Man, this really reduces my respect for him:
…for viewers who follow politics closely, especially for Republicans who desperately wanted to defeat Barack Obama, there is a revelation in “Mitt” that is not just unexpected but deeply disheartening. At a critical moment in the campaign — the two weeks in October encompassing the first and second general election debates — the Romney portrayed in “Mitt” struggled with a nagging pessimism and defeatism, unable to draw confidence even from a decisive initial debate victory over President Obama. Deep down inside, the Romney seen onscreen in “Mitt” seems almost resigned to losing to Obama in those crucial showdowns.
Only a fool (like the Republicans who voted for Obama the first time) would think that Barack Obama is a good debater (especially after the first debate). Romney should have followed up his first debate victory and gone for the Benghazi jugular in the second debate. He also should have slapped down Candy Crowley when she stuck her ignorant nose in it. Romney deserved to lose.
Perhaps, but we didn’t deserve for him to lose.
Well, to the degree that we allowed him to become the nominee we did.
I thought “We” weren’t Republican.
“We” aren’t Republican, you moron. “We” are people who aren’t Democrats. I guess you’re too stupid to understand the difference.
Most states run Closed Primaries, so, can you cite the states
where “We (Not Democrats), tipped the balance to allow We (not Romney Fans)
to get Romney to win the Primary”
I’d be experiencing a bit of defeatism myself, if I made a solid showing in the debate and then polling showed that voters continued to strongly favor my opponent solely because they despised my greatest positive accomplishments of my life. Having said that, Romney never struck me as all that good a candidate. I don’t even think he actually won the Republican primaries legitimately.
There was always Michelle Bachmann.
Do you have some kind of weird form of Turette’s? You read some trigger word like ‘Repubican’ and uncontrollably blurt out ‘Bachmann!’ in response?
How long was she in the Primaries?
Not very long. She dropped out after the Iowa caucus.
Bachman was in the race from the first caucus (Iowa) on January 3rd up until January 4th, when she announced she was dropping out of the race after her sixth place Iowa finish. So in her primary campaign she got a total of 6,046 votes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michele-bachmann-announces-presidential-campaign/
Officially she was in as of June 2011. So at least 6 months.
I see you are confusing time from announcement with time from first primary/caucus.
She was in the race right up until the runners left the starting blocks, when she got off to a bad startand just walked over to the sideline to sip lemonade. Are you really competing in a marathon just because you paid the entrance fee and got a number to wear but didn’t bother trying to jog a hundred feet?
Jim Rogers got over twice as many votes as Bachman in the 2012 Democrat Presidential primaries (coming in fifth in one state), but you don’t see us babbling about him all the time. Instead we go on and on about Randall Terry, Bob Ely, Keith Judd, Darcy Richardson, and John Wolfe, all of whom soundly beat Jim Rogers in the 2012 race for the Democrat Presidential nomination.
Oh wait. We don’t mention them, either. It’s called focus.
But maybe we should?
Chances are a couple of them are crazier than Bachmann.
Chances are, all of them are crazier than Bachmann, including the Democrat who beat them all for the nomination.
Chances are a couple of them are crazier than Bachmann.
I don’t know about them, but have you checked out Wendy Davis? She even lied about her own divorce in a federal lawsuit.
“Americans love a fighter”. Romney would’ve made a better fist of it if he had been willing to mix it up, both with Obama and his critics, instead of just standing around and looking Presidential.
I wonder if he ever realized that hiring on all the election advisors that helped John McCain lose was a mistake?
Romney had real momentum coming out of the first debate. If the had exploited it instead of retreating into safe mode, I think he would be President today.
He was too restrained, and the missed chance with Candy Crowley was significant. But, post-mortems like these hit me a little like the financial pundits after a stock market fall, trying to fixate on some arbitrary reason why the market fell. Market falls are always a product of many converging factors, and singling out one or two, of dubious significance, is just so much hot air.
Romney was the 2012 equivalent of Bob Dole in 1996: it was “his turn”…plus, of course, by the end of the primaries, he was the only one left that looked even the least bit sane.
Until the Republicans come to terms with their social conservative and media problems, they cannot win a national election. For example, they need to get out in front on the drug legalization issue (which will piss off the social conservatives but neutralize a lot of media weapons); they should make gay rights a non-issue by not opposing any state pro-gay-rights and/or pro-gay-marriage bill and will accept any legal state marriage for the purposes of federal laws which depend on marriage status, all in the name of fairness and liberty (which again will piss off the social conservatives but will cement the Republicans as the party of fairness and federalism, and take away a big media cannon); and they should denounce the surveillance state, disavow Bush and Cheney and the apparatchiks that, if not the sole creators of it, at least fed it most of the way into the 800-lb gorilla it is today, and start introducing legislation to rein it in (which again will piss of the social conservatives and the neocons to boot, but again will take away a media sledgehammer).
And of course, the real reason to do all of these things (and more!!!) is that they are the right thing to do. Civil liberties are a place where there are a lot of people who, whether they realize it yet or not, favor the small-l libertarian positions for the most part. The Democrats aren’t going to go after that; they will never give up trying to impose state control. The Republicans need to, if not fully embrace their inner libertarian, at least acknowledge that it’s there and deserves to be heard.
“he was the only one left that looked even the least bit sane.”
Being the least crazy republican in 2012, is sort of like being a Special Olympian.
You may have a medal but you are still r,,,,,,,
Let’s see, putting us 17 trillion dollars in debt, screwing over our allies and allowing nut job leaders to have nukes….
No, the democrat party isn’t crazy at all.
To me, any time spent debating a cretin like dn-guy is time wasted. As Texas Ranger LaBoeuf in TRUE GRIT tells the young heroine when she tries to argue with a drunken Rooster Cogburn, “You’ve done nothing when you’ve bested a fool.”
Very true, sir.
““You’ve done nothing when you’ve bested a fool.””
Wouldn’t that describe Romney’s effort leading to the Convention?
“Romney was the 2012 equivalent of Bob Dole in 1996: it was “his turn”…plus, of course, by the end of the primaries, he was the only one left that looked even the least bit sane.”
Yeah I think that was problem. Republicans should have picked Newt Gingrich.
But Romney looked safer, and looked safer because of “Bob Dole equivalent”, Romney had the support because in sense he “earned” the support. Or Romney had money and built the network to do it.
Newt Gingrich may have been out spent, and so beaten at the ground game, BUT at least Newt Gingrich would have fought Obama.
So fear losing to Obama because what his bad management would do to the country [and has done to the country], forced republicans to go with safer bet.
But anyhow, it seems Obama is being much more effective destroying dems chances in coming election, and without taking the Senate, Romney would have blamed for not making Obamacare work, or worst he would actually had the ability to make the website work, so therefore it would have appeared to be a less of disaster than it will eventually be.
I loved the way that Newt could attack Obama; it was often a thing of beauty. But then Newt would open his mouth again and nuttiness would emerge. Jerry Pournelle, whom I respect a lot, and who has known Newt for a long time, stated that Newt probably didn’t have the right temperament for President. But the debates would have been fun to watch..
Newt would have been even funnier on the campaign trail then Romney.
Newt “I’ve been divorced 4 times, so I really now family values” Gingrich.
Newt “Takes Callista on 100K shopping sprees at Tiffany, so I know working people”
Newt ” What this country needs is more child labor”
Newt “All my campaign money is laundered by the chinese govt”.
Yeah, Newt would have been a laugh factory.
Cthulu
Do all those social justice actions, and you are a democrat.
You really don’t have a brain, do you?
I think there’s a logical step missing between advocating for freedom or social justice and joining the party of Jefferson Davis. Just thought I’d point that out.
Jefferson Davis would feel at home in the modern republican party.
Do you think Ole Jeff Davis would salute a black president and leader of
the Democratic party? Would he feel able to recognize the authority of
a Female speaker (Pelosi) or a Black Whip (Clyburn)?
or would he be more comfortable with a John Boehner?
Instead of just lobbing rhetorical grenades into the conversation, why do you contribute something.
Put your own opinion out there on the line?
No guts huh?
Nonsense. The Democrat Party has always held the ideal model for governance being that of an enlightened aristocracy overseeing a plantation of happy slaves, singing and dancing the praises of their benevolent overlords. Nothing has changed in that model but the means to the goal.
George claims Jeff Davis was a Democrat. That’s true.
I just doubt he’d last 10 seconds in the modern party, while
he’d feel much more comfortable in the modern GOP.
George likes to talk about the Southern Dems history of racism,
that’s true. Lets see if George thinks any of those southern racists
could salute a black president.
Today’s GOP would have no more to do with Jefferson Davis than the GOP of his day, you moron.
Oh I think Jeff Davis would love the Democratic Party…they are the party that has put in place the programs which have destroyed the black family and keep them down trodden.
“…while he’d feel much more comfortable in the modern GOP.”
Ho, hum. The usual attempt to rewrite unambiguous history. The modern GOP stands for the things it always did: personal freedom and opportunity. The modern Donkey Party still stands for what it always did: a feudal system of slaves and masters.
The actual Jefferson Davis was more sympathetic to blacks than most southerners and gave his slaves quite a bit of autonomy and self-governance, so its entirely possible he wouldn’t be a good fit for the modern Democratic party.
“For example, they need to get out in front on the drug legalization issue (which will piss off the social conservatives but neutralize a lot of media weapons)”
A lot of people who didn’t want to see weed legal are upset that the taxes are so high, they perpetuate the underground market. Democrats may want to legalize weed but they also want to tax the piss out of it. If Republicans could relate the dissatisfaction with high taxes on pot to high taxes on everything else, maybe they could attract some new voters.
I never really know what to think. I’m not a social conservative , but I can’t forget the massive bump McCain got when he took on Palin. It’s pretty common for Republicans to do well when they take a stand, without being mean and blatantly stupid (which Palin isn’t, despite all efforts to depict her otherwise) and being willing to fight. Americans don’t really seem to vote in any way that people think they do. They admire vision, and courage, and willing to stand for something almost regardless of what that is. Sneering at Hope and Change was a stupid thing to do; that kind of vision is what leaders are for. Americans seem to vote for that, and not for what the vision is.
I agree. By trying to please everyone, you please no one. Republicans need to explain that there is no free lunch, and that the Democrats’ policy prescriptions, while seeming on the surface to promise more, actually produce less when put into practice.
I still find it difficult to comprehend how , with his abysmal record on every front, Obama got reelected. But, in large part, it was a failure of Republicans to stand tall, and state plainly: “Things really suck right now, they’re not getting any better, and it is their fault.”
I can’t forget the massive bump McCain got when he took on Palin.
Me neither. Yet apparently, Democrats forget quickly, because they have their trolls writing stuff like this:
“Do you think Ole Jeff Davis would salute a black president and leader of
the Democratic party? Would he feel able to recognize the authority of
a Female speaker (Pelosi) or a Black Whip (Clyburn)?
or would he be more comfortable with a John Boehner?”
It’s like they completely forget how they treated Palin and her entire family. Heck, they even forget how they treated Mitt’s family just a week ago. But when you move past the talk and actually look into the offices of Democrat politicians, you see stuff like this or this for the inner workings of the machine.
“I can’t forget the massive bump McCain got when he took on Palin.”
Palin gave McCain a 10 point bump, she looked good, she knew all
the talking points and she was able to energize crowds the way McCain couldn’t.
However, once she actually had to talk without a script, she fell apart.
Not really knowing where Africa was, or NATO, well, she just lost traction.
There is no evidence that she didn’t know where Africa was, you moron, except tales spun by a backstabbing staffer.
At least she knew there weren’t 57 states. And, never put on a pretense of being able to speak “Austrian”. And, never referred to military personnel as “corpse-men”. The list goes on and on.
Everybody argues that the GOP will succeed if only it conforms more closely to their particular position. The evidence for it is slim.
That was not the problem. Like I told you at the time the problem was the economy. That is what the electorate were concerned about back then. Mitt Romney was the worst possible candidate for the Republicans for every single possible reason. At a time when there were a lot of corporate scandals the GOP chose what we used to call a corporate raider as a candidate. It is one thing to have a candidate with a background in management. It is another thing if his ‘management’ consisted of buying up ailing companies and confining them to the grave. That is not going to earn him any brownie points among the electorate. Most of which will consist of working class people by definition. Then there were his stupid comments recorded while he didn’t know he was being recorded. Romneycare. The list goes on.
McCain was a much better candidate. At least he could project the aura of being ex-military and formerly imprisoned in Vietnam. IMO he did not win simply because people were sick of W and wanted to vote for something different and Obama happened to be it. Had someone like McCain showed up in this election and pressed the right buttons he could have easily won against Obama.
As for the Tea Party sometimes I feel like I’m watching OCP meetings from Robocop. Paul Verhoeven version. Back then he was parodying the 1980s stock market frenzy and the doom and gloom of supposed Japanese economic domination but in this era we had our own financial collapse and the Chinese doom and gloom scenario. The more things change the more they remain the same.
Some of the Tea Party candidates talking points make sense but they really need to consider how to present them to an electorate. Not their Ayn Rand fan club mates.
Wait.. you had respect for a politician?
Why?
I had respect for him as a businessman.
Except of course when you were describing him as a moron.
“Only by “republicans” who are morons.”
Our thread usurpers are quick to deflect suspicion from Benghazi, but something is indeed rotten in Denmark.
Yes, Benghazi is another wingnut non-scandal, but as a non-scandal, it certainly got under Mr. Obama’s skin. When he started to make angry demands of Candy Crowley, I was wondering when the Secret Service would come out to wrestle the President to the ground.
A person in authority acting out that way sure is intimidating, but it is a debate tactic that is easily countered if one keeps one’s own head about this. Is Mr. Obama’s righteous-indignation-how-dare-you-challenge me response an act, or is the President that easily rattled? And what was he rattled about?
Mr. Romney backed down from mentioning Benghazi right then and there. For all of him being the heartless “private capital” guy, some say that Mitt has a soft heart or he doesn’t like to argue. For the people around here who derive their life essence from being argumentative, it is hard to believe that there are people who are not like that, but there are.
Another speculation is that Mr. Romney, as a presidential candidate, was privy to intelligence briefings, and decided that the debate argument had gone too far as signalled by Mr. Obama getting all huffy, and decided to “back off.”
You had JFK pounding on the Missile Gap when he had been briefed on U2 and/or Corona intelligence that there was no such thing, with Ike keeping silent to protect our national sources. You had W advising Clinton and Obama that “the terrorist threat on why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is real, say what you need to say against “the War” because that is how campaigns are conducted, but don’t “paint yourself into a corner” on concrete promises of troop withdrawal because when elected President, you will need freedom of action.”
I think the historical record is that Mr. Obama took that advice and used that freedom of action in either ending or continuing these wars.
But what had the President so worked up? And why did Mr. Romney “back down”?
““You’ve done nothing when you’ve bested a fool.””
Wouldn’t that describe Romney’s effort leading to the Convention?
ah, dn-guy, are we changing the subject when we are losing?
Good job, keep the idiocy coming.