I’m a bit surprised at Rush Limbaugh
I think that Limbaugh lets his disapproval of a Romney nomination blind him to the other possibilities here when he offers the following exchange as support for his thesis that “the Democrats want Romney [as Republican nominee] — and you all know it”:
BRAZILE: Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him — and for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us.
KARL: Why is that?
BRAZILE: Because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attackin’, and that’s Mitt Romney.
KARL: Oh, come on.
STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you don’t believe that, Donna.
RUSH: That’s Stephanopoulos. What Stephanopoulos is saying is, “Shut up, Donna! What the hell are you doing, Donna? Did you not take your meds?”
I think Limbaugh is underestimating the degree of possible game-playing here. Maybe he’s even correct, but I doubt it; there’s absolutely no reason to suppose that it’s Brazile who’s being straightforward.
Agreed, neo. We tend to overinterpret these things. Personally, I think the Dems are happy as pigs in you-know-what over the entire GOP field, but there is no way they CRAVE Romney above all. They’d love to have Ron Paul even more (I definitely would if I were a Democrat). Democratic politicians know very little, but one thing they know well is how to read polls.
I do think that Romney is weaker than he appears in national polls right now, but depending on how things play out, he could be stronger. It’s like Zuckerberg kept saying to his friend when he tried to get Facebook corporate sponsorship before it took off: “We don’t even know what it is yet.”
That is both Romney’s strength and potentially his Achilles’ heel (if, for instance, the nation never gets an idea of what he is, or if the media carves him into a monster and it sticks). The Dems are indeed licking their chops over Romneycare and Bain (again, I would be if I were a Democrat), but they’re licking their chops over a million other things from the other candidates too. Doesn’t make much difference; they’re all shark fodder. Romney just polls the best at the moment.
That will change, and we’ll get a chance to see how well Gordon Gekko polls among Independents in November. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean, poll-wise, that Romney would be my first choice as an opponent in this field if I were a Democrat. That distinction would belong to Ron Paul first, Jon Hunstman second, Rick Santorum third, and Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich tied for fourth.
If unemployment goes below 8% none of this will matter anyway, because Obama will be re-elected no matter who he faces. Sad, but…
That’s where we are, America. We hardly knew ye.
Yeah, I also think this is just Brazile acting like Romney is the weakest of the candidates, when, in fact, they’d love to take on any of the others first. For instance, this piece appeared over the weekend about Newt Gingrich. Now tell me which Democrat wouldn’t be optimistic about the prospect of taking on a candidate who had inspired such a caricature? And the others–Perry, Santorum, and especially Paul–are all ripe for caricature, too. Huntsman is sort of irrelevant because most Republicans see him as a RINO, and if by some odd occurrence he became the nominee, the Democrats know many Republicans wouldn’t show up at the polls to support him.
The Obama-era Democrats know how to play the game of politics by manipulating emotions and images; in fact, that’s all they’ve got. They can go after Romney for being wealthy, but they don’t have much else that would be very appealing or emotionally persuasive. They can run ads from “unknown” groups (i.e. Democrat-funded groups they deny any connection with a la Harry Reid in 2010) attacking him from the right as a way of weakening his support among conservatives, but that won’t scare away anyone who is determined that Obama has to go.
Kolnai: “If unemployment goes below 8% ”
This unemployment number, 8.5, Is this not due to Christmas employment?
Even 8% is 8%!
And I don’t see it going below that soon.
To believe it would, would require us to believe Obama’s policies (or lack) would work.
I also wonder what effect on conservatives a Romney-Santorum ticket would have.
The lefties already eliminated the gravest threat to both Obama and their continued success as a party: Cain.
Everybody else but Paul allows the Dems to run their standard playbook. And none of them but Paul threatens the bi-factional ruling party status quo.
It’s worse than just saying they don’t fear Romney becoming the nominee. The Dems don’t appear to fear Romney becoming the President.
“The lefties already eliminated the gravest threat to both Obama and their continued success as a party: Cain.”
That was my opinion about 3 months ago… sigh.
“And none of them but Paul threatens the bi-factional ruling party status quo.”
RP is a strict constitutionalist and in 21st century America the majority doesn’t believe in the Constitution as the law of the land.
“The Dems don’t appear to fear Romney becoming the President.”
You just may be correct.
And the Repubs don’t seem to fear losing. Otherwise, why did they engage in this interminable series of debates, mostly moderated by liberal members of the media trying to entrap the candidates in ‘gotcha’ questions, whose chief effect seems to have been to have the Republican candidates attack each other in a circular firing squad, while making most normal people sick to death of all of them?
I have started tuning Limbaugh out as soon as he starts on his anti-Romney rants. Which means that I do not listen to him very long, at all, on any given day.
The mindless attacks on Romney have become so tiresome.
The only thing more tedious is reading that he somehow does not have the charisma necessary to beat Obama. Please, give me less charisma and more competence–throw in a healthy respect for the Constitution while I am wishing.
I mentioned on some forums that John Hinderaker’s defense of Romney’s conservatism that was posted on Powerline was compelling, and fact supported. My pleas to read it fell mostly on deaf ears because most folks, Limbo included, do not want their opinions to be confused by fact.
I don’t think Obama can win by going negative on ANY R candidate.
What is the argument? “So and So is horrible and we all hate him, and this is why…Therefore, vote for me who you know is nothing but pain and misery because you sure don’t want to return to the bad old days of Reagan or….George Bush!!!”
Not going to happen.
What needs to happen is for the R candidate to talk about their plan to get us out of the mess Obama put us in. That should be the “offense” from yesterday’s essay. Every day, all day some version of: “Here is this or that aspect of my plan to fix the America Obama and the Dems so obviously broke”.
Landslide territory.
For example, the link says that by 2-1 Americans “fear” an Obama re-election.
That is the central reality of this election.
Nothing gets Obama out of that short of amazing economic news or perhaps Ron Paul being the nominee.
oops. forgot link: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/01/09/poll-americans-2-1-fear-obamas-reelection
I am not against Romney, even IF he is a RINO, for he is way better than 4 more for BHO. Unfortunately, the objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear. The financial crisis is not over, in fact its been exponentially magnified by 4.5+ trillion in deficits over 3 years and QE to the power of 4. This is the reality we face.
Will BHO make the crisis worse given another term? Of course. Will Romney be willing to tell the cold, hard truth; I have serious doubts. Nonetheless I will not vote 3rd party this time around. Barry must be sent back to Cook County in order to have ample opportunities to visit his buddy Rezko in Joliet.
Amen, Parker, amen!
May I also add the GOP debates were all-ALL- disasters for our side. Due to the nature of the questioners, their questions, sound-bite responses only, unequal times given to the various candidates, encouraging (if that’s the right word) the candidates to attack one another instead of combining their artilleries against BHO and the Dems.
The fault of the debates’ setups resides with what? the RNC?
The opposition is not united in opposition to BHO. That also happened in Venezuela, where the oppos are now reduced to beseeching the Almighty for an increase in Chavez’s cancer growth rate.
Rush is chasing his own tail. I know that you know that I know that you know…. Look, I’m a strong right of center libertarian. Romney is the ONLY serious candidate on our side. He is in fact a LOT more conservative than he’s being given credit for. If the right would just get off the social issues and remember the old “IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!” mantra then it’d a lot more be obvious. We’d all love to see Christie but this just in, he isn’t running. What’s left with Romney isn’t half bad. At least he’ll actually stand up and shamelessly defend open markets and capitalism. Something I’ve heard precious little of from the rest of the candidates who have “realistic” chances (and funding)…
Ed Bonderenka –
Granted. I wasn’t saying I anticipated that happening, but the economy is freaking weird and it is certainly possible. The way we measure unemployment is even weirder, of course.
I don’t think the economy getting half a percentage point better in terms of employment would mean Obama’s policies were working. It could just as well mean that growth in employment would be much stronger if not for his policies bogging it down. Indeed, unemployment has already gone down over one percentage point since last January – do we have to admit Obama’s policies are already working?
But this is all beside the point. Obama will get the credit if the economy gets marginally better, and the blame will wash out between him and the GOP if it stays the same or gets worse. That’s just the way these things go.
(By the way, I still do not support Romney, and I think that as fair as neo’s point is about Rush, the Official Conservative Media has been ten times worse in their Romney shilling. Let us hope for all of our sakes that it was justified).
How can Romney take on Owebama when Romney has the albatross of RomneyCare hanging over his head?
Romney may be articulate, like another candidate we heard that about, but he is not conservative, no way. What we are seeing with this Republican primary season is two things that are repeating like ‘Groundhog Day’:
1) The media are doing their damnedest to pick the Republican candidate by winnowing the field of perceived threats to Owebama’s reelection with their biased coverage;
2) The RINO’s in charge of the Republican Party have taken conservatives for granted for so long, and still continue to do so as they show us, once again, they believe in that ‘it’s X’s turn to be the candidate’ BS.
This election might very well kill off both our major political parties: The Progressive/Communist Party and the Good ol’ Boy/Go Along To Get Along Squish Party. Now that would be a double victory.
RickZ:
Realigning the parties may be a path that avoids much domestic violence. Rearrange the factions in to the liberty-libertine Constitutionalists and the warsocialism Internationalists. The two most extreme quintiles at the ends of the standard linear political axis have more in common with each other than with the two center quintiles.
Everybody has to face some cognitive dissonance if they want to survive.
Rush, et al, assumes that Democrats all get together and plan out some sort of elaborate pre-primary spoiler strategy to get their choice of candidate in for the enemy camp.
All you have to do is look at how hard it is for any candidate to coordinate their own campaign staff and keep them on message to know that this is just a bunch of nonsense. The byzantine strategy of talking down the candidate that they want the most would have to be stategized amongst pundits and professional politicians alike, and memos would have had to go out to all the people who are responding to those match-up polls.
This was just Brazile attempting to spin an “Obama wins” meme out of the debates, as every good party hack will do. Nothing more than that.
Rush Limbaugh and Newt are on a self-defeating scorched earth campaign against Romney.
I can’t figure out Rush’s motive other than ratings, but Gingrich is clearly a selfish jerk bent on revenge. Gingrich can’t win and he’s willing to sink our likely nominee and hand the election over to Obama to get his pound of flesh.
I’ve been a 24/7 subscriber to Limbaugh for years, but I just let my subscription expire because I can’t stand to listen to his illogical vitriol against Romney. He’s handing the election to Obama by discouraging the Republican electorate and impugning Romney. Limbaugh used to be creative and funny, now he’s just a BORING angry old white guy.
The single most important thing for the good of the U.S. is to get rid of Obama and elect a more mainstream president. Newtie and Rushie are seriously placing that goal in jeopardy.
Romney is strong now only because the “anybody but Romney” vote is split between 4-5 others. Unfortunately, this may guarantee Romney’s nomination. It’s the “third party dilemma” showing itself in the primaries.
Rush will get behind Romney when the time comes. But i don’t see where he’s wrong about voicing concern for Romney during the selection process. He is the McCain endorsed candidate, if you’re looking for some eye opening perspective on where Rush is coming from.
SteveH:
Limbaugh would get behind Romney just as he got behind McCain. Rush did what he could to try pulling McCain across the finish line. There’s no passion in it.
Romney will not inspire the grassroots enthusiasm necessary for a convincing victory, and for down-ballot wins.
foxmarks: and Gingrich would inspire only those grassroots conservatives, leading them to a convincing defeat.
But hey, at least he’d stand for conservative principles like the defense of capitalism as he takes them all down, right?
Hangtown Bob: you assume that, if most of the other candidates dropped out, none of their votes would go to Romney. But we have no evidence for that. It may be true, or it may not be true. I think it most likely that a significant portion would go to Romney, but not necessarily a majority of them. But if enough did, it would give him a majority.
The Left lies. You can state the opposite of what they say and assume it is true, and you will be right 99% of the time. One must understand that in tradecraft, the double cross is a basic maneuver, not an advanced one. So goes it for the “double blind” deception or misinformation. If people vote for X because they think X is what their political opponents want, they get demoralized. If people don’t vote for X based upon X being what their political opponents want, and their political opponents wanted people to be turned off by X through endorsing them, then they’re even more demoralized.