In 2008, his time table went off the track as he was repudiated in the primary in favor of Senator McCain. The reasons we found him unlikable in Oklahoma were the same reasons that he lost elsewhere -- too liberal for most Republicans and not the least bit personable.
Once some of us found out in 2008 that Romney was backed by Bush 41 with the help of Karl Rove, we knew he was the establishment Republican candidate and frankly I have had all of them I want to see and that includes the Rove candidate Gov Chris Christie of NJ. When Rove founded Crossroads it was to help candidates but only his establishment type candidates. Others need not apply.
Now we hear the chatter that Indiana moderate Governor Mitch Daniels who worked for Bush 43 wants another candidate in the race who happens to be Rove candidate NJ Governor Christie. Another Rove candidate in the race -- who next Walker of Wisconsin? Daniels has been calling major donors of the GOP to ask them to sit on the sidelines until Christie decides. Rove was a major play in Christie's win for NJ Governor. Guess Rove and Bush 41 are seeing that Romney may not be the answer. We have news for him neither is Christie -- he is too moderate for most of us.
If you are in Oklahoma, you have seen this play out before in the 2004 Oklahoma Senate race with Dr. Coburn. Rove and others in DC cut off Dr. Tom's fundraising in DC as they didn't want him in the Senate because they were afraid he would oppose some of the Bush agenda that was spending too much money on unnecessary programs. The Oklahoma grassroots rose up and told the establishment in DC and OK that we wanted Dr. Tom who won a 3-way primary outright.
One of his opponents even sent out a mailer with a picture of him on the White portico with President Bush in the PRIMARY. Didn't work but it showed that Rove didn't want Coburn. We sent Coburn to DC in spite of Rove and the Bush establishment. Remember in 2010 when Rove got Romney to endorse Kay Bailey in the TX primary for Governor which struck a lot of people odd until you realized she was the Bush Establishment candidate being run by Karl Rove.
Some call Rove a genius, but I prefer underhanded and someone who won't think twice to lying and cheating to tank a candidate he doesn't like. That candidate for years has been Rick Perry and in 2000 it was John McCain.
If you look at Romney's endorsements, you see fellow Mormons, people connected to the Mormon Church by a family member, or a candidate who received big money from Crossroads when they ran in 2010. Pawlenty endorsed Romney AFTER Romney agreed to help him retire his campaign debt. A lot of his staff went to Perry which speaks volumes.
Was wondering when some of the writers at Politico would get back on the Romney bandwagon as some of them worked for him. Detest this Republican establishment mentality that it is someone's turn to run. Who are the Bush 41 Rockefeller establishment people to tell the rest of us who are candidate is going to be. They did it in 1996 before we had the internet. Frankly if I had a do over, knowing what I know now, I might have supported John McCain in 2000. Know what Rove did to McCain in South Carolina was underhanded and it cost him SC. Rove is no conservative but an opportunist who was part of Bush 41 going against President Reagan.
Have said all along that no one from 2008 had any business running, and have not changed my mind.
If Governor Perry gets the nomination and wins the general, this will be the first President since Dwight Eisenhower not to have a group of Bush 41 people in the Administration. Do the research and you will discover that the Bush 41 Rockefeller establishment types have been around since the days they spent in the Richard Nixon years.
Who can possibly really like Romney? He’s like your boss, or the regional supervisor who comes by the office a few times a year. You tolerate him and suck up to him, but the experience is completely phony and awkward. I don’t know him and might have him wrong, but I’d just bet you a dollar that he doesn’t have many real friends. He has partners and associates and a swarm of acolytes who suck up to him because he’s rich. But he comes across as wooden, insincere (in a harmless rather than malevolent way), and totally emotionally unavailable.Romney reminds me of a programmable droid and that is not a compliment -- feed him the information and out comes his comments. That doesn't even include his membership in the Mormon Church which I cannot get myself to ever vote for someone Mormon again. The Church is way too involved in their campaigns and in getting fellow Mormons on board. We know that from here in Oklahoma!
All in all, the Daily Beast has done a better job of covering this campaign with Romney and Perry then the so-called conservative sites that want everything perfect from a candidate. I think someone doing well in a debate is a waste of time because that doesn't say they can govern. Way too many debates this election and they are still bringing up Gardasil.
If this Fox News debate wasn't a set-up against Perry since Rove works for Fox and their commentators have been after Perry, then I am missing this boat. It was just too programmed to not think that some candidates had a good idea of the questions. The ganging up on a fellow Republican in the debates shows a school yard approach and is demeaning to the candidates pulling that crap. Republican candidates tend to complain about gotcha questions from reporters when they are using the same mentality. These are not honest debates to find out where candidates stand on issues but debates throwing daggars at the frontrunner and helping the Democrats. Romney came across as the school yard bully who has nothing to offer except rhetoric and the fact he is very rich.
It’s Time to Buy Rick Perry Stock
Mitt Romney’s debate “win” won’t erase his evil socialistic Massachusetts history or make him any more likable—and by November 2012, Rick Perry just might not be too extreme or too Texas, says Michael Tomasky.
The conventional wisdom is dumping hard on Rick Perry. Politico blared Friday, in the wake of his fumbling debate performance, that he might already be “Texas toast.” This tells me now is exactly the time to buy Perry stock. The reasons are simple. First, the likelihood that Perry will iron out the wrinkles and become a better debater and candidate over time is greater, and maybe far greater, than the likelihood that Mitt Romney will become more acceptable to conservatives. Second—well, let me save No. 2 for later.
On point one, go read Redstate.com, the house organ of Wingnutistan, where the headline says it all: “Perry Loses the Debate; Romney Wins but Remains Unacceptable for Conservatives.” That still strikes me as the bottom line here. Perry will study his briefing books and refrain from accusing, however accurately, his core constituents of heartlessness. But Romney can’t undo his evil socialistic Massachusetts history. The Redstate blogger wrote: “I don’t care if Perry is soft on immigration and tried to mandate a vaccination through executive order. Romney is the father of socialized medicine in America!”
The conventional counterargument, of course, is that the establishment will circle the wagons around Romney. This might happen. Even Washington conventional wisdom ends up being correct every once in a while. But I can mount a highly plausible counter-counterargument for why it may not. Nothing has happened in these past two and a half years to suggest that this Republican establishment will buck or stand up to the hard right in any way. All we’ve seen these past two years is establishment Republicans accepting one extreme demand after another.My case then extends to the question of who will make up the GOP primary electorate. In my last piece in The New York Review of Books, I cited a very interesting article from National Affairs by Henry Olsen of the American Enterprise Institute. Olsen divides GOP primary voters into two camps—“dispositional conservatives” and “ideological conservatives.” The former, as you’d expect, are less extreme and somewhat less likely than the latter to boo a gay soldier. Olsen writes that the GOP has always chosen the “next in line” candidate because most primary voters have been dispositionals, and he thinks that will hold this time. I’m not as sure. The number of ideologicals has surely grown. If Olsen’s right, then Romney, a next-in-liner if ever there was one, is probably the guy. But if he’s wrong, then there’s every reason to think this logic won’t necessarily hold.
Lastly, my case hinges—and here’s the second reason I’m buying Perry stock today—on the plainly observable fact that Mitt Romney is a really uninteresting and unappealing human being. Now, here, I’m really departing from the CW, because it is usually said by pundits that Romney has more crossover appeal than Perry, and polls tend to support this, although the differences so far are fairly marginal in most polls I see. Perry is said to be too extreme and too Texas. All that might be right.
On the other hand, Perry strikes me as more likely to pass—among Republicans—the old “do I want this man in my living room for the next four years?” test than Romney is.. .. Perry? Well, I find him repugnant, of course, but I’m an East Coast liberal. I’m trying to look at this through others’ eyes. And I think he’s the kind of person Southerners in particular but conservatives everywhere, except maybe in the Northeast, can take a shine to. At least he seems to have some shards of personality.
Out of curiosity, I just Googled “Barack Obama September 22 2007” to see how things were going for him at a similar juncture. Interestingly, he floated a proposal that day to remove the cap from Social Security payroll taxes (then $97,000, now around $107,000). That obviously went nowhere. Jesse Jackson was attacking him for not being vocal enough. A few days before, he skipped an AARP debate in Iowa, the only Democrat to miss it (undoubtedly a few pundits wrote him off for that one). A poll in Iowa a couple of weeks later showed Obama in third place, behind both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
So don’t get carried away. This nomination might not be decided until next May.
Source: Daily BeastThis is one Republican conservative who has totally had it with the Bush 41 establishment along with Karl Rove and sincerely hope after this election they find something else to do. If this is about getting Jeb in the race in 2016, this former Bush supporter will work 24/7 for any other candidate. Frankly this entitlement mentality of Bush 41 smells and along with their soft money policy.
Time for new blood in the Republican Party that is not in any way shape or form involved with Bush 41 and who he wants in office. Let this be a new day in Republican politics -- we did it with Dr. Coburn in 2004 to send him to DC and the grassroots can do it again to Bush 41 and Rove to tell them you don't pick our candidates -- those days are gone! This dog and pony show of Rove needs to be closed once and for all. If conservatives don't realize what is happening, then they had better wake-up that Karl Rove is no friend of conservatives and in fact, neither is a lot of Fox News.
Raw Story 
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment