April 4, 2012

Alright Mr. Roberts, I’m Ready For My Presidency

  10:21 am

Per ABC news:

“We have now reached the point where its half time. Half the delegates in this process have been selected. And who is ready to charge down the field of Pennsylvania for a strong second half?” Santorum asked the crowd gathered in a ballroom at the Four Points Sheraton here.

One expects to find Santorum camped in front of the Capitol Building in January, waiting for the Chief to inaugurate him.

Wearing the exact expression Gloria Swanson has at 0:28.



by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
My Man Mitt 4 President

Really, What is the upside for Santorum staying in this race?



So Rick's spin is that it is now halftime?


He will run around saying "It's not over! It's not over!"


He's right -- half the delegates have been apportioned.

And Romney has 58% of them, and 58% of what he needs to win.

It's ovvaaaahhhh. Insurgent candidates can win, but only if they stay on fire once they've caught fire. Like all the others, he burned bright and quick, and out. Can't reignite once that happens.

Where's Adam on all this?

Conservative Independent

What is there for him not to understand that he was the bottom of the barrel pick. Most of his votes have had nothing to do with him. He's an unlikeable guy that can't even get endorsements from people he has worked with in the past.


It's over.


By the way, I heartily recommend Sunset Boulevard (the movie that clip's from) to anyone and everyone.


#3 Matt

According to Team Ricky, Romney is no where near having half the delegates because the RNC is going to make FL and AZ go proporational and give lots of delegates to Santy and all those caucus state unbound delegates are going to charge enmass to Ricky come Tampa.

I don't know what Ricky is drinking, but it must be teh same stuff Jack is downing...


Well this just means he needs to get Tim Tebow on board, but he should he wait till the fourth quarter.


GOP singing to Santy...


Dick Morris over at The Hill wrote a great piece this morning:

Santorum's May Myth



"Nobody thinks Romney's going to win. Let's just be honest. Can we just

say this for everybody at home? Let me just say this for everybody at

home. The Republican establishment -- I've yet to meet a single person

in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win

the general election this year. They won't say it on TV because they've

got to go on TV and they don't want people writing them nasty emails. I

obviously don't care. But I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican

establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the

Republican congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt

Romney is going to win the general election."

- Joe Scarborough


#13...Somebody made the mistake of asking Joe what he thought?


14 - Is he astute? Or is he another Dick Morris (who's always wrong)?



Who cares what Joe Scarborough thinks. He was a nobody in Congress who served in one of the least sophisticated, most redneck districts in the country and has parlayed his undistinguished career into a blowhard show in MSNBC that nobody but liberals watch. He's a Newt who sold out to play house Republican to the limousine liberal set.

He can go perform unnatural acts on himself.


Cui bono? Who benefits from Santorum's "tenacity?" Not the GOP; not Mitt; not Santorum; not America. Only Obama. Very strange.

Even the media has called it for Mitt and making Santy looking loonier and loonier.


He always appears to me to be a liberal playing conservative for MSMBC...I hardly ever think he's speaking wisdom....maybe others have a different opinion...



“I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

(Pauline Kael)



Right. And it's astonishing. Barack Obama needs to be defeated. Anyone who doubts this need only watch Obama's disgraceful speech yesterday. Between this and Wisconsin, we're facing THE critical test of the sanity of the American public. And Mitt Romney can't stop talking about the economy. On the same day Obama paints a vision of Ryan's dystopian America, Romney gives yet another paint-by-the-numbers, "I know how to get jobs", speech. I agree with Scarborough but it's really remarkable.



So Obama is "gloom, despair, and agony", while Romney is uplifting and forward looking.

See 1980 general election.


20 - I hope he's wrong. I really do.

Still, I'm buying gold and silver coins this week, because I'm very gloomy about the West's future...


By the way, Romney is absolutely destroying Obama in a speech right now in DC. Brutal.



wow, he truly is annihilating him.


very good speech by romney...


I posted this in the open thread as well. Last night I made a chart looking at exit poll data.

This shows how Romney's performance directly correlates to the amount of Evangelicals in each state.

Not only that, but even in states Romney wins, he still under performs with Evangelicals and overperforms with non-Evangelicals.


Willard Mittens Rombot

26. Lighthouse baptist church here in New Orleans has anti mormon bible study on Wednesday nights about 6 times a year. So, not surprising.


If it was half-time and the score of a intra-team scrimmage that decided who would represent your team in the finals was 65-27, and the final game had already begun what would you do?


G and Willard,

It's over. Bury the bloody hatchet, and quit picking at this scab.

Your guy is the nominee, and he's got an uphill climb. He needs all the support he can get now.

Continue whatever religious grievances you have with other churches' Bible Studies to a non-political venue.

If I can tell SoCons to shush it about RomneyCare and aboriton, surely you can temper whatever religious issues you have with evangelicals.




You shouldn't tell SoCons to shush about either RomneyCare or abortion. RomneyCare, as the counsel for the 26 Attorney's General argued before the Supreme Court, is a state level plan and perfectly legal. Furthermore, it is very popular in MA and, this is really going to give you heartburn, insurance premiums have grown at a rate lower than the national average. Let me repeat that, our insurance premiums are growing slower than yours. SoCons, and everyone else who claims to be a conservative for that matter, really ought to learn the difference between state's rights and the limited rights given to the federal government. Federalism! All the cool kids are catching it!

As to abortion, Romney changed his mind. He never paid for or authorized an abortion. He vetoed anti-life legislation. In fact, he has done more to actually fight against abortion than any candidate in the race either on the Republican side or the Democrat side. Those are the facts despite the howling from many who do not have a clue what they are talking about.

I'm all about burying the hatchet. But as long as people such as yourself keep misstating the facts I'm going to have to keep hitting you with it.

Metaphorically speaking of course.


I watched Santorum's speech on the ABC link. It looks like Santorum wants a repeat of 1976 where the GOP losses. That right there speaks volumes about his wanting Obama to be reelected. He wants Obama to win so Ricky can run in 2016. Ricky cares more about himself than the party and this nation.

How on earth could he think he is this generation's Reagen? The eventual GOP nominee is much closer to Reagen in governing style and moral character than Ricky will ever be except in Ricky's dreams.

Willard Mittens Rombot

29. I'll keep picking. If you took all the different types of news media and substituted the words "Jew" or "Black" every time the word "mormon" was mentioned, there would be complete outrage. I'm glad Mitt has not had to "light his hair on fire" for these idiots.






You need to decide whether it's more important to you to be pitied, or win.




Good comeback. Pretty much par for the course for a not Romney.


Rick buddy, it isn't halftime. It's the sixth inning and time to invoke the mercy rule. You're losing by way more than "15" points.


Does anyone have a link to the Romney speech in DC? I missed it?



I didn't make my chart to pick at wounds or to argue doctrine.

Take a good look at data in that chart.

You are right that Romney has an uphill climb, and people like you are going to be a huge part of what Romney has to do.

I would suggest that you not tell people to shush about abortion ... as I don't think that's the issue. Many, many have been told "We can't trust Romney. We're not sure what he *believes*. (wink wink)"

What people who haven't had Romney as their first choice need to be told is "The party trusts this guy, I trust this guy and so should you."

Don't get mad at me for putting the data up on a page. The first step to fixing the problem is admitting that there is one.



It's not a "comeback". It's emphasis that I'm not rehashing that crap for the bagillionth time.

It's not fruitful now. We're on the same team, whether we ever wanted to be or not. So it's time to set aside the petty insults.

Most of us here have been mocking Santorum for not realizing that the primary is over. For whatever reason, you Willard, and G seem to agree with Rick on that.


This thread proves a comment I saw another blog this morning. Essentially the person pointed out that blogs attract argumentative folks that like to argue for the sake of arguing and actually winning the argument would destroy their sense of purpose. So even though, Romneycare, abortion flips, and Evangelical opposition, are all becoming irrelevant, as Romney is heading to victory, some Rombots don't want to see those arguments disappear.


30 I think one of the biggest mistakes the republican party has made in recent years is buying into the idea that using private insurance to cover the majority of Mass residents was somehow a "government takeover" of health care.

It is about as bad as if when D.C. started using school vouchers, that we called it a government takeover of education and sought to defeat it.


we LDS don't spend too much time worrying about the anti opinion about us that is out there. We get the job done in spite of the prejudice.

Reading the comments on the various articles that you guys posts is sad that more education about Romney's positives isn't going on. This delegate math is dumb. I realize that its being emphasized for Ricky benefit, but his followers aren't being taught that what he's telling them is wrong and they are all hooked on this narrative of a selfish rich guy who loots companies and passes obamacare in his state. We have to change the reason to vote for Romney over just delegate math.



"we LDS don’t spend too much time worrying about the anti opinion about us that is out there."

I wouldn't know it from this site.

But as John Mark rightly points out, the blogosphere tends to attract the argumentative.

Conservative Independent

Final score from April 3 primaries: Romney +86 (658), Santorum +9 (281). Gingrich stands at 135, Paul at 51. #2012 To win? 1,144. 49 seconds ago · reply · retweet · favorite Phil ElliotAssociated Press - National Reporter (DC)


43 What are you trying to say Matt? 😉


Ok, I know I am not supposed to like this ad, but it really is clever.



Oh please. We Rombots went through a year of being slammed every damn day over things you now call irrelevant. We told you at the time they were irrelevant and the way they were being spun was false but the same dumb things were said over and over and over.

And now when we are in the end zone you don't want us to do our victory dance? Tough.

We can do the magnanimous thing later. For now, Billy White Shoes Johnson has nothing on me.



"The first step to fixing the problem is admitting that there is one."

So, what is your plan?

1. Get evangelicals to admit they're hateful bigots.





3. Have them all vote for Romney!

(and then thank you for getting them to realize how truly awful they are)



Okay. Knock yourself out.


"We Rombots went through a year of being slammed every damn day..."

If it was such a ghastly horror, you could have just not gone to political blogs, where, you know, we bash each other about politics. What's that they say about a kitchen too hot?

"And now when we are in the end zone you don’t want us to do our victory dance?"

Oh I really couldn't care less, I'm not too passionately involved in this race. If the nomination is what you consider the end of the game, then by all means enjoy yourself. If, however, you think the game is about the WH you might want to consider the value of a united party.


Romney gave a good speech today after giving a good one last night. Maybe I misheard, but this particular line might get a bit of push back, "The president yesterday attacked a bunch of ideas that nobody is proposing." Well, the Ryan budget was passed by the House. I was also a bit surprised that Romney offered no defense of the Ryan budget.


Matt, this is a blog where people with a similar interest debate political points. And religion is a political point. That is a different thing then just living your life and getting on with what you need to accomplish.


6. Right on the mark!!! And to add insult to injury, TRicky thinks he is Ronald Reagan. Hubris! I wish someone could tell him: I know RR, I was a friend of RR, and you, Sir, are no RR!


Boomer, you don't get people on your side by rubbing their nose in the dirt.


20 - More nonsense from the Aaron Sorkin wing of the Republican party. Do you even pay attention to what Romney says anymore MEM? I don't know what the hell kind of universe you are living in, but Romney has gone after Obama hard and effectively for many months.

Do you seriously think people care more about a budget fight in Congress than whether they have a job or not? What silliness!



"That is a different thing then just living your life and getting on with what you need to accomplish."

Well, yes. I'm quite sure very few are actually incapitated over others' feelings towards their religion.


46 - What? Romney actually responded to Obama's attacks on the Ryan budget? But the genius MEM said that he was stuck on the economy (God forbid). Sounds like someone isn't as smart as he thinks he is (or makes people think he is).



1. Obama is campaigning against the Ryan budget and, by extension, the Romney Medicare reform. To ignore this, to focus on jobs, is stupid. 2. The debt actually IS the most important issue facing the country. Obama has made it clear he's willing to drive the country into the ground by refusing to address entitlements. Someone needs to call him out and I was under the impression Romney wanted to be the leader of the Republican Party. Seems like the natural candidate.

Romney delivered a nice speech to the press association today but about 2 mins of it actually addressed the debt and entitlement, and then only broadly.


Joe Scarborough is MSNBC's Token Republican. Joe is a RINO - that is the only reason he has a job on MSNBC!He is a joke! I have yet to see a REAL Republican on that Station - ever!


Yes, people care about the economy and jobs, but they're also more hopeful in that regard than they were the past 3 years.

If Romney focuses completely on the economy, he hands his fate completely over to forces outside his control. If the economy improves, he's toast, and we're stuck with the guy who doubled the debt in one term.

People are feeling at least a little more secure, so they're starting to look more to the future. I guarantee the legions of voting seniors care more about Medicare and Social Security than jobs.

Of course Mitt should talk about jobs, but to hang his prospects on getting crappy economic stats is just stupid.


It looks to me that it will be impossible for Santorum to win the 1144 delegates either right before Texas or after Texas. I expect Santorum to drop out in the last 7 days of May.


Here's what I recall Romney said in the speech, offhand, regarding entitlements.

1. He attacked Obama for ending Medicare as We Know It by cutting 500 billion.

2. He said he'd gradually raise the retirement age for social security and slow the rate of growth for upper-income Americans.

3. He said he'd preserve Medicare for those at or near retirement and strengthen it for the younger generation, by giving seniors the option to enroll in private plans.

This was buried at the end of the speech and if it occupied even 2 minutes of time I'd be rather surprised. Romney's instinct here seems to be: 1. Focus on the economy and jobs, 2. Mention entitlement reform and the debt broadly and briefly. I understand this instinct but I just don't think it's going to work.


58 - well, since we see that Romney actually did respond to the attacks on the Ryan budget, i guess you are just dead wrong. Furthermore, whether debt is or isn't more important than the economy and jobs, the budget is certainly not going to win more votes than harping on Obama's jobs numbers, especially in a midwestern state like Wisconsin.

The suggestion that Romney only talks about jobs and nothing else is patently false. Did you miss the excellent ad on the ballooning debt from a few days ago? either you are not nearly as informed about what Romney is actually saying as you think you are, our you are purposely misleading for some other purpose that you are unwilling to admit.

We get that you want to have Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan's children, but a little bit of intellectual honesty would be appreciated.


Why anyone would be surprised that Romney talked about jobs in a victory speech in Wisconsin is mind boggling.


Romney is currently the only one who can punch near the President's weight class. Ryan can't. It'd be lovely if Ryan had the megaphone to eviscerate Obama but he doesn't. Romney's going to have to fight for (not just mention) proposals he's already embraced or the GOP will be pummeled in November.


66 - Did you miss the video in 46? He has and it's continuing to. I don't know what you are missing here.


Do politicians not get that most of us under the age of 40 don't expect medicare or social security to even exist by the time we get that age? I fully expect those programs to be dead. I know my kids don't expect them to be viable. "We can't change it" just means absolutely nothing to me other then they are okay with bankrupting the country.


In order for a Party to be taken seriously regarding the debt it needs to show a willingness to sacrifice the sacred cows. This is a lot more true for the GOP than the Dems because the public actually like the Dem sacred cows a lot lot more than they do the GOP sacred cows. That isn't happening this year, though, as the GOP in general and Romney in specific have been busy calling for the erection of even bigger temples for our holy bovine.


Romney is also going to take heat for his criticism of Obama's Medicare "cuts," since Ryan's budget- which he endorsed- using the same topline spending figures for Medicare.

It will be presented as another flip flop, and show up in that series of Etch a Sketch ads coming this Fall.



>>If it was such a ghastly horror, you could have just not gone to political blogs, where, you know, we bash each other about politics. What’s that they say about a kitchen too hot?

It seems to me that you are the one whining, not I. I'm having a ball and as Matt suggested, knocking myself out with joy. We Rombots won.

Oh and by the by, it's not exactly a news flash that people like to argue about politics either on blogs or elsewhere. It's only been happening since the dawn of time.


John Mark,


Right on.

Mitt refuses to consider $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts.

Mitt promises to increase the defense budget.

Mitt will let his campaign perish as he clings to the flag of Grover Norquist, sweating eternal fealty to 35%.

Given all that, it's hard to take him seriously when he speaks of the existential threat the debt poses, or our moral obligation to our children.

Not when he effectively says "I'd rather the kids get crushed with debt than the rich pay a dollar more."



Right. Romney is committed to the Ryan budget. He's said all sorts of nice things about it. He's campaigned with Paul Ryan for a week. All the more reason for him to switch his campaign to something closer to parity between focus on the economy and focus on debt. Last night, Paul Ryan introduced Romney and, in 3 minutes, said more addressing Obama's speech than Romney did during his entire victory speech. Look, if Ryan were the VP, this would be a different story. It could be good cop, bad cop. Romney talks about the economy and jobs, while Ryan tsk tsk's about the President's failed leadership on the debt. But until Romney selects a VP he's going to have to carry the whole load. Which means that when the President gives a speech attacking a Republican budget he should not reply with a speech that's 97% focused on jobs and the economy.


"Oh and by the by, it’s not exactly a news flash that people like to argue about politics either on blogs or elsewhere. It’s only been happening since the dawn of time."

Exactly. Which is why I find it a bit strange to ccmplain about having been "slammed day in and day out..." But each to their own.


Mitt refuses to consider $1 in tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts.

That's because the spending cuts are in the future, are only really promised, and will never occur. Would you take the deal if someone offered you $10 in IOU's for each $1 you give them?

Kentucky Wildcats 2012

In fairness to Mitt, he probably had his speech written before Obama spoke yesterday and he has his own points to score. If he got caught up in Obama's rhetoric, it would have taken him off message. But I do agree he should have defended Ryan more after Ryan helped him so much in Wisconsin.


I didn't see the speech, but generally speaking wouldn't you want to see if anyone's buying Obama's attacks on the Ryan plan before you let Obama control the debate by responding. Wouldn't it be better if the debate was about Obama's failed policies?



And why would you find it strange? I was simply stating what we both agree is the norm, people like to argue about politics. In Romney's case, many of the slams were demonstrably false or worse, were personal attacks. It got old and even after winning some of those same arguments persist and they are even more tiresome.

The nice thing is that Romney will be the nominee and now we get to focus our energy on Obama, the worst president in memory.


I just want to reiterate what John Mark said, because I think it's crucial for our electoral success....

The Democrats' sacred cows (entitlements and domestic programs) are much more dear to the majority of voters than Republicans' sacred cows (defense and taxes).

If we get into a battle over whose sacred cows get slaughtered, we'll lose big time.

Our best hope on this issue is to try to convince people that Democrats aren't dealing honestly when they refuse to give up their sacred cows. But we have zero credibility as long as we insist that we can save our own. "Republicans want Granny eating dog food so they can spend as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined." "Republicans would rather minorities rot in failing schools than Warren Buffet pay the same rate as his secretary."

The ads practically write themselves.

Man, I wish Mitch Daniels had run. This is the sort of thing he said to CPAC last year.



It doesn't really matter whether you're right in principle. We're losing this issue by margins of 35-50%, those are the kinds of numbers that could pass a freaking constitutional amendment. Sometimes you've just to face the fact that you've lost a battle. Especially when it's not an issue dealing with say fundamental issues of human life



"That’s because the spending cuts are in the future, are only really promised, and will never occur. Would you take the deal if someone offered you $10 in IOU’s for each $1 you give them?"

I was referring to a hypothetical presented at a debate, and it said nothing about "future" or "promised" cuts. It assumed the cuts happen to balance the budget. I do not believe that Mitt (or anyone else) questioned the premise. They simply said they would not accept $1 in taxes for $10 in cuts.

I was truly appalled.


"Time and time again, the Republican establishment and aristocracy have shoved down the throats of the Republican Party and people across this country moderate Republicans because, of course, we have to win by getting people in the middle," Santorum said.


he also said

"We win by getting people to the middle to move to us and move this country forward.( why isn't he winning then )


The story, set in 2012, focuses on Rick Santorum, a has-been politician whose pathetic belief in his own indestructibility has turned him into a demented recluse. The crumbling K Street building where he works with only his only assistant, Karen, who was once his campaign director and wife, has become his self-contained world. After being defeated in the 2012 GOP primary, Rick dreams of a comeback to politics, and he begins a campaign that will soon lead to total madness.

Poor Rick!


81 I remember the debate, I recall the questions. The fact that it was hypothetical makes it even worse to say yes. That's as bad as negotiating with yourself. The reality of the "cuts" if they were hypothetically made, is they would have to come out of future spending, and would never really materialize. These deals are always for tax increases now in exchange for promised spending decreases in the future. Propose a deal where spending cuts are realized first, and mild tax increases come later, and you might get a different result. Essentially though what it comes down to is why would any republican agree to potentially increase taxes for a media personality's promise of rainbows and unicorns?

If I was a liberal by the way, I'd love to make that deal over and over again because all you have to do is NOT keep your promise, overspend, and another tax increase is required.


Here is Romney's speech today with the Q&A afterwards. http://www.c-span.org/Events/C-SPAN-Event/10737429620/



Tax rates can be adjusted every budget, just like spending. It's not like spending exists in the realm of myth, and taxes alone exist in reality.

At any rate, as I said, I don't recall anyone rejecting the premise as you have. They were merely kissing the ring of Grover Norquist.


This is interesting : http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/

Compares Regan to Rommey


Reagan tried such a deal, and didn't get the spending cuts promised.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes -- though not income taxes -- in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: "The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion -- only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire..

Bush tried the same, and not only did he not get the cuts, but it probably cost him reelection.

Pretending to care about the deficit -- created exclusively by their own profligate spending -- Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a "balanced budget" package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his "read-my-lips, no-new-taxes" campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

Let's not forget your point that this was a negotiation with a media personality. What the democrats would get from republicans agreeing is political cover for another tax hike for promised tax cuts. Republicans would get nothing for saying yes to that question posed in the debate.

No if you're saying if there's a real bill that proposed a small tax increase that ended at the next election for ten times the spending cuts before the next election, then I'd say that's a pretty good deal, and they should probably take it. To my knowledge no such bill exists. The way these deals have been formed is to raise taxes now, for promised cuts later.


This is how this debate looks to anyone not listening to 3hrs of Rush, or Fox every day.

Donkeys: We'll feed less hay to our sacred cows if you feed less hay to yours. Oh and, by the way, our sacred cows are Grandma and Grandpa, and poor people.

Elephants: You lie! You lied to our patron saint Reagan and therefore, we know you'll never tell the truth, ever. So as a preemptive strike we're going to put our cows on 24/7 protective watch to ensure you don't steal a single straw of hay from them! We trust we will be able to kill your cows anyway. Our cows are job creators and the biggest and bestest military ever.

Donkeys: So your cows are the filthy rich?

Elephants: Rich people are awesome!

Donkeys: 60% of the population wants to preserve our cows and kill yours.

Elephants: You lie! Conservatives never lose, they only go on to landslide victories like Ronald Reagan.

Donkeys: Ronald Reagan is dead

Elehpants: Why must you always be so mean.


John Mark, LOL!

But you're right, it's hard to sell voters on shiny new missiles when they don't see any imminent military threat, and you're asking them to put off retiring another few years.

I'm guessing most people would rather have an earlier retirement than a shiny new missile.

I'm also starting to suspect that given the (literally) trillions of dollars of ready-to-use but still idle cash that large corporations, banks, and "the rich" are sitting on, that the "job creators" argument is sounding a little self-serving. There are indeed things the government is doing to hold back job creation, but I don't think a 3 point move in either direction is it.


The fact is, it's going to be impossible to sell the American people on a hard cap on Medicare benefits if we don't take something tangible out of Warren Buffet's hide.

.....and the Pentagon, for that matter.

I mean, we can't demand shared sacrifice and then exempt the rich, or claim that their "contribution" is to hire people get richer.



I think we're going to have to start "negotiating" with the voters before the election, or they're simply going to decide that the Democrats have better priorities.


89 I don't listen to Rush, and barely watch TV at all. The point is it would have been a big mistake to agree to that hypothetical. It wouldn't have lead to any real deal, and would only have given democrats political cover. It's much better to put your own plan out there and make the discussion about that. Obviously the question was put forward in order to make the republicans look bad, but nobody said yes, because it would have been a mistake to do so. As soon as they put that question forward I knew it was a trap, and was hoping Romney would say yes. I have to admit though that it would have been better if they didn't answer the question at all, and raised concerns about the question.

I think the best thing for Romney to do would have been to ask Wolf if he was authorized to negotiate on behalf of the democrats, then pivoted to talking about his own deficit reduction plan and asked Wolf to bring them his counter-offer. It would have been funny and avoided a horrible question. To criticize any of the candidates for not saying yes to such a question (and none of them did) is silly, and saying yes would have only undercut actual deficit reduction efforts.

Vladimir Putin

The GOP has gotten a lot of mileage out of the idea that spending is essentially welfare - and we all know what theat is intended to mean. But now that middle class welfare benefits are on the chopping block it is increasingly more difficult to make the same sale. Voters now say they prefer tax hikes on wealthy over cuts to popular prgraams. The Ryan budget unfortunately crystallizes this issue - there are huge spending cuts, but not for deficit reduction. There are massive tax cuts - on top of the Bush tax cuts that will be maintained - and increases in defense. What midddle class family is going to look at that and say "sign me up?" And in terms of the election, it would take an awfully good salesman to convince a majority of the electorate that trickle down will really work this time.

Someone posted this earlier and it is the rare ad that made me think.


#89 - 91,

LOL. That's spot on. And, MEM #8, yes Sunset Boulevard is an excellent movie whose basic message/theme is applicable to politics, politicians, and stale canards. One of my favorite lines in the movie is "Norma, the audience left years ago!" How true, how true.


91 I don't know if I would disagree with that, but if we're going to increase taxes at all on anyone I want to see the national debt to GDP go down and keep going down. I'd be pretty pissed if someone asked me for money to help pay off their debts, then later found out they were in more debt than before.


89 Aspire,

This would have in no way given cover to Dems, or forced us into some unfair compromise. All they had to do was cede to the possibility of compromising; they weren't being asked to make some specific pledge. Actually, Republicans have shot themselves in the foot by announcing so loudly that they won't compromise; because no matter how unfair a proposed compromise might now be we can't effectively argue that we're rejecting the compromise because it's unfair since we've rejected the general idea of compromising.

Freedom for William Wallace


I think you need to cut Romney a little slack. He is headed in the direction you want and will begin talking about entitlement reform, budget cuts, etc. He really is in his first "real" day as the recognized nominee and is beginning to turn his focus on the GE. I think you will see what you want in the coming weeks. I really expect his campaign to broaden in focus when Santorum calls it a day and Romney picks a VP.

He does need to focus on more than just jobs. Patience will show he understands that.


If Republicans would have taken a less absolutist position on this question or the issue in general they would have been in a better position for the general but probably damaged for the primary. Grover Norquist and co. have this party in a trap; questions like this are essentially the media asking them whether they want to chew off their leg to get out. It might not be a nice question, but they didn't set the trap.




Amen to that.


William Wallace,

I hope you're right.


Anyone see Jack lately? I'm worried that he jumped off some iceberg or something.


I can see the "coming together behind the nominee" thing is not going so well around here...LOL

You folks are all giving "good" advice to Romney about how to running his general election campaign.

I hope you will also vigorously defend him against the inevitable "Etch A Sketch" charges that will be thrown at him from the Left and maybe even the right (anybody checked up on Santorum's attitude readings lately?).

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

Tweets by @Racefour

Search R4'16