WASHINGTON — There is deep unease among Republicans, and no shortage of advice for Mitt Romney on how to right his campaign ship in the seven weeks remaining before the election. Some have called for a campaign staff shake-up. Others want Romney to be more visible on the campaign trail. They want more backbone, bigger ideas, and sharper ads.
“An intervention is in order,” wrote Peggy Noonan, a conservative Wall Street Journal columnist and former speechwriter for President Reagan.
Comments
You don't suppose frontloading the primaries so that the party could get behind a single candidate early had anything to do with forcing a lousy selection, did it?
Looking at the rolling circus that defined the Republican primaries, the question is: How many clowns can fit into a campaign-Volkswagen and then come tumbling out only to be run over by the vehicle they were traveling in? Because that's the impresssion any thinking person has of the collection of misfits (Gingrich, Santorum, Cain, Perry, Romney, Bachmann, et al) the GOP came up with, hence, the Crazy Train designation. That Mitt Romney can't take two steps forward without tripping over his own tongue shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Romney is at least presenting himself in an honset fashion. He doesn't give a damn about lower income people and he is letting the American public know it, so we can clearly vote against him. If there was ever any doubt as to where Mitt Romney stands, it has now been erased.
Getting rich at the expense of the American people, whatever income class they may be, is increasingly becoming out of fashion and politically incorrect - thankfully. I think Jay Hooley and the State Street Board of directors are learning this same lesson the hard way as they have wiped out 3,200 US jobs in the past three years and they are in the process of eliminating their Fund adminstration division in Boston, 750 middle calss jobs, 25-39 jobs at a time, month fater month, like the sand slipping out of an hour glass.
"Getting rich at the expense of the American people, whatever income class they may be, is increasingly becoming out of fashion and politically incorrect". Not sure I buy that. It's certainly not a popular issue but I don't see where anything has changed with respect to the "1 percent". Look at the crazy amount of money being raised by both campaigns. The rich and powerful still rule the land and nothing's going to change until we get money out of the political process. Money maintains the status quo and 99% of us are the worse for it.
I guess visiting a dying 14 yr boy often or bringing Thanksgiving dinner to a family with a serious ill child or not taking a salary for being governor or president of the Olympics etc. does not care about helping others. How many millions have you donated to charity...Mitt Romney has, but doesn't brag about it. He earned his money...Jealous... the work ethic, his father sold paint out of the truck of his car...but today too many just sit with their hand out, where is my EBT card I need a manicure or tatoo etc. We are suppose to help those truly in need, but also help people to get off the dole by training, education not make it a life time cradle to grave welfare that is Pres. Obama's plan. He wants all to be successful, and that means work...it gives a person pride and have a goal. Many need to be subsidized because of low income in their job pay...I have no problem with that at least they are trying and not sitting around.....The welfare state we have become needs to become we can do state...just like JFK said...Not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country....and that has been lost in the last few years.
Also Barack Obama's own words about redistribution of wealth hinder HIS campaign, which is why the Boston Globe won't even print them and NBC won't even broadcast them. --Also Glbe doesn't report new intelligence thst says that a Libyan al Qaeda member who was released from Gitmo in 2007 lead the assault on the Libyan embassy. And the REAL reason for the embassy attack is to force the Obama administration to release the Blind Sheik who planned the 1993 World Trade center bombings.--Obama's words that the Video Did It will hinder HIS campaign.
Quick test: who was President in 2007? Oh right, GEORGE W BUSH!!! What's your point?
Also, in commenting about the dead Navy Seal elsewhere in today's paper, Globe says "US officials say it’s possible gunmen hijacked what had been a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic movie made in the United States"--NO it isn't just "possible" as the Globe says. IT's a FACT. ACTUALLY US officials KNEW this from the start, and have been COVERING UP the real facts by blaming the violence on the video. Globe is happy to print Mitt Ronmney's words on a daily basis, but it regularly covers up and LIES for Barack Obama.
The Globe hedges because there has been no final report. The spontanious protest may not have been hijacked, the radicals may have had it planned with or without the protest. I haven't heard anyone blame the Libyian killings on the movie. They have blamed the demonstrations and one could argue the film was merely a front, but that isn't really important is it? Like zealots on both sides Romney's or Obama's you just like the facts that give you what you want. Kinda sad.
Lemme know if you run out of tin foil...
The problem for Mitt is two fold. One is it is just Mitt these are the things he believes forget the ideology. Mitt has a low opinion of anyone not in his own circle. I don't even consider it something bad or evil about Mitt. Those of us who have been in academia can act in the same fashion. The difference is Mitt says it pubicly it oozes from who he is. The second problem is the majority of American's while leaning "conservative" do not believe in ending the programs that they like. They don't want to end Medicare, SS, food stamps, veterans programs. American's like to be compassionate. They want efficiency not cruelty. Mitt just doesn't get it.
Mitt Romney is not ending medicare, SS or food stamps and veterans programs...too bad they deliberately edited 2 minutes from the tape. But when you have 3.6 million added to the SSI program in 3.5 years and millions to food stamps (EBT cards) and you have money spent on sex changes for wife murderers, I think it is time to look into these programs and the costs of prescription drugs by Phama companies and the way hospitals & doctors over bill to get half payments to cover costs. This country is out of whack...fraud, wasteful spending by all parties (congress) and the new taxes in Obamacare....someone with business experience that has helped create thousands of jobs is needed.
We have a president that runs off to a fund raiser in Las Vegas, go on Limp the Pimp (nice name for our young children to hear) or fund raise with Beyonce & Jay-z while our consulates are burning and ambassador & others are murdered.....Who is clueless...it is not Mitt Romney...but Pres. Obama...how is that friendship with Pres. Putin working out, kicking out of Russia americans trying to help those in need.
This has to be the weakest spin on a candidate putting his foot in his mouth in history: "too bad they deliberately edited 2 minutes from the tape"
Do you seriously expect people to believe that Romney somehow repudiated everything he said in the other 67 minutes?
p.s. Where on the tape does Mitt talk about Medicare, anyway?
I wonder if Romney didn't spend so much time trying to engineer a perfect campaign that he can't bring himself to go off-plan, even though the plan is not working well. He simply invested too much, and has too much confidence in his own planning ability and competence.
Unfortunately for Mitt, there are probably more bumps ahead. Though it sounds trivial, I have seen several comments about his wife that are not adoring - she seems, though her manner, to rub people the wrong way. This may actually influence people. There is also the melding of his unscripted comments about the 47% with his rather secretive personal finances, use of off-shore accounts, his dancing horse and what have you that has yet to be unleashed by the PACs and the democratic campaign. This is going to keep pushing Romney into an uncomfortable corner and is going to drown out whatever vague arguements he wants to make about why he should be president.
You know on the Globe you'll get ideologues complaining about the "liberal" paper jumping on Romney. But like an engineering problem, how he has managed the campaign can be judged outside of ideology. It has been poorly run. That's just the way it is. Which is why a few republicans have found the guts to admit as much.
Not sure how poorly the campaign has been run. As was stated in this article, "you can't replace the candidate". Mitt can only connect with those like himself. We're seeing glimpses into his true beliefs with his gaffes. It's unfortunate that he's the best the Republicans can field.
His comments only confirm what many have believed for years. That the average person is nothing more than a bug on the windshield of their lives as they speed their way to an offshore bank.
Why is there no mention that the tape on the 47% does NOT mention an OMMISSION explaining CLARIFICATION of his statement?
So let's see if I've got this right. The VESSEL with the PESTLE has the PELLET with the POISON?
The last paragraph says it all. The endorsement from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, clearly illustrates the Romney/Ryan ticket's allegiance to right-wing, anti-gay extremists. Designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the FRC knows Romney is a tireless advocate for their relentless cause to derail marriage equality across the U.S. The comments affirmed just how closely aligned Romney is to these radical fundamentalists.
This comment has been removed.
Romeny's words appear to "hurt" him because the media takes anything he says and portrays it as horrible. What he said about the Olympics was correct. What he said after the attacks was correct. What he said about the 47% was correct (context goes both ways). For all the things that he has been beat up about, point to something that he has said that is incorrect. It maight be polittically incorrect, but that is a good thing. I am absolutely amazed that for all the bad news over the past few weeks, the MSM continues to say Romney is in trouble. It is like opposite world. And, yes, Attaturk, I AM blaming the media
Mr. Golfing, should Mitt be judged on what he says or not? In Massachusetts, he was a moderate. Now, he's a "severe" conservative. In Massachusetts, he favored choice concerning abortion. Now, he's completely opposed to it. In Massachusetts, he collaborated with a Democratic state legislature to pass Romneycare. Now, he's ferociously against a largely indistinguishable health program that many call Obamacare. He wrote a major editorial opposing an auto industry bailout by the government (favoring instead immediate bankruptcy proceedings if no private group would take the risk of loan guarantees to the industry). Now, he wants credit for being right about how it turned out. He moved to the right to outflank his Republican primary opponents, then Eric Fehrnstrom informed us his strategy for the fall would work something like an Etch-a-Sketch. Are you seriously suggesting that Mitt's positions have been taken out of context? If you can pin down a real answer concerning who he is (other than a very rich venture capitalist who desperately wants to be president), I think most of us would be happy to hear it.
It is called being a politician. Again, he gets called on all these, some rightfully, yet Obama gets a free pass
The numbers that he used are pretty close but the reasons are a little strong. The two canidates each own around 45% and need to win over the middle 10%. Comments like this are not going to help with that 10% and may cut a few off the original 45 that he should own.
JLerwin: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/09/20/networks-hyped-romneys-bombshell-tax-tape-now-skip-obamacare-penalti
I wonder who the author of this article thinks is paying for indigent health care now, anyway? When those without insurance go to emergency rooms for primary care that could be provided for a third as much or less in an office setting, the institution eats the cost. Sort of, that is. Ever seen a $15 Tylenol on one of your own hospital bills? But you don't pay that. At least not until your own insurance premium comes due. Perhaps an easier solution would be establishing "death panels", to declare who would be treated at ER's and who would not? Or who should get end of life care after their previous benefits run out. That seems like a great question for the upcoming presidential debate...getting a straight answer will probably be pretty easy, too.