Team Romney: Santorum lacks basic level of competence to run for President

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I said a while ago, that Romney should focus primarily on making himself a better candidate and getting people to want to vote for him. So when I say get a 10 point lead in MI, that is how he should do it.


He has the speech in four days and the debate this week. It is time for him to show or roll over. Appearently, the campaign is saying the econ speech won't include a new economic plan. That is worrisome but I do agree with Karl Rove on FNS today. If he re-presents the old one as a bold vision for America's future and incorporates a passionate defense of capitalism, that would suffice.

Romney's old plan isn't that bad it is just too broad for a policy. For an economic plan isolated from the political dynamic, it is a more realistic in it's scope, by including all the key areas. It just needs more meat on each one. He needs to go back and give each of the seven major points in it a separate "Sub-plan" to detail a tax plan, an energy policy, etc etc. He needs to connect the dots, rather than rely on the voters to do that, relating it all back to competativeness and job growth long and short term.

He needs to dive into his Bain experience, pull out the failures that were caused by goverment policies and articulate that as a motivation for getting into politics to "get government out of way", or "get it on the ball" depending on the issue.

[memphis]

The trouble with Mitt is that he doesn't go for the victim bone. Anybody can tell he doesn't believe conservative Christians are the subject of widespread systemic persecution in the United States. And without that, you just can't win a national GOP primary.  Conservatives are, above all, emotional creatures. Calling for ever more tax cuts and whining about deficits just doesn't hold the appeal of victimhood.

[Politico]

Mitt has changed position on one thing and one thing alone: The legality of Roe V. Wade. He respected it before becoming Governor and rejected it after becoming Governor, and becoming more aware of what is happening with regards to abortions. That is the only position in his political career he has changed positions on. It's a myth that he's a John Kerry-like flip-flopper. Bill Clinton changed positions on far more issues as president.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2011/10/FLIPFLOPS.pdf

All of those so-called flip-flops are simply nuanced positions.
 

That depends on what nuances Romney has about the meaning of "nuance." I suppose that is better than philosophizing about what the meaning of "is" is, but, not by much.

I could shred your argument by listing his "flip-flops," but, I will go for the more effective kill: going forward how in the Hell can anyone trust a single word he says? If the differences between his self-description as a "moderate" who's views are "progressive" and his self-description as a "severe conservative" are merely a matter of "nuance," then why shouldn't I fear his promised "severely conservative" style of governing being "nuanced" back into moderate, progressive policies?

I don't know if you've noticed, but America has been knocked down onto the canvas. Clobbered. The count is moving from 3 to 4, and we're still down on the mat. And we are bleeding. This is not 1992. This is not even 1980. This is different. This is scarier than anything before. If we don't get back up soon, it's over for good because we can't get back up if we're still laying down when the count hits 8 or 9, which will be the end result of four more years of Obama. There will be no getting up and living to fight another day if we do not get up RIGHT NOW. That's what is at stake here. Romney is obviously not perfect, but he is much better than the alternative: Losing America forever.

I read that you are lying using nuance again. What I can't read is what you are lying about nuancing. Best I can figure somewhere in nuance-land the ends of saving America from some unspecified disaster justifies the ends of Romney saying whatever words are necessary to achieve power, words such as "I am severely conservative," even if those words are not even remotely true.

I'm starting to see what justifies your lying use of nuance. I'm starting to comprehend why you think it is acceptable to accuse political opponents of being mentally ill, or fabricating some pseudo-historical claim that Gingrich "resigned in disgrace." That reason is simple enough: Romney is behind!

It begs the question of what level of lying nuance that you would resort to if Romney falls further behind after Arizona and Michigan?

I do what I do because I love America, and I know it cannot afford four more years of Obama. I know that neither Gingrich nor Santorum can defeat Obama, so support for Gingrich/Santorum is really support for Obama. A loss to Obama, whether it is Gingrich or Santorum losing, is unacceptable from my vantage point.

[BigSkyBob]

Mitt has changed position on one thing and one thing alone: The legality of Roe V. Wade. He respected it before becoming Governor and rejected it after becoming Governor, and becoming more aware of what is happening with regards to abortions. That is the only position in his political career he has changed positions on. It's a myth that he's a John Kerry-like flip-flopper. Bill Clinton changed positions on far more issues as president.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/files/2011/10/FLIPFLOPS.pdf

All of those so-called flip-flops are simply nuanced positions.
 

That depends on what nuances Romney has about the meaning of "nuance." I suppose that is better than philosophizing about what the meaning of "is" is, but, not by much.

I could shred your argument by listing his "flip-flops," but, I will go for the more effective kill: going forward how in the Hell can anyone trust a single word he says? If the differences between his self-description as a "moderate" who's views are "progressive" and his self-description as a "severe conservative" are merely a matter of "nuance," then why shouldn't I fear his promised "severely conservative" style of governing being "nuanced" back into moderate, progressive policies?

I don't know if you've noticed, but America has been knocked down onto the canvas. Clobbered. The count is moving from 3 to 4, and we're still down on the mat. And we are bleeding. This is not 1992. This is not even 1980. This is different. This is scarier than anything before. If we don't get back up soon, it's over for good because we can't get back up if we're still laying down when the count hits 8 or 9, which will be the end result of four more years of Obama. There will be no getting up and living to fight another day if we do not get up RIGHT NOW. That's what is at stake here. Romney is obviously not perfect, but he is much better than the alternative: Losing America forever.

I read that you are lying using nuance again. What I can't read is what you are lying about nuancing. Best I can figure somewhere in nuance-land the ends of saving America from some unspecified disaster justifies the ends of Romney saying whatever words are necessary to achieve power, words such as "I am severely conservative," even if those words are not even remotely true.

I'm starting to see what justifies your lying use of nuance. I'm starting to comprehend why you think it is acceptable to accuse political opponents of being mentally ill, or fabricating some pseudo-historical claim that Gingrich "resigned in disgrace." That reason is simple enough: Romney is behind!

It begs the question of what level of lying nuance that you would resort to if Romney falls further behind after Arizona and Michigan?

I do what I do because I love America, and I know it cannot afford four more years of Obama. I know that neither Gingrich nor Santorum can defeat Obama, so support for Gingrich/Santorum is really support for Obama. A loss to Obama, whether it is Gingrich or Santorum losing, is unacceptable from my vantage point.

The ends don't justify the means.

I'd really prefer to believe that you are paid to post.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Romney has a habit of losing Iowa to an insurgent candidate who only spent a tiny fraction of what he spent. That's not exactly competence.

[Lief 🗽]

The last time Mitt decided to "dial it in" because his opponents were "self-destructing":

[Keystone Phil]

Mitt will obviously continue to follow Torie's expert advice and continue to coast to the nomination.

[Torie]

Mittens does need to get more specific and personal and passionate, but Rick seems to be self-destructing nicely now, so for better or worse, I suspect Mittens can pretty much dial it in at this point. Yes, maybe I am going out on a limb a bit, underestimating the quantum of insanity which stalks my party these days, but I would like to think not.

Everyone listen to the know-it-all. We all remember his very accurate predictions on Santorum's chances earlier this year. Torie, you are a real genius.

Thank you Phil. What a nice thing to say.  But yes, as I noted, I over-estimated the level of sanity in my party.  We all make mistakes - even "geniuses."  Such is life.  

And I must commend you Phil for having the good sense to not in general actually attempt to defend the host of Rickisms which have emerged in the portfolio of recent threads, but rather just diss the messengers. That displays considerably better judgment, than perhaps Mr. Santorum himself has displayed. Less is more.  Cheers.