatism behind in the primary dust.
This is the irony that Jennifer Rubin was describing in her piece today. And, the DNC ad, coupled with people’s comments here today, prove she was right.
Obama’s outrageous DOL rules will restrict minors from working on family farms, killing farm life as we know it, is something Senator John Thune (a Romney supporter) and Jerry Moran are working to thwart with a bill they have introduced. This is the kind of oppressive legislation increasingly coming down Obama’s agenda pipeline, wanting to control every function and facet of everyone’s life. Doesn’t this chill you????
But, what do people argue about? Etch a sketch innuendos, and what they possibly might mean or not mean. Gotcha questions, meant to entrap a person, because of an ill phrased word, an out of context distortion, or misspoken comment by someone associated with a candidate. In the meantime we have concrete stuff going on every day that is worthy of dismay and passionate opposition. But, it’s etch a sketches that get caught in one’s craw.
Geesch………
What is important is the facts that the GOP establishment do not understand how far down the marxist chute we fell. Under these circumstances their support for the least conservative (this is beyond doubt AT this point and it was clear to many from the beginning) guy is criminal.
A lot to comment on….. in the morning…..
Robamaney is a fake a fraud. The more you defend the indefensible the more i’d an idiot you become.