deep
Blue Crack Addict
job 1. - lock up the nomination
Romney Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll | Fox News
job 2. - win in November
Romney Wins CPAC Presidential Straw Poll | Fox News
job 2. - win in November
Actually, I kind of see it the opposite.
With Gingrich and Santorum, you have two guys who have legacies that badly need to be repaired- Gingrich from being thrown out of the Speakership and Santorum from losing re-election in 2006 by 20 points. I truly think that was their sole reason for running in 2012- to try to run an honorable, positive campaign (with no realistic expectation of going anywhere), and then ending their careers on a better note than they otherwise would have. But since all the non-Romneys proved to be sub-par candidates, I think they were legitimately surprised when they actually started gaining some traction.
With Romney you've got a guy who is incredibly wealthy, has a massive family to keep him busy, could probably get a job anywhere in the country if he wanted one, and has no legacy that needs repairing. Yet he seems to have a knack and a passion for turning things around, and feels he would be a competent fit for the presidency and the needs of America right now. But unlike the others, he in no way "needs" this run for office.
Romney could easily be running as a Democrat in the post-9/11 American political landscape.That's my impression also. I could be deluding myself but I'd like to think Romney is in this race for the right reasons, in a way that the other GOP candidates aren't (excepting Paul and Huntsman, and the latter has dropped out, while the former has had a poor run of results of late). Let's face it, there have been easier times in the nation's history, to put it mildly, to run for President. Granted, he seems to have a hard time demonstrating to the public that he's in it for the right reasons, but it's early days yet..
It is a bit worrying, however, knowing your well-founded skepticism, Financeguy, that you seem to be glossing over the fact that he is the same kind of falsely warm and calculating political shark that Obama is; easily playing the long game.
Not to mention that for all the concerns about plutocracy taking over, FG suddenly seem to not mind at all that if there is one candidate who really and truly IS the plutocracy, it's Romney.
It's sad but I think of a Republican POTUS more in terms of long-term damage to America from handing out a couple of SCOTUS appointments.
Sad or not, that is the reality.
I do expect a GOP Senate and House, GOP will lose some House seats but keep majority.
And with that in mind, even a reasonable GOP like Romney, is a no go for me.
I'm no fan of Santorum. I never voted for him as Senator and will never vote for him as President, but I'm thinking the emotions he might have been referring to were men's emotions--ie, thinking they might be more protective of a woman in a battle situation than they were another man and that the focus would be more on protecting the woman than on the mission. That might be an initial response but I figure the men would get over it soon enough.
Then again, Rick Santorum is a douchebag. I've never understood why anyone would decide what would make EVERY woman happy as if we are interchangeable and as if we might not harbor some of the same ambitions other human beings (ie, men) might have. But perhaps, we are not in the full human being category to them. I'm kind of thinking the people who decide what's best for women lean that way. Women serve; men get to soar.
Actually, I kind of see it the opposite.
With Gingrich and Santorum, you have two guys who have legacies that badly need to be repaired- Gingrich from being thrown out of the Speakership and Santorum from losing re-election in 2006 by 20 points. I truly think that was their sole reason for running in 2012- to try to run an honorable, positive campaign (with no realistic expectation of going anywhere), and then ending their careers on a better note than they otherwise would have. But since all the non-Romneys proved to be sub-par candidates, I think they were legitimately surprised when they actually started gaining some traction.
With Romney you've got a guy who is incredibly wealthy, has a massive family to keep him busy, could probably get a job anywhere in the country if he wanted one, and has no legacy that needs repairing. Yet he seems to have a knack and a passion for turning things around, and feels he would be a competent fit for the presidency and the needs of America right now. But unlike the others, he in no way "needs" this run for office.
Santorum may be looking for redemption, but I think it's more likely that he saw a gap in the field that he thought he could fill. Never thought he'd make it this far or be a serious contender, so I agree with you about his positioning at the moment..
If he meant male emotions, I still find it offensive. I think in light of his overall attitude and statements going back for years, he has a certain mindset that's rather obvious.
Like I have said here already even before his recent comments, the thought of him being POTUS scares me.
I always thought this was a run by Santorum to position himself for 2016. I'm not sure if he is more surprised or I am about his recent momentum.
It is true.
It's very unfortunate that the SCOTUS is such a politicized body in the US. There also happen to be probably 3 very distinctly possible retirements over the next 5 years - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kennedy and Scalia (God willing!!).
Frum, FWIW, is a classic/establishment conservative (worked for Reagan's and Giuliani's campaigns; served on the WSJ's editorial board; served as GWB's speechwriter) who deeply distrusts the Tea Party, the religious right, and orthodox supply-siders, so, make what you will of his alienation.The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders. They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:
All we have to do is replace Obama...We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget...We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.
The requirement for president?
Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.
This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed. To date, sad to say, Romney has worked hard to confirm this image of weakness. Nobody wants a president who acts as the passive instrument of even generally popular groups like labor unions. (Did you know that—despite decades of declining popularity—unions still have an approval rating of 52%? I didn't until I looked it up.) But a candidate who appeases the most disliked people in national politics? That guy will command neither public affection nor respect.
Mitt Romney badly needs his Sister Souljah moment. Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.
All we have to do is replace Obama...
If he meant male emotions, I still find it offensive. I think in light of his overall attitude and statements going back for years, he has a certain mindset that's rather obvious.
Like I have said here already even before his recent comments, the thought of him being POTUS scares me.
Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.
By David Lauter
February 13, 2012, 9:54 a.m.
Reporting from Washington —
President Obama for the first time has opened a sizable lead over his most likely Republican opponents, thanks to growing support among independent voters, according to a new Pew Research Center poll.
The poll, released Monday, showed Rick Santorum in a virtual tie with Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential race. Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, has moved up as a result of his backing from tea party Republicans and white evangelicals. He led Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, 30% to 28% among Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters in the survey, which was conducted Feb. 8-12 and had a margin of error of 5 percentage points. In a Pew survey only a month ago, Romney led Santorum, 31% to 14%.
But both Republicans trailed Obama by sizable margins. Obama led Santorum by 10 points among registered voters nationwide (53%-43%) and led Romney by eight points (52%-44%). Obama’s lead over Newt Gingrich, who has faded in the GOP race, was 18 points (57%-39%). In previous polls in November and January, Romney and Obama were roughly tied. Obama has moved up because of support from independent voters, 51% of whom now back him against Romney, a gain of 11 points since last month.
The latest poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press was conducted among 1,172 registered voters nationwide. It found that Santorum has become the clear favorite of tea party supporters and white evangelical Republicans. He wins support from 42% of tea party Republican voters compared with just 23% who back Romney. Santorum’s margin among white evangelical Republican voters was almost the same, 41% to 23%.
A major factor driving the Santorum surge is that an increasing number of tea party Republicans do not believe Romney is a strong conservative, the poll showed. Only 29% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters who agree with the tea party say Romney is a strong conservative, a steep drop from 51% three months ago. More than two-thirds of tea party Republicans (68%) now say Romney is not a strong conservative.
david.lauter@latimes.com