Romney Quit

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

Tis a sad day.

That is all.

I am sorry that you are upset. I know how I have felt in the past when my candidate doesn't make it past the primaries. (Which may very well happen again.)

I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were interviewing several Republican muckity mucks from California. They don't understand the appeal of McCain and said that if he is nominated, many of the die-hard Republicans who walk the precincts and volunteer won't help out, so not only will Republicans lose the presidential elections, but it would impact local Assembly races.

Though they had pledged to support the Republican party, they would have a difficult time supporting McCain personally. They went on to say that the Democrats would probably win the election and they saw this period of time as a time for "regrouping."

Well, I always have said that if you want to know what Republicans are thinking, ask NPR. (Much like I rely on Fox News to let me know how desperate the Democrats are. <g>)

What a patronizing comment.

Representatives from the Republican organization were on NPR. I assume that they were free to speak their minds and they were being honest about their attitudes about McCain and their sadness that Romney wasn't doing better in California.

I understand that NPR may be perceived to have a "liberal bias" but when people talk on the air, I still assume that they are speaking their minds free from censorship.

Although I didn't agree with their point of view, I did empathize with their sadness that their candidate was out of the race.

[PlacentiaSoccerMom]

It is interesting to see how Clinton and Obama are campaigning now as a foreshadowing of how they will campaign in a general election. Obama seems to make visits to all of the states, even if they are solid "Red" states. Clinton essentially has ceded all of these states to him by sending Bill or some lackey to represent her. (The importance of your state is shown by who she sends. Today, Obama is speaing at a rally at Omaha's City Auditorium. Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton is talking to college students in Lincoln. Clearly, this is another Clinton "F U" to Nebraska.)

Hilllary rubs some women the wrong way. For some reason, some women don't like her, but do like her husband. (I like her, but can't stand her husband.) Many would rather see her husband than listen to Hillary speak.

I was invited by the campaign to visit with him in Santa Ana, but had no interest and told them so. The campaign seemed to think that it was a big treat to see an ex-president.

Similarly, I think that if you are sending somebody to a college campus, Chelsea might be more popular than Hillary. I don't see either of them as being lackies. They are all part of the same family, supporting a common goal.

By the way, one of the things that I admire about Clinton is the way that her daughter turned out. I am sure that you will never hear about Chelsea getting a DUI or partying all night.

[Tocqueville3]

It is interesting to see how Clinton and Obama are campaigning now as a foreshadowing of how they will campaign in a general election. Obama seems to make visits to all of the states, even if they are solid "Red" states. Clinton essentially has ceded all of these states to him by sending Bill or some lackey to represent her. (The importance of your state is shown by who she sends. Today, Obama is speaing at a rally at Omaha's City Auditorium. Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton is talking to college students in Lincoln. Clearly, this is another Clinton "F U" to Nebraska.)

Hilllary rubs some women the wrong way. For some reason, some women don't like her, but do like her husband. (I like her, but can't stand her husband.) Many would rather see her husband than listen to Hillary speak.

I was invited by the campaign to visit with him in Santa Ana, but had no interest and told them so. The campaign seemed to think that it was a big treat to see an ex-president.

Similarly, I think that if you are sending somebody to a college campus, Chelsea might be more popular than Hillary. I don't see either of them as being lackies. They are all part of the same family, supporting a common goal.

By the way, one of the things that I admire about Clinton is the way that her daughter turned out. I am sure that you will never hear about Chelsea getting a DUI or partying all night.

Hillary does rub me the wrong way but her husband just grates on me ever more so . I can see what you're saying about women liking him and not her. When we lived in Indiana and I worked for a congressional campaign Dan Quayle came to campaign for us. Blech. Lots of people were just fawning all over him. He does nothing for me. I did not consider it a big treat to mingle with that former VP.

Chelsea is a good fit to campaign on a college campus. It is smart to send her wheverer there are twentysomethings.

I also agree with you about admiring her for the way Chelsea turned out. She seems to be a very articulate, well rounded young woman. Hillary may rub me the wrong way but she's been a good mother to Chelsea.

[flockofseagulls104]

IMO, he main reason the Dems took over Congress was because of the RINOs. McCain is one of the chief RINOs in all Congress. He does not represent or share the conservative values of a majority of Republicans. But he is the mass media's favorite Republican. I don't know if that is the reason he has done so well in the primaries, but there was a very light turnout on the Republican side of the vote, and I suspect that might be there there was really no candidate that appealed to the more conservative end. I think those are the ones that stayed home.

I voted for Romney as the lesser of 3 evils, just to avoid McCain, though I would have been more comfortable with Huckabee, of those that were still in the race. It is sad that the party is self destructing.

[tlynn78]

Everytime I see this thread header I think Christie's finished her latest quilting project and it has a gypsy theme...

t.

[Bixby17]

here, I think, is the main reason Romney did not appeal to more voters.

From the NYTimes political blog:

..."Mr. Romney’s change over such key issues as abortion rights, stem cell research and gay rights was jarring to people who had watched him as governor in Massachusetts, and even more to Republican voters who began to see clips that illustrated his differing views, thanks to YouTube and Mr. Romney’s opponents."

His shifts in position seemed to be more opportunistic than gut-check reality. I think that if he had won the nomination, he would have drifted more toward the center in order to win the election, and that would have been too many policy changes for moderates to believe in him.

Well, and he thinks it is a good idea to transport dogs for long distances on the roof of your car and then hose them off when they soil themselves and then pack them back in there

[ToLiveIsToFly]

I have been wondering about something for weeks now and Sir G's list the other day reminded me about my questions.

Several weeks ago, McCain said -- and the clip was run several times on both Fox and MSNBC -- that the economy wasn't his strongest point.

So, why didn't Romney, the proven businessman, do better, given these economic times?

In light of all the things that have been said and published about McClain, I cannot understand why Romney did not blow him away. I really wonder if it is his Mormonism that scared folks. I know that's what killed him in the south but I absolutely don't understand why he did not sweep NY and California. This will remain a mystery to me.

It wasn't the Mormonisn. It was the transparent two-facedness.

[TheCalvinator24]

In light of all the things that have been said and published about McClain, I cannot understand why Romney did not blow him away. I really wonder if it is his Mormonism that scared folks. I know that's what killed him in the south but I absolutely don't understand why he did not sweep NY and California. This will remain a mystery to me.

It wasn't the Mormonisn. It was the transparent two-facedness.

REC to TLITF

[silverscreenselect]

Well, Clinton can be in more than one place for the next three days, when the Nebraska Democratic Party caucus is. However, I can understand that Clinton is strapped for cash, and flying out to the Midwest might take some money away from her quixotic strategy of giving up all of the contests until Ohio and Texas, and then Pennsylvania, hoping that she somehow can win the nomination off of what she hopes will be victories for her. (Not that a solid month of Obama momentum will play a role in those states.)

I think that Hillary's being "short of cash" is a bit of a campaing ploy. She has raised over $5 million since Super Tuesday, not as much as Obama, but the media costs in the election for the next month will be somewhat more limited.

Hillary has done better when she has been seen as the underdog, and the short-of-cash theme has been an effort to get the mainstream media to start jumping on her case.

I for one agree that her strategy, or I should say more accurately, Mark Penn's strategy, has been flawed in a number of respects, not the least of which was virtually ignoring the caucus states this week. She lost every one by a 2-1 or 3-1 margin. I don't for one second believe that Obama had 2 or 3 times the support she had in Minnesota or Colorado.

This weekend, she is concentrating on Washington and Maine, then the Tuesday events around D.C. The election geography favors Obama, but the media spin is that he is going to sweep all the primaries this month, going into OH and TX. Hillary only has to knock him off a couple of times to derail that narrative.

The mainstream media, especially MSNBC, is out for Hillary's blood. They had seen some leaked exit polls Tuesday which looked very bad for her (losing almost every state except NY and AR), so they were prepared to bury her. As the results came in much better for her, they had to drop that theme in a hurry.

[Sir_Galahad]

In light of all the things that have been said and published about McClain, I cannot understand why Romney did not blow him away. I really wonder if it is his Mormonism that scared folks. I know that's what killed him in the south but I absolutely don't understand why he did not sweep NY and California. This will remain a mystery to me.

It wasn't the Mormonisn. It was the transparent two-facedness.

REC to TLITF

REC all you want; I don't think the general voting public is that savvy. I think they see him on TV and read their daily rags with the media playing up his Mormonism and they have no idea what Mormonism is; he might as well be from Mars.

[NellyLunatic1980]

REC all you want; I don't think the general voting public is that savvy. I think they see him on TV and read their daily rags with the media playing up his Mormonism and they have no idea what Mormonism is; he might as well be from Mars.

I don't know that much about Mormonism either. Something about polygamy and magic underwear. I've always referred to Romney's campaign as the "Magical Mystery Underpants Tour".

Goodbye, Mittens!

[Sir_Galahad]

REC all you want; I don't think the general voting public is that savvy. I think they see him on TV and read their daily rags with the media playing up his Mormonism and they have no idea what Mormonism is; he might as well be from Mars.

I don't know that much about Mormonism either. Something about polygamy and magic underwear. I've always referred to Romney's campaign as the "Magical Mystery Underpants Tour".

Goodbye, Mittens!

I rest my case.

[earendel]

It wasn't the Mormonisn. It was the transparent two-facedness.

REC to TLITF

REC all you want; I don't think the general voting public is that savvy. I think they see him on TV and read their daily rags with the media playing up his Mormonism and they have no idea what Mormonism is; he might as well be from Mars.

You've got a point - several Romney staffers were interviewed by <gasp> NPR and they made the point that the media had stuck Romney with the tag. He was a "Mormon-American" in the same way that they talk abot Obama being "African-American". The secrecy that surrounds Mormonism, however (much like the Masonic organization) I think made people suspicious. I seem to recall a flap about Bush (and Kerry) being members of "Skull and Bones" and the secrecy that surrounded that group.

[mellytu74]

sss says --

"I for one agree that her strategy, or I should say more accurately, Mark Penn's strategy, has been flawed in a number of respects, not the least of which was virtually ignoring the caucus states this week. She lost every one by a 2-1 or 3-1 margin. I don't for one second believe that Obama had 2 or 3 times the support she had in Minnesota or Colorado."

I says, Mark Penn's lousy strategy is not reason alone for those results.

This is the woman who the media anointed as the presumptive nominee ages ago. A prominent Senator who had been in the national public eye since 1992. As I've said before, it's not like they didn't know who she was before last week.

Maybe they just don’t like her. Maybe they think that, well, even if she is the nominee, I want to make a stand and say that she’s not my first choice.

As far as the media being out for Hillary's blood, I don't see it.

I spent 15 years as a reporter (print, not electronic), so I admit a certain bias here. But you follow the story.

And IMHO what's happened is that Hillary lost two-thirds of her polled lead in NJ in a month – in December, Obama had 17 percent , – half her polled lead in MA in a month – where Obama had 15 percent in December --and about half her polled lead in CA in a month.

(I'm going by the December numbers as best I can recall them, not the 30-point CA lead in the fall).

So, yeah, they're double-digits wins, just not the double-digits there were before.

It's been just over a month since Iowa. That's the point where Barack Obama burst into much of America's consciousness.

A month is not a lot of time, really, for some to seep into the nation's consciousness. Hillary Clinton has been there far longer.

Now, whether he's a comet that shoots by brightly and fades remains to be seen.

But, for all the talk of "youth vote" for years, I think this is the year they turn out.

My cousin helped organize an Obama rally in NJ last week. Twice the anticipated number of people. There were 20,000 people in Wilmington, DE.

He talked to a lot of them. So many of them are new to the process -- never gave money but have given to Obama, never came to a rally but came to one for Obama. That's where the $7.5M in a day comes from.

I don't think the money-lending is a ploy. She's tapped out Emily's List and the usual suspect donors.

All of this said -- I still haven't made up my mind for April 22.



[/quote]

[trevor_macfee]

The mainstream media, especially MSNBC, is out for Hillary's blood. They had seen some leaked exit polls Tuesday which looked very bad for her (losing almost every state except NY and AR), so they were prepared to bury her. As the results came in much better for her, they had to drop that theme in a hurry.

My goodness, now Hillary's folks are blaming "the mainstream media?" I thought that was what republicans did. You listen to Rush (he calls them "the driveby media" - same thing) or Hannity, it's all about the unfairness of the mainstream media. It's sad to see democrats sink to that level.

Maybe, just maybe, folks are smart enough to vote for the candidate they feel will represent them best. It's funny how when the winning candidate is someone we like, we are giddy with "the people's choice," but when we don't like that candidate, it's "the mainstream media" and/or the ignorance of the people that we blame.

BTW - great article about Hillary in today's Wall Street Journal - "Can Mrs. Clinton Lose" by Peggy Noonan. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202419 ... mmentaries

[mellytu74]

Peggy Noonan is my favorite Republican writer.

Even when I disagree with her, I appreciate how well-thought-out and literate and just how gosh-darn well-written her comments are.

You will never hear viptertuitive screed from Peggy Noonan.

[Sir_Galahad]

Maybe, just maybe, folks are smart enough to vote for the candidate they feel will represent them best.

And, everyone has a viewpoint as to what "represent" means to them. Whether they are guided from a perspective of individualism or one that represents the best interests of the country as a whole. I suspect the vast majority are guided from the former.

It's funny how when the winning candidate is someone we like, we are giddy with "the people's choice," but when we don't like that candidate, it's "the mainstream media" and/or the ignorance of the people that we blame.

I, for one, don't feel that it's a matter of who I "like" best but who I feel can provide the best service for the country as a whole. I suspect that the two may intertwine at many points but they are not mutually exclusive. I do not believe that any of the three candidates currently in the forefront will lead this country into the future on the right path. It's not a matter of whether I "like" them or not. If McClain was a real sonofabitch but had the beliefs and ideas and history of trying to steer this country in the direction I felt it needed to go, I would wholly support him. Same goes for Obama or Clinton.

But I feel that a large majority of the voting public do not look past what they see on TV. They hear Obama make a speech and they think "Oh, he's wonderful!" and they vote for him. They don't look to see that he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and that this might actually
dissuade them from voting for him.

I don't think that's funny at all.

[MarleysGh0st]

If McClain was...

Do you really have a point you're trying to make by consistently misspelling his name like the movie character?

Explain, please.

[Sir_Galahad]

If McClain was...

Do you really have a point you're trying to make by consistently misspelling his name like the movie character?

Explain, please.

McCain = Maverick; McClain = Maverick

Same difference. Sorry. What can I tell you. I don't like and don't trust the guy. And that little wink he always gives tells me "just wait until I get elected. Bwahh, ha, ha, ha, ha."

I know. It's childish. But it makes me feel better venting.

[trevor_macfee]

Whether they are guided from a perspective of individualism or one that represents the best interests of the country as a whole. I suspect the vast majority are guided from the former.

Don't you think that comes across as elitist, pompous, or . . . insert your own adjective. The implication is that people who think - and vote - like you are acting out of "the best interests of the country," while those who disagree are, well, just plain selfish. I think that's not only a ridiculous generalization, but also an arrogant put-down of anyone who might come to a different conclusion about what might be in "the best interests of the country."

But I feel that a large majority of the voting public do not look past what they see on TV. They hear Obama make a speech and they think "Oh, he's wonderful!" and they vote for him.

OK, so not only are those who disagree with you selfish, they are stupid as well - or at least shallow.

I have a hard time seeing how negative characterizations of those who hold different opinions is helpful - it certainly won't persuade any of us shallow and dumb foks to consider your opinions.

Finally,

They don't look to see that he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and that this might actually dissuade them from voting for him.

Just for the record, I did look, and it's one of the reasons I'm supporting him.

[trevor_macfee]

Just to clarify my previous post - it's not about supporting Obama or McCain or whoever, but I just would hope we could have a political converstation - and disagree even - without denigrating the motives and/or intellegence of the "other side."

[Sir_Galahad]

Don't you think that comes across as elitist, pompous, or . . . insert your own adjective.

Yes, the truth hurts.

While I feel there are people that actually do their homework, the large majority do not. But, that's my opinion. Isn't the first amendment great? I, for one, would like to see it remain so.

You can characterize me anyway you like. But it won't change my opinion as to the ignorance of the general population when it comes to politics. (Notice I did not say everyone)

[Tocqueville3]

Just to clarify my previous post - it's not about supporting Obama or McCain or whoever, but I just would hope we could have a political converstation - and disagree even - without denigrating the motives and/or intellegence of the "other side."

REC!!!

I especially like what you said about the intelligence of the other side. My mom is a Clinton supporter. She is also brilliant. She has the patience and compassion of freaking Mother Theresa. My brother is an Obama supporter. He is also incredibly smart.

My father in law is a rabid conservative like me. But there is one difference between us. He thinks all liberals are idiots and shouldn't be allowed near the voting booth. I couldn't disagree with him more.

My husband is the smartest guy around. He says that if you can't debate your ideas in a civilized way without calling the other guy stupid then it just isn't worth debating your ideas.

[Sir_Galahad]

Finally,

They don't look to see that he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate and that this might actually dissuade them from voting for him.

Just for the record, I did look, and it's one of the reasons I'm supporting him.

OK. So, you're OK with him wanting to pull out of Iraq as soon as gets into office. Which means that you're OK with us pulling all support from there. Which means that you're OK with Al Qaeda attempting to take over the country (which they will do without our presence there). Which means you're OK with them launching new attacks on us. I'm not saying that it will happen but they have made no secret that they have more such plans for the future. If you're OK with that, then I have nothing more to say. And, that's just one instance.

[Rexer25]

Don't you think that comes across as elitist, pompous, or . . . insert your own adjective.

Yes, the truth hurts.

While I feel there are people that actually do their homework, the large majority do not. But, that's my opinion. Isn't the first amendment great? I, for one, would like to see it remain so.

You can characterize me anyway you like. But it won't change my opinion as to the ignorance of the general population when it comes to politics. (Notice I did not say everyone)

I'm just wondering, Sir G, what are your sources for the homework you've done?