From the RNC convention in Tampa to the horrific events of the past week, it's pretty evident that conservatives have a very large enthusiasm gap where it concerns their candidate Mitt Romney.
They're just not that into him.
At the convention in Tampa, the keynote speaker, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, took a very long and telling 17 minutes to even mention Romney's name. Astonishing. And what should have been a rousing, rolicking lead-in to Romney's acceptance speech turned into a bizarre, disjointed talk by a clearly confused and dithering Clint Eastwood, who proceeded to argue with an empty chair. It's been a jerky and painful downhill ride since then for candidate Romney, with a couple of stops along the way at harsh reality. The polls following the end of the RNC convention verified how awful it was. Romney got no bounce. Nada. Niente. Goose egg. And President Obama has widened his leads in several key states.
Then came the tragic events of the past week where Mittens could have shown his creds as a statesman and leader. Instead, he ran with a slanderous statement that accused the president of the United States of siding with the murderers of the US consulate victims [an accusation of treason against the US president], an unprecedented low in slimey mudslinging during a national crisis by the nominal leader of the opposition party. Even his own colleagues in the GOP had nothing kind to say about his incredibly misguided and amateurish reaction to a very volatile and dangerous situation. The ususal empty-headed loud mouths (Limbaugh and Palin) were the only ones, except for one or two other banana heads, who thought Romney's actions in this terrible drama were "presidential." The rest of the civilized world jeered at that preposterous assessment.
After all of Romney's unforced errors, I wondered about the people who support him, especially those supporters who blog. I did a bit of research to discover how many blog posts his supporters on the conservative side of the aisle have written about the man they so desperately want to capture the White House and send the hated Commie Marxist Usurper Hawaiian Devil Baby back to Kenya.
I looked at four conservative blogs--two run by males and two run by females and was surprised to find that all four of them, like the rest of conservadom, are just not that into Mr. Romney. Their raison d'etre is, of course, bashing President Obama, and they've posted far, far more on him than the guy they hope will rescue us from Obamacare and replace it with the parts of Romneycare that Romney so loves.
Here's what I found:
At the blog Western Hero: Two blogposts on Romney since June 1.
At the blog Jo Joe Politico*: Two blogposts on Mr. Romney since June 1, one of which was about a Romney gaffe, and the other was about the Romney/Ryan ticket.
*NOTE: The above-mentioned conservative blogger always appends to President Obama's name the designation, "The Child President" every time he refers to Mr. Obama. Apparently, the guy who runs this blog hasn't the stones to actually call the president "boy," since that is exactly what he implies with this back-door racial slur.
At the blog My Daily Trek: One post on Mr. Romney since June 1
At the blog Always on Watch: One post on Mr. Romney since June 1, and one post on a Romney rally in Virginia which mainly criticized the rally's production values, nothing about Romney himself, except this: "Romney made several excellent statements, many of which all of us have heard before. However no 'magic in the air.'"
So the count is really six posts talking about Mitt Romney on these four conservative blogs since June 1 of this campaign season.
(I did a count of my own blog since June 1 and came up with 11 blog posts on my candidate, President Obama, and that's just ONE blog.)
This is a small snapshot of the conservatives' enthusiasm gap beleaguering Mr. Romney's campaign. It's not meant to be scientific, just a little insight into why he's not doing as well as people on the right hoped he would.
They're just not that into him.
Adding to this losing scenario is this piece in Politico by Jonathan Riehl:
"This week we witnessed further evidence of the complete breakdown of the modern conservative movement, and it is Republicans who are speaking out on this even more than Democrats. Attempts by Romney party-liners to blame this criticism on the left are just plain phony. Laura Ingraham, whose pedigree includes a Supreme Court clerkship under Justice Clarence Thomas, put it most succinctly: If the best we can do is Mitt Romney and his bumbling, intellectually bereft campaign, it may be time to shut the Party down.
Here at POLITICO, Joe Scarborough, a more centrist GOP voice, blasted away at Romney's utter vapidness and expressed the frustration of many GOPers who just seem to be going along. Old school Reaganites from Peggy Noonan to Dan Coats also got into the act. Even the neoconservative intellectual leader Bill Kristol, who did much to justify the Iraq war boondoggle, tells us that Mitt Romney is failing, proving no more true to Kristol's New American Century ideology than he is to anyone other; say what you may about him, Kristol, like his father, is consistent.
The overall implication from these voices on the right is clear: Romney is an an empty suit, as frightening to real ideologues on the right like Kristol and Ingraham as he is to progressives on the left. Because no one, left or right, knows what he really believes."
Parsley's Pics has a post up on this subject and why Romney's fellow candidates in 2008 couldn't stand him either:
"But Romney's efforts to get right with the right landed him in trouble. For most of his life, he had been a middle-of-the-road, pro-business, pragmatist, unequivocally pro-choice, moderate on tax cuts and immigration. Running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, he pledged that he'd do more for gay rights than his opponent, and declared, "I don't line up with the NRA" on gun control. By 2008, Romney had reversed himself on all of this, which quickly gave rise to charges of hypocrisy and opportunism. Even before he announced his candidacy, a YouTube video [see below] began making the rounds that captured him firmly stating his liberalish social views, comically juxtaposing them with his newly adopted arch-conservative stances. From then on, the flip-flopper label was firmly affixed to Mitt's forehead.
Unlike Giuliani, Romney had no reticence about slashing at his rivals. But the perception of him as a man without convictions made him a less-than-effective delivery system for policy contrasts. The combination of the vitriol of his attacks and his corelessness explained the antipathy the other candidates had toward him. McCain routinely called Romney an "asshole" and a "fucking phony." Giuliani opined, "That guy will say anything." Huckabee complained, "I don't think Romney has a soul." (L. Parsley's emphasis)
36 comments:
.
Yes. BUT!!!
Their utter lack of enthusiasm _for_ OMitt is matched by an absolute white-hot blind HATE against Mr Obama/USA.
One can rest assured, for these RW types, now that the knowledge of Mr Obama stands a very good chance of being re-elected as President, is sinking in to their brains, these super patriotic people are hoping for a successful terrorist attack against USA in USA. "Anything to get Mr Obama out of office."
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema, I don't think you actually believe anyone is hoping for a terrorist attack on the USA (we just had one in Libya in case you didn't notice). Further, just because you have unnatural thoughts doesn't mean they should be said out loud. A small amount of self control serves each of us well.
Update on the latest terror attack on America in Libya from my SEAL buddy, where four Americans died, and that nobody, despite what Ema says, is happy about:
"Glen and Ty were part of the Quick Reaction Force, which means the shit had hit the fan and was beyond control of standing security forces at the Embassy. With the size of the attack and coordinated fire, that didn't take long."
There simply was not enough security to protect our people. Each of us can come to our own conclusions as to why there was not enough security to repel the terror attack, who is to blame at the State Department and how much blame is then laid at the feet of the head honchos up the line; if any.
Is it fair to blame the CEO of a corporation that lays off workers and outsources jobs? If yes, is it fair to blame a Secretary of State and her superiors if they fail to staff an embassy or consulate with enough security to protect the lives of the workers within. What about when they outsource security to private firms?
"fuckin stupid State Dept and fuckin stupid Hillary Clinton! An ignorant fool would know we needed better security over there."
Your SEAL buddies are so full of hate for Obama and Clinton (as you posted their words on PE's previous post) they cannot be relied on for an unbiased assessment.
If security was so bad (as your SEAL buddies say) why do we hear that from them AFTER the fact?
How many security forces did we have there? Was that a normal amount? Were there extra because of 9/11?
I have no respect for "on duty" service people who criticize the president in a time of war, especially since we have no idea if their complaints are true, or not, and they offer no proof.
Anyone, left or right, could get a good, simple indication of Romney's sale-ability as a presidential product (a la The Selling of the President, 1968) from one fact. The last time he ran for president, Romney blew $42 million of his own money, along with millions more of others' money, and basically got nowhere. Remember, that was running within his own party.
Now, any marketing executive who's managed to keep his job for more than a year will tell you that if you can't sell a product after pouring more than $42 million into promoting it, that product has little to no chance of succeeding.
"Romney is an an empty suit, as frightening to real ideologues on the right . . . as he is to progressives on the left. Because no one, left or right, knows what he really believes."
I must disagree on this point. What comes through, almost painfully obvious (especially in light of what I wrote above), is that Romney's core belief and sole real ambition is to get what Romney wants. Right now, Romney wants to be president.
What the man says and does has nothing to do with a cause, principle or philosophy. His moral compass points toward what he wants as good. It also points toward failing to get that, or anyone who stands in the way of his getting that, as bad.
Thus, Romney can be for mandated health insurance for all in Massachusetts and then declare he'll put an end to that for the nation on his first day as president — but then declare he likes some parts of it for the nation and will keep them — but the very next day have a campaign aide announce Romney didn't mean that and would eliminate the whole thing. Each about face represents a calculation of the moment about what he needs to say to get what he wants. On issues, policies, approach to leading and everything but getting whatever he wants now, Romney is a reed in the wind.
It really is that simple. And it's as obvious as the nose on his face.
KP, I agree that no one is hoping for a terrorist attack on the USA...
But... and this is a struggle for me, many conservatives, like those Shaw cited, have said they believe Obama wants that to happen and for America, as they know it, to be destroyed.
It is that kind of hyperbole that depresses me... just like using language you'd never let your kids use to express your thoughts...
Thanks for continuing to post here...
@Dave "this is a struggle for me, many conservatives, like those Shaw cited, have said they believe Obama wants that to happen and for America, as they know it, to be destroyed." "It is that kind of hyperbole that depresses me... just like using language you'd never let your kids use to express your thoughts..."
I know, mate. We agree. What you cite is every bit as weird as what the post above said. People say some strange things when they get emotional.
That's why I mentioned above that deep down I didn't think she really felt that way. Neither Repubs or Dems wish to see innocemt Americans die as a way to win an election. Hyperbole is hyperbole but it has become cheap and common place in politics. Not a good example for the young or impressionable.
S.W. Anderson I like the way you laid out most of your points about Romney. There are strong.
I would point out that we have had many Presidents (some better than others) who made becoming President a decades long goal. I agree that Romney is one of those. As well, Bill Clinton comes to mind as a man who pursued the Presidency from his teens in much the same way.
President Obama probably started to have similar aspirations at Harvard. Like Romney, he voted (or avoided voting by being present) in specific ways that have supported his aspirations and protected a projected reputation.
What I would debate, if we had the time and space, is whether we should all be as cynical about Romney's ideas on health care reform. I won't. I do think the ACA is a poorly written law that has some very good and some less good intentions. Looks like it is here to stay so perhaps Repubs and Dems should discuss how to improve rather than simply remove it.
Just to get an appreciation of how some of these extremists thin, I'll share this comment that a FB friend found on Romney's page:
Randy Goldwater: "A victory in November will be hollow and meaningless without prior plans to seize the registration info for liberal websites, democrat donor info, mosque membership info, and democrat activist info, after we win. These are our enemies. They need to be utterly destroyed. Driven from our border. We must hunt them down and eliminate the threat they pose to America. TOTAL VICTORY, WITHOUT MERCY!!!!"
I have seen a lot of this kind of thing in more places than I'd like. As so many of us have opined from time to time, we have more to fear from domestic terrorists than international terrorists. Just saying.
Romney is getting a lot of flack from participants at the Voters Values Conference for not attracting more support. Wonder why.
I'm not sure, however, that Romney's lack of appeal can be blamed solely on him. I think a lot of moderate Republicans are turned off of this whole extremist platform and the religious right. They may be fiscally conservative but they're not cretins. I'm seeing a lot of essays that start with things like "I'm a life-long Republican but I'm not voting for Romney." For every one of them who are willing to make a public announcement along these lines, there are probably many, many more who are thinking the same way but just aren't saying it up close and personal.
Finally, about this alleged lack of security. There is a difference between an embassy and a consulate. Embassies are very well fortified, consulates not so much. This attack happened at a consulate. This is how the Europeans see it, five minutes of wise words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49K0iLJJdfE&feature=player_embedded
IMPORTANT: I just posted this to a FB group I'm on and this is what one of friends had to say:
"Speaking of little grimlins, Leslie. Your friend's blog linked above is being identified by FB as spam. I overrode the i.d. and declared it not spam in order to get into the blog. I don't know if this has anything to do with the trolls/hacks/reports to FB or not, but thought I'd mention it to you just in case."
KP, I have no problem with someone seeking the presidency for years. In fact, I don't want a president who's ambivalent about being president or worse, doesn't want the job.
Joe Biden and John Kerry, both of whom are good men, IMO, ran for president twice each. Both are serious men. Biden is one of the best informed foreign affairs experts to ever serve in the Senate. Kerry has been a good senator, too, particularly proactive on veterans issues, the environment and foreign affairs. If Obama were to need a new secretary of state in a second term, Kerry would be a fine prospect. You can be sure either would've come to the presidency with a vision and an agenda for dealing sensibly with serious problems facing people and the country.
I don't think Romney has any such ambitions or agenda. He sold his foreign policy to Sheldon Adelson for up to $100 million in campaign money. I don't think Romney personally cares if the country goes back to square 1 on health care reform or moves on to universal single-payer. He will back or oppose anything he thinks will help him win the presidency.
If Romney becomes president he will spend four years pandering and catering to the GOP's radical-right constituent groups exclusively, just as George w. Bush did. Romney will do that because the tea party extremists, anti-abortion zealots, evangelicals, gun nuts, Wall Street banksters, Big Oil and armaments industries will hold the key to his getting a second term.
Romney could run for president a dozen times and it would always be the same. He's a willing shill for whoever can help him get what he wants.
"Cameron ‘claimed Britain is united against Mitt Romney’
David Cameron described US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney as having the “unique distinction of uniting the whole of England against him.”
None of us are Bloggers for Romney, and we are not narrowly partisan, preferring to discuss a wide range of issues.
Besides, it would be ridiculous to believe Romney could build the cult of personality Obama has.
As for the embassy protests and deaths, Obama get the blame.
He got credit for killing UBL, so he gets the blame when bad stuff happens.
Americans died, including an intelligent and outgoing ambassador. Unlike the press and the fawning Obama worshipers, I want answers. Why did four Americans die?
Why has Muslim hatred for us gotten worse under Obama? Didn't he say he would make it better?
"The question now is whether the Arab Spring might become a political liability for President Obama. The deaths of four Americans in Libya will certainly raise hard questions about whether security was adequate. But Mitt Romney can hardly argue that we were better off with Gaddafi in power (not least because he celebrated the dictator’s fall). Odds are also good that Obama will exact some retributive “justice” for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues, possibly enhancing his Commander in Chief stature." --Michael Crowley
Yes, the president will get blamed for the breach of security at the consulate in Benghazi and the deaths of 4 Americans, just like Reagan was blamed for the deaths of 240+ marines in Lebanon, and George W. Bush was blamed for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.
I never suggested that the 4 conservative blogs I mentioned were "bloggers for Romney."
My point is that Romney is the GOP presidential candidate, and conservative bloggers seem not to be enthused about him, because the bloggers I cited hardly mention him at all.
Cult of Personality? You mean like the one that grew up around St. Ronnie?
Oh pleeze! Remove that log from your eye.
The Arab Spring has now become the Arab Winter.
RN,
This post is about Romney and his lack of supporters in the blogging world.
You and SF apparently have a desperate need to change the subject from that sad fact.
It's not just conservative bloggers who are dumping Romney. Republiscum elected officials are staying away from him also. Romney has embarrassed the party with his stupidity and lies. Ryan wants out and the polls say Obama is pulling away. The Republiscum pundits say if Romney can't beat Obama, they might as well give up. The only number left to see, is how bad Romney will lose.
Steve, let's not get ahead of ourselves... the election is till to come and even though Obama is currently ahead, a lot can happen in a few weeks.
Silver, certainly you, and most of the other bloggers Shaw cited are not, nor have been big fans of Romney.
Most of you, during the primary campaign hated the guy for various reasons that most of you called positions of principle.
It is my opinion that a majority of GOP partisans, or conservatives are no so much voting for Romney, as against Obama. Unfortunately, a vote against someone is never as easy to get as a vote for someone.
It is an uphill battle for the GOP and if they lose it is going to be interesting to see what happens.
Here's a question for those of you supporting Mitt...
If Obama wins, will you follow the advice of the party after the 2010 elections and say elections have consequences, the people of America have spoken and the losing political party should fall in line and follow the will of the people?
Dave, point taken. Although, Obama will have to lose (for some yet unknown reason) the election. Romney cannot win the election.
You know SF came out long ago for Romney and will be voting for him.
A lot of voters seem to be voting for Romney because of party unity. Shaw is right, seems a lot of conservatives just don't like Romney.
<< If Obama wins, will you follow the advice of the party after the 2010 elections and say elections have consequences, the people of America have spoken and the losing political party should fall in line and follow the will of the people? >>
@Dave My view, the will of the people will be more accurately expressed by the election outcomes in the House and Senate. So I would turn the question around for you. If the Republicans control the both Houses of Congress, will the left (and the President) follow the will of the people?
Of course not :-)
Shaw, I think you ought to visit RN a bit more often. You seem to be under a serious delusion that I am a Romney supporter and therefore think he has immense heliosphere support.
I stand by my prior comment as is without further explanation. I leave it to you to decipher the underlying message.
Toodles............................
Ah KP... I as never one of those who expressed that sentiment...
For me, an election needs to be a wave type of result, like we saw in 1980 or even 2008 for that type of sentiment to be valid.
A better question is why the GOP claimed that mantle in 2010, perhaps rightly, but rejected it in 2008. Were they just being political?
I think so as we did not hear, to my recollection, the Dems making that type of claim after they demolished the GOP in 2008.
Now if the GOP sweeps both houses and the White House in this election, I will certainly say the people have spoken and we need to give the GOP another chance to show what they got.
Even if they did not think the Dems deserved that in 2008.
And KP... you need to come over to my place for an election night party... you, I'd invite!
"Will of the people"? Nonsense.
It is the will of Big Money that calls the shots.
Public policy has been tilted toward the economic elites as democracy is suppressed.
Welcome to the Corporate States of America.
"If the Republicans control the both Houses of Congress, will the left (and the President) follow the will of the people?"
But the Executive Branch is also the "will of the people."
And it is equal to the two other branches.
RN, I have visited your blog, but have not had anything of value to add to the posts. I don't always comment, but I do read.
Your candidate, Johnson, has some fine points, I like his position on personal liberties.
It's not possible for him to win this election, but he could be a real standard bearer for a viable third party.
Dave has a legitimate point about what the GOP did when Mr. Obama won the presidency in 2008 by a substantial majority. Within 2 1/2 months, the Tea Party was out and around the country howling that they wanted their country back. And even before Mr. Obama took his oath of office, people like Rush Limbaugh were saying they hoped he failed.
What happened to the "will of the people" during that time?
Romney's a dink who opens his mouth way too much. But until Mr. Obama decides on whether or not Egypt is an ally and/or decides to fortify our embassies (especially on 9/11 anniversaries) overseas, I'm still not quite seeing the ginormous distinction between these 2 clowns that you are, Shaw.......Gary Johnson, experience and integrity. That's the fellow who I'm voting for.
<< A better question is why the GOP claimed that mantle in 2010, perhaps rightly, but rejected it in 2008. Were they just being political? >>
Yes, I think so.
<< And KP... you need to come over to my place for an election night party... you, I'd invite! >>
Ha! I'm in!
@Shaw << What happened to the "will of the people" during that time? >>
Shaw, did you ever watch The Twilight Zone? There was an episode from 1961 I think, called “It’s a Good Life” where an evil boy named Anthony wishes things he doesn't like away to the cornfield.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C34g5mz1ZQ
Like @D Dubya says, maybe we should check the cornfield for the will of the people :-)
The will of the people is more clearly defined in their presidential vote. The whole nation votes for president, only State residents vote for a Congressperson.
@Anon We can agree to disagree.
I consider my Representative in the House and Senator of my state more representative of me than the President. We are, after all, individual states.
I don't want the President increasingly dictating to my state how we should operate. I am not in favor of the way our last two Presidents have done Congressional run arounds. I think the idea of so many Czars is alarming.
The three branches should check one another's power, but Congress appears most representative.
James Madison observed in The Federalist No. 10 that the true test of a Congressional representative is his or her ability to make difficult decisions that promote the long-term best interests of the people back home. A representative government, he wrote, ought to:
". . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens (plural) whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."
We can both argue that Congress is not doing their job as they should be and we would both be correct.
You are talking about yourself. One State is not the will of the people, it is your, or your States will.
Congress does not work the way it did 230 years ago; and it certainly does not reflect the will of the people, or the will of one representative, if they vote in block. There are many examples of Republicans voting against something they voted for when a Republican was president. That only expresses obstructionist politics, not the will of any people.
@Anon << One State is not the will of the people, it is your States will. >>
Like states sending electoral votes for the Presidency. One state at a time.
Glad to see you are one of the 5% who think Congress is doing a good job reflecting the will of the people.
Huh?
I posted this to you:
"We can both argue that Congress is not doing their job as they should be and we would both be correct."
Post a Comment