Dana Milbank tells Republicans…
…to accept their fate. It’s Romney.
Actually, his article is a pretty good indictment of the MSM’s propensity to move the goalposts where Romney is concerned, the better to have an exciting primary season:
The fact that Romney is still viewed to be in danger of losing the nomination says less about him than it does about the media. We have turned him into Candidate Sisyphus, providing him with a plentiful supply of boulders to push uphill. First it was make-or-break New Hampshire, then must-win Florida, then do-or-die Michigan and game-changing Ohio. Each time Romney prevails, we assign him a new test.
Part of this is our bias in favor of conflict. I’ve been as guilty as the rest in attempting to extend this primary season, even pleading with Newt Gingrich to fight on, strictly for my personal enjoyment. But the reluctance to acknowledge Romney’s inevitability also reflects media antipathy toward this boring candidate ”” the flip side of 2008, when journalists brayed for Hillary Clinton to abandon her fight against Barack Obama, the media’s preferred candidate.
I wonder if it’s time for a “Romney” category to be added to this blog? I don’t think so, because although I think his nomination is likely I still don’t think it’s literally inevitable. I’ll wait to assign a tag to the nominee until there really is a nominee.
Tell Dana Milbank to accept his fate: ignominy. It doesn’t matter whether it’s by the hand of Romney, Palin, or Gingrich.
Hey, scrub, we’re winning. Believe that.
Look, if Millbank and/or the WaPo says its is true I automatically discount it, and figure that the exact opposite is true.
The fact of the matter is that, as far as I can see, Romney–despite the expenditure of enormous amounts of money–a reported 5, 7, even 12 times as much money as his opponents, and with an apparently smoothly running organization –just squeaks by, and can’t really close the sale–i.e. voters just can’t warm up to him, nor he to they, and most voters don’t like him.
So, the campaign will go on, perhaps resulting in to an eventual win in the end by Santorum or Gingrich, perhaps to a brokered convention.
Wolla Dalbo: I think your scenario, although possible, is highly unlikely. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum has shown any propensity to get enough votes to win the whole thing outright, and as I wrote somewhere yesterday (don’t remember where), polls indicate that even if one of them were to drop out, his votes would not go to the other in high enough numbers to matter.
The truth is that, at least so far, Romney has amassed a lead that’s pretty strong, and he is either leading in other states or in second place. This will give him the most votes, most likely, and even if he doesn’t get enough to win outright at the convention, a brokered convention will probably nominate him (if only because Paul would probably release his delegates to Romney).
I’m not speaking with certainties, of course. But it is by far the most likely scenario.
The puzzle remains: how can 0bama-lite beat 0bama Classic?
The Romney campaign is moving leftward even before he seals up the nomination.
Victory in the general election dictates that he should move to the right – a la Reagan.
Telling Republicans that — in so many ways — he’s going to polish 0bama’s %^&*s — is ruinous at the polls.
He has a terrifying lack of small donations.
Like McCain, the MSM (D) is going to round on him with a fury.
There’s no way that the Left is going to abandon their king for an out and out 1%er.
Which, BTW, is why the term of art was even crafted. It’s solely aimed at Romney.
0bama is a zero on administration — but he’s a vote engine of the first class.
———
Newt must surely be running for Vice-President. He’d be well suited for the role.
I first expected him to pair up with Herman Cain. That would’ve been a killer ticket.
Romney-Gingrich would be next best. The V-P debates would be a hoot.
—–
The mullahs are taking us to nexus. With each P2 ultra-centrifuge another straw is stacked.
I’d never thought it possible – -but the Wan appears to be a fusion of Buchanan and Carter: a complete disaster on both sides of the border.
Accept my fate? I haven’t even had an opportunity to vote yet.
I don’t think that Gingrich would ever accept a powerless VP slot–to quote John Nance Garner,” a job not worth a bucket full of warm spit.”
Is Dana male or female?
OK, it’s an academic, indeed, indeterminate, question to ask of a WaPo drone.
Per Romney’s inability to gain enthusiasm from the voters. Today I heard one of the panelists on the Wall Street Journal program on Fox say that Romney is a good man, a good businessman, and might be a good president, but he doesn’t know how to do retail politics. He added further that both Santorum and Gingrich are good retail politicians. Thus they manage to stay in the race even though Romney’s got the money and endorsements. That gift for connecting with the electorate is not something one can learn easily and Romney does not seem to be getting better at it with time.
The problem is, as blert points out, a good retail politician like Obama is not necessarily the best choice for a good President. But voting is such an emotional issue. Most people have to like you or they will not vote for you because the policies are background noise for most of them.
I expect the contest to continue until at least June and may go all the way to the convention. (Although not a brokered convention.) If Romney makes a major mistake – so far his mistakes have been few and minor – the MSM will highlight it, big time. They want the division and animosity among Republicans to continue and the best way to do that is to keep the contest from being decided early.
John H pulled the pin and threw it right into the enemies camp:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/barack-obama-to-khalid-muhammad-two-degrees-of-separation.php
blert, your question is truly scary. However, the best answer is this: Romney is not Obama lite. Take a look at all the policies, take a look at the values, take a look at the associations, and Romney is not Obama lite.
Romney is pro Israel. Obama not.
Romney is pro market. Obama not.
Romney is pro Constitution. Obama not.
Romney is pro religious freedom. Obama not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577170722068780542.html
Romney will fund our military. Obama not.
There are two things that bring the appearance of Obama lite: Romneycare and tone. Let’s take the last, first: tone.
Romney has a tone of moderation. Obama does too, although that tone is pure deceit. Both men have a public persona which purpose is to prevent career ended mistakes and gaffes. Both men do their attacking through subordinates.
Romneycare. Despite the differences, this is the one Obama lite charge that sticks because Romney agreed and still agrees that government coercion is a solution to an economic scarcity problem.
There might be a third area: flip flops. However, with Romney, I believe, and this is certainly only a personal opinion, Romney’s flip flops are both political and personal where as with Obama it doesn’t even make sense to imply he’s ever sought for the truth or right vs wrong. Those qualities are only tools in Obama World.
As to the 1% charge: Here’s one better. Who was it who said that “I don’t want to be a millionaire, I just want to live like one?” That sure fits Barak and Michelle Obama living off the taxpayer’s money?
Eric Rush for VP!
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/03/10/Hannity%20Debates%20Former%20Bell%20Student%20On%20Radical%20Teachings
Neo: Actually I had hoped you already had a Romney tag. I read your blog regularly but of course miss some days here and there.
I was a little surprised when I saw that you were a Romney supporter and had wanted an easy way to go back and look at your earlier posts on him.
Not to judge or disagree, just curious because I do usually agree with you and appreciate your insight/point of view.
KLSmith: just look at the right sidebar where it says “search,” and do a search for “Romney,” and all the posts with the word “Romney” in them will come up.
Here are a couple I would recommend:
http://neoneocon.com/2012/02/04/romney-and-emotional-intensity/
http://neoneocon.com/2012/02/03/romney-and-the-conservative-message/
http://neoneocon.com/2012/01/29/i-dont-know-about-you/
http://neoneocon.com/2012/01/24/dueling-individual-mandates-newt-and-mitt/
Thanks!
Re: Romney being unable to seal the deal.
I get tired of hearing that. There were 8 viable candidates when we started out and 4 now. If they were all the same, then you can accuse him of not being a closer. But each candidate offers something entirely different to the electorate, and the electorate is responding to these offers.
Paul appeals to the libertarians
Santorum appeals to social conservatives
Romney appeals to fiscal conservatives and pragmatic Republicans
Gingrich appeals to the south
We will continue to see these demographics play out in the republican party and this will not be indicative of Romney not being able to close. It merely shows the competing interests in a party with multiple priorities.
Curtis: Israel is not mentioned in the Constitution. Romney may be somewhat more Constitutional than Obama, but that’s faint praise.
Even Ron Paul allocates over $500B per year to Defense. (Currently $530B) Romney is more “pro business” than “pro market”. His economic plan is fog and trivia; have you read it? Government doesn’t get smaller.
Daniel: Paul appeals to broader segments than libertarians. RP is the weakest Primary contender, while Romney is the strongest. In the General, the opposite seems true. Of all the current contenders, Paul is the one Obama is most likely to lose to.
Generally, watching CNN play with their rainbow wall, Romney has a tough time getting to 1144. He will likely hit Tampa with over 1000 delegates, but that’s not enough…unless one of the others swings a deal.
It’s ancient history, but Romney is Ford ’76. And we all think Barry is the new Jimmy. The GOP is walking dead.
Foxmark says:
“Paul is the one Obama is most likely to lose to.”
That’s an unfounded assertion to say the least. I like some of Dr. Paul’s points, but not anywhere near enough of them to follow him into an actual nomination. Paul is the type of candidate who helps to shape direction, but he is not the type of candidate you actually nominate.
Assume for the sake of argument that he actually wins the nomination – say by the untimely death of all the other candidates. Now what? Democrats all go for Obama, probably in droves because of the very thought of having Paul as President. Republicans come out in light numbers because so many of them would not have wanted him to be their candidate (I’d probably be in this category). Independants? Please. Independants go for charisma and celebrity and popularity, and Paul has none of those going for him, particularly not after the media starts whaling away at him.
Paul creates interest, creates discussion, creates enthusiasm in some cases. But he does not create victory for Republicans.