I met a moron tonight.

[Niemeyerite]

You met Politico. Is he cute?

[Maxwell]

You met Politico. Is he cute?

But Politico is a democrat, remember?

[minionofmidas]

Mitt Romney fans are very, very strange people. They should be pitied.

Oh, definitely. I also got the classic, Winfield-esque lines from him about how he truly believed Mitt Romney was the man for these times like Lincoln was for the Civil War, Franklin [Roosevelt] was for WWII and Kennedy was for the Cuban Missile Crisis. When Romney lost, he said he didn't feel badly for himself or for our party; he was truly depressed for our country.

Stop.

It was really said.

It's the Moneyed Conservative's standard mild reaction to every lost close election. (The strong one is the claim that he will be emigrating.)

Also, of course, Sanchez of all people is right.

[angus]

I... mentioned that Santorum is one of my political heroes. He began to physically twitch.

Bet you get that a lot. 

But I agree that this guy's not very well informed.  Romney lost because of Romney, and to some extent because of Obama. 


Remember Winfield's Romney poll from about five years ago?

Romney:

___achieved greatness through his efforts.
___was born to greatness
___had greatness thrust upon him

Ah, good times. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I doubt Romney lost simply because of Santorum, but I do think that guy has a point. 

On the other hand, as you may know already, I'm a conservative on economic and social issues, but Nelson Rockefeller is still one of my political heroes for his leadership on civil rights.

Let's let those slide. He proudly identified himself as a Republican; a Northeast establishment Rockefeller Republican. Talked about all the money he donates and almost literally mapped out his political future.

What the hell is Oldiesfreak doing in PA?

Answer: it's Bull Moose, not me.

[Torie]

Blaming Rick for Mitt's problems is a bit much, but I think it is true that Mittens was forced per the primary to go the no more revenues route, and then he came up with this magic square of the circle that slashing deductions would finance rate cuts, and that it would all move the ball to fiscal solvency and keeping the debt down, but no, no specifics as to which deductions to slash because they are too popular. None of that penciled, and I think it hurt him. He would have wiser to embrace Simpson-Bowles, and then bash Obama for giving the finger to his own commission in a most irresponsible way, abandoning any leadership role. But if Mittens did that, somebody else might have been the nominee - and also lost of course.

And yes, the 47% remark hurt, but I think it was in the larger context of just not having his fiscal plans together in a credible way that penciled that made that remark more in the nature of the straw that broke the camel's back. Mittens had already set himself up for the fall. Obama could just bash Mittens for having a plan the specifics of which he refused to disclose that just made the whole ball of wax not credible on its face. Ouch!

[Keystone Phil]

Wow. It could have been bullmoose because the dude laid out how one of his goals is to be the Congressional nominee in Bucks county sometime down the line (despite living and working in the city). However, bullmoose a) isn't an idiotic, arrogant guy (you should have seen the act this guy was putting on. Body movements and all just oozed arrogance) and b) would have immediately said, "Hi, Keystone!" once he heard my name and found out I was a Santorum fan.

[Paul Kemp]

I wouldn't peg bullmoose as an ecstatic Romney fan. I haven't seen one of his posts in awhile though so maybe.

[Keystone Phil]

I wouldn't peg bullmoose as an ecstatic Romney fan. I haven't seen one of his posts in awhile though so maybe.

Yeah, that's true, too.

[Torie]

I wouldn't peg bullmoose as an ecstatic Romney fan. I haven't seen one of his posts in awhile though so maybe.

I don't recall bullmoose being "ecstatic" about any Pub politician actually.  As to Mittens, I suspect he would have said what I said more or less, but maybe more caustically.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Blaming Rick for Mitt's problems is a bit much, but I think it is true that Mittens was forced per the primary to go the no more revenues route, and then he came up with this magic square of the circle that slashing deductions would finance rate cuts, and that it would all move the ball to fiscal solvency and keeping the debt down, but no, no specifics as to which deductions to slash because they are too popular. None of that penciled, and I think it hurt him. He would have wiser to embrace Simpson-Bowles, and then bash Obama for giving the finger to his own commission in a most irresponsible way, abandoning any leadership role. But if Mittens did that, somebody else might have been the nominee - and also lost of course.

And yes, the 47% remark hurt, but I think it was in the larger context of just not having his fiscal plans together in a credible way that penciled that made that remark more in the nature of the straw that broke the camel's back. Mittens had already set himself up for the fall. Obama could just bash Mittens for having a plan the specifics of which he refused to disclose that just made the whole ball of wax not credible on its face. Ouch!

The remark didn't have to do with the math of his fiscal plans.  What it fed into was the impression that he was completely out of touch or worse when it came to half of America.

[Torie]

Blaming Rick for Mitt's problems is a bit much, but I think it is true that Mittens was forced per the primary to go the no more revenues route, and then he came up with this magic square of the circle that slashing deductions would finance rate cuts, and that it would all move the ball to fiscal solvency and keeping the debt down, but no, no specifics as to which deductions to slash because they are too popular. None of that penciled, and I think it hurt him. He would have wiser to embrace Simpson-Bowles, and then bash Obama for giving the finger to his own commission in a most irresponsible way, abandoning any leadership role. But if Mittens did that, somebody else might have been the nominee - and also lost of course.

And yes, the 47% remark hurt, but I think it was in the larger context of just not having his fiscal plans together in a credible way that penciled that made that remark more in the nature of the straw that broke the camel's back. Mittens had already set himself up for the fall. Obama could just bash Mittens for having a plan the specifics of which he refused to disclose that just made the whole ball of wax not credible on its face. Ouch!

The remark didn't have to do with the math of his fiscal plans.  What it fed into was the impression that he was completely out of touch or worse when it came to half of America.

Yes, I know, but that combined with rate cuts, and no credible way to pay for them, seemed to fit into a pattern that the guy thought first about the needs of the good folks og Greenwich, CT rather than those of Brunswick, Ohio, or Battle Creek, Michigan or Janesville, Wisconsin. His obsession with collecting mega mansions (how many does he have now- four?), the way a women collects jewelry studded with rare stones didn't help either - particularly given their ostentation. All a bit nouveau riche actually, even though he is second generation money.

[Niemeyerite]

So, Santorum is guilty because he decided to run and his message was more succesful among the republican base than we thought. If it weren't Santorum, it'd have been Perry, Bachmann or Gingrich. The problem was Romney, and maybe that republicans are more conservative than Nelson Rockefeller. But Santorum? LoL. I thought Rockefeller republicans liked democracy.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You met just one moron? You should consider yourself lucky.

[angus]

I thought Rockefeller republicans liked democracy.

?!

Well, of course they can tolerate democracy, but they're not necessarily the poster children of the democracy movement.  They tend to be Hamiltonian in this regard. 

[bullmoose88]

Wow. It could have been bullmoose because the dude laid out how one of his goals is to be the Congressional nominee in Bucks county sometime down the line (despite living and working in the city).

Hah.  Definitely not me. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks.  I do recall what your actual name is (its been mentioned on these boards at some time during my stay)...its not something like John Smith so I would've recognized...though as for the last clause or two...I enjoy some anonymity.

Congrats Phil.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I'm glad bm wasn't the same moron Phil was referring to..... 

[TeePee4Prez]

I don't know what to make of the GOP in general, but I agree with both Phil and his new friend in some ways.  Thing is it seems like the GOP has a nasty tightrope to walk if they are to ever get elected in PA or nationally again.  With Romney, you have someone who COULD appeal to people in the Philly suburbs, wealthier parts of New Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut but alienate white working class voters.  When comparing 2008 to 2012 Pres results, look at the results of individual townships in Montco/Bucks vs. some of the more conservative Wards in Philadelphia proper.  Many "Buxmont" townships snapped back to Romney but places like Mayfair, Fishtown and even South Philly voted even more for Obama.  I think Romney's smugness and perceptions as a job exporter definitely hurt him in those areas of Philly.  At the same time, Santorum would perform better with white working class voters I'll admit, but the expense would be the Philly suburbs. 

Basically, you need someone who can bring out social conservatives with economic/business conservatives and not stick foot in mouth. 

[Badger]

Where is the theory that Santorum is one iota less right wing or eletist in his economic policies--in perception or reality--than Romney? The only difference between the two is santorum ebraced social conservatism as his bedrock, while Romney ran from his flirtaton with social liberalism, doesn't mean Santorum doesn't believe, legislate, and envision a '47%' America just asmuc, if not more than Mittens.

[Keystone Phil]

Where is the theory that Santorum is one iota less right wing or eletist in his economic policies--in perception or reality--than Romney? The only difference between the two is santorum ebraced social conservatism as his bedrock, while Romney ran from his flirtaton with social liberalism, doesn't mean Santorum doesn't believe, legislate, and envision a '47%' America just asmuc, if not more than Mittens.

Hey, I was just repeating what was said to me (months ago. I enjoy this random mega-bump). And it's a popular viewpoint among the head-up-their-ass Santorum hating libertarian/Romney fanboy crowd.

In general, there has been this belief in political circles that social conservatism and economic conservatism (American sense) are mutually exclusive. Now some people believe they ought to be mutually exclusive but that has zero to do with the fact that the vast majority of this party is both socially and economically/fiscally right wing. The libertarian crowd has somewhat successfully created a boogeyman outside of their concern that social conservatism isn't "Pro Freedom;" a belief that these traditional conservatives can never really be on their side when it comes to Dollars and Cents. People have seriously argued with me that Santorum is just a conservative Democrat, that Santorum's relationship with certain unions means he's a "big government" guy...the guy that jumped to push Bush's partial privatization of Social Security plan is a leftist economically. Uh huh.

[Torie]

Mitt Romney fans are very, very strange people. They should be pitied.

Don't get personal now!  

Mittens said that "severe conservative" comment. But his wounds were mostly self inflicted, and his resume and persona didn't help. Rick was a distraction that tied Mittens down, time wise and money wise, but Mittens should have known how to walk and chew gum at the same time. But Rick would have done worse against Obama.

What is a Rockefeller Republican by the way in modern terms? A neocon who loves to spend money, and is the best friend of construction unions on the fruited plain?  The term is really silly.

[Sopranos Republican]

As someone who identifies as a liberal Republican, the 47% comment is exactly the thing that made me turn very much against Romney. Of course, like Phil, I have ideological problems with Willard, (from the other side obviously ), and some of my friends who actually tend to be in the same boat as me, (the ones who actually care about politics) turned against Romney much earlier than I did. At very least with Santorum, and I can't stand a word the guy says, you get the feeling he at least cares somewhat about others. So yeah, I definitely agree with Phil about this guy. P.S. How much did this fellow spell out his particular views on certain issues? I'm curious.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What I'd like to know is how "Rockefeller Republican" ever became associated with fiscal conservatism. The guy (being former New York Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller) was by no means fiscally conservative at all. He spent government funds on whatever pet projects he felt were worth the public's money and got away with it. "Fiscally conservative", in referring to the old timey, technocratic, worthy-of-praise-by-nostalgic-Newsweek-liberals sorta way is almost exclusively limited to making up more taxes.

[Badger]

SsI

Where is the theory that Santorum is one iota less right wing or eletist in his economic policies--in perception or reality--than Romney? The only difference between the two is santorum ebraced social conservatism as his bedrock, while Romney ran from his flirtaton with social liberalism, doesn't mean Santorum doesn't believe, legislate, and envision a '47%' America just asmuc, if not more than Mittens.

Hey, I was just repeating what was said to me (months ago. I enjoy this random mega-bump). And it's a popular viewpoint among the head-up-their-ass Santorum hating libertarian/Romney fanboy crowd.

In general, there has been this belief in political circles that social conservatism and economic conservatism (American sense) are mutually exclusive. Now some people believe they ought to be mutually exclusive but that has zero to do with the fact that the vast majority of this party is both socially and economically/fiscally right wing. The libertarian crowd has somewhat successfully created a boogeyman outside of their concern that social conservatism isn't "Pro Freedom;" a belief that these traditional conservatives can never really be on their side when it comes to Dollars and Cents. People have seriously argued with me that Santorum is just a conservative Democrat, that Santorum's relationship with certain unions means he's a "big government" guy...the guy that jumped to push Bush's partial privatization of Social Security plan is a leftist economically. Uh huh.

Hey, not holding the original quote against you KP. I think the reponses o the forum make it clear like you said: if you're fron north of Mason-Dixon and vocally conservative on social issues the assumption seems to be one is basically Bob Casey.



PS the bump came from someone recently quoting Ernest in a grammer war.not relevant here, but the quote looked ineresting and I followed the link and....

[7,052,770]

I believe Romney made a few minor anti-birth control remarks of his own in response to one of Santorum's moronic statements about how contraception shouldn't be allowed.

Probably wouldn't've flipped any states or anything, but it surely lost him a few votes.