Where are they now, Never Trumpers

Any cursory review of the election would leave many unanswered questions about those who absorbed the spotlight as the many, the proud… the anti-Trumpers.

What happened to them and where are they now? Well, I just saw that the prominent Never-Trump leader Bill Kristol will be stepping back, or down, in his career. Now Stephen Hayes is stepping up to be editor-in-chief of the failing Weekly Standard. Hayes is another anti-Trumper. They are calling the shakeup lots of things, but Kristol is out.

Hayes will certainly continue in the legacy of denial, after Kristol, while the Weekly Standard seeks to rebuild its once-lucrative brand. Put some lipstick on that pig.
The Hill

Bill Kristol is stepping down as editor-in-chief of The Weekly Standard, more than two decades after he co-founded the conservative publication.

“It’s good,” Kristol told CNN on Monday. “Here at The Weekly Standard, we’ve always been for regime change.”

Steve Hayes, the publication’s senior editor, will take over for Kristol.

But Kristol won’t be leaving the stage, just stepping away from Weekly Standard. We know he can’t leave the limelight. His condescending elitism won’t allow it.

Mitt Romney, what’s left to say about him? He was in the running for Secretary of State, then the unthinkable loss of not getting picked. After all he did to oppose Trump every public way he could, he tried to shift his hatred in a few tweets.

First, were all the attack(s)… plenty of them:

What he “knows?”

There was the one after election:

Then there was the one after failing to get the nomination he wanted:

But no apology or thanks to Trump for considering him — with all his many warts.

Then there is this reversal from staunch anti-Trumper, Erick Erickson. His radio show must be in a nose dive lately. But never fear, he now says we should give Trump a chance. A little late, don’t you think you waited long enough?

Erick Erickson: I’m gonna give Trump a chance (no, I’m not a sellout)

During the 2016 election, I was adamantly opposed to Donald Trump. Much of the media cited a piece I wrote in mid-February planting my flag against Trump as one of the major pieces to spark the #NeverTrump movement.

I wrote in that piece that if the GOP went with Trump that the party was not only going to lose the White House, but see devastation down ballot. All the polling showed it. The polling had been right during the primaries. Trump was the one guy consistently ahead in the polls and the one guy who consistently could not beat Hillary. The general election polling showed the same.

I, and the polling, were completely wrong. So were a lot of other people. After the election I wrote that those of us who were so completely wrong about the election should exercise some humility. If we got that much wrong, the odds are we got a lot of other stuff wrong, too. Consequently, I thought the day after the election and still think that we owe Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt.

This does not mean I am now on the Trump team. I still have concerns about Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/14/erick-erickson-im-gonna-give-trump-chance-no-im-not-sellout.html?refresh=true

How generous of Erick to give Trump “the benefit of the doubt” now…..when all other opposition has failed. He tries to blame his rabid, anti-Trump stance on earlier polls.

Count Erick as “not selling out”….
he’s selling up, to anyone who still believes anything he says.

Then there are the Obamas, those priceless gems of slobbering elitism. Michelle says she may be leaving the White House but not the public stage. Surprise! Right after she tells us we have no hope. Barack Obama plans to go nowhere. He told us that.

In fact, they rented a mansion down the street from the White House where he will continue his radical activism by running a shadow government, according to insider reports. I’m sure any Obama residence will have plenty of room for his Iranian adviser, Valerie Jarrett. I give Obama the award to represent the anti-Trump opposition.

You don’t believe Hillary Clinton is going anywhere either, do you? She’ll have her own oppositional organization. And when stars align, some spectacular things will happen.

Does this mean that Erickson along with Hayes, Kristol, Obama, Hillary and all those outspoken others will be on the same page at some point opposing Trump? Look for that; but how they parse their active roles in the coalition will stand reason on its head.

It would seem all the anti-Trumpers are not really going away, just lining up to posture themselves in public and media. But their opposition doesn’t change. They are just finding more creative ways to channel it.

Awaiting Mitt Romney’s apology tour

After campaigning against and trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign/election, even his Republican nomination, Romney now contemplates the real consequences of issuing an apology to try to seal his Secretary of State bid. How far can he go?

I do hope he likes groveling but is it enough — after all he has done?

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Transition Team sources told Ed Henry from FOX News that Mitt Romney is preparing a public apology.

Mitt Romney is reportedly very interested in the Secretary of State job. (See)

But is it enough to apologize? And I don’t mean only to Trump but to all the people who supported or voted for Trump. He owes them plenty — whether he gets the job or not.

Remember he wrote a book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Ironic now that his appointment requires an apology just as a precursor.

Has anyone out there in Rightville considered what a Mitt Romney confirmation hearing would look like? I think I’d call it a smorgasbord for Democrats. They’ll eat it up.

Rerun Romney still on the 2016 fence

Romney rerun, or is it déjà vu all over again?

Romney, still wanted after all these years …. so he thinks.

CNN

Washington (CNN)Mitt Romney’s family is still pleading for him to mount an independent bid for the presidency, the 2012 Republican nominee said Wednesday.

Romney, speaking to CBS News’ John Dickerson at the Aspen Ideas Festival, said a son asked him as recently as Tuesday to do so.

“My wife and kids wanted me to run again this time, interestingly enough,” Romney said. “I got an email from one of my sons yesterday, saying ‘You gotta get in, Dad! You gotta get in!’ ”

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/mitt-romney-family-president-aspen/index.html

Hey, Mitt, what part of America does not want you don’t they understand?
Is it the accent, or maybe the translation? They are a little dense like you.

Oh, I keep seeing those planted comments on social media: “Go Mitt, America needs you.” Well, neither America nor the GOP needs you, Mitt. It’s time to shut the hell up.

What happens in Aspen and what is said in Aspen should stay in Aspen. But just go ahead and try running again, Mitt, and you’ll think it was a cake walk last time. (actually, it was but that is beside the point)

Like the Jethro Tull song…”Thick as a Brick.”

The Ignorance of reality on Trump

Hi everyone, Iggy Bliss at your service. I’m sorry I have been so busy with everything Trump that I haven’t been able to update you all on my blissful animal farm adventures.

Now that Trump is our presumptive nominee, I haven’t felt the need to purge my intellect further. Sure, there are those who are still calling us ignorant, stupid people and blissfully so. There seems to be a growing pride in that since…. well, we are WINNING!.

Anyway, not to rub it into my betters and intellectual superiors, but Trump has resonated now like no other with people across a spectrum. From low income to high income, from so-called uneducated to educated. Whether it is on jobs and the economy or terrorism.

But yes, we are still considered the blissfully ignorant ones, equivocated to barnyard animals and evolutionary primates. Do we see a little irony in that yet? If not, just wait it is crystallizing along the Trump Train tracks.

Not that I, the great Iggy, is bragging. I don’t take any comfort in saying I told you so. Who wants, or needs, to rub it in that we have a government and an establishment elite that hardly anyone on both sides of the isle trusts. But that is the central problem or symptom today… not the means to gaining control of it.

I have to catch up on events because so much has happened since I spoke you last. Now Paul Ryan and Trump have met and Ryan still withholds his support. Well, to each his own I guess. What is more interesting, for the unpopular speaker of the House, is the lack of criticism of him from the Never Trump crowd. Wait, weren’t they months ago complaining about Cryin’ Ryan’s failings? Now they are silent on Ryan and that other guy he was hooked up with, Romney.

I thought Romney was the anathema to the conservative movement? Call me stupid, but no, he has been scheming with Never Trumpers about running a third Party candidate. Strange bedfellows, indeed. But Mark Cuban — really? And they all call me blissfully ignorant? I can’t even find any barnyard animals with any love for Romney. Seems the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

So this is me, Iggy, rubbing your Never-Trump noses in the venomous saliva of two-time loser, Mitt-the pussycat-Romney. Meow! I hope you all enjoy your lustful affair.

Romney has now said he is done trying to recruit a 3rd candidate. That doesn’t mean he has changed his position on the matter, just that he will not actively recruit a candidate. How big of him. Still, I heard no criticism about him from those who were eager to jump in bed with him. What does that make you Never Trumpers, prostitutes? I think so. The Iggy may still seem ignorant but he is not the one aligning with a two-time estabo loser.

Iggy Bliss signing off, hoping all your Never Trump hallucinations are happy ones.
We’ll leave the light on for you at a Motel 6.

Captain Iggy Bliss ©

Donald Trump, unifier in chief

Can D. J. Trump unify the Republican Party?(sigh) That seems a lot to ask of Trump.

Trump is not the one who blew up and fractured the Party. He is not the one with a legacy of distrust. Now Party leaders and the press hoist it all on his shoulders to unify the Republican Party. And they are making that his litmus test: If he cannot do that, then how can he do anything and how can we win?

Then we have Ryan grandstanding while acting like the godfather of the Party. Ryan is so concerned about the fractured state of the Party when he has been an active participant. Ryan and Romney lost in 2012 and yet here they are as the stalwart flailing curators of the Republican sideshow it has become. Exhibit A for failure.

Yet along comes Trump to ascend as the presumptive nominee and they grill him on what he is going to do to heal the Party? Surreal. If they were looking for a good scapegoat to their own failings, then they believe they found the perfect specimen.

After all, Trump is being blamed or accused of causing everything from dysfunction in Washington to our struggle with Islamic radicals and terrorism, to Republican Party failures. He is blamed for the failures of press and media to do their jobs. He single-handedly is the excuse for everything. A nuclear explosion in North Korea would be his fault. How much else can they hang on one person — an outsider, non-politician at that?

We now have the most divisive administration in modern times, and Hillary has been a big factor in it. Yet Trump is supposed to lead the entire free world in a chorus of Kumbaya — “come by here”. So much to demand of Trump, isn’t it? Well, that’s the game. The higher they can set those expectations, the better the chances he cannot meet them.

Meanwhile, what is expected or demanded of Hillary-Rotten-Clinton? Oh, that she not be indicted in a current administration that seems to have no will to prosecute her anyway. Really, what is her mission? Her agenda is the same as Obama’s — to destroy America under a ruse of hope and change — and continue that to its natural conclusion.

Everyone, including Republican estabo insiders, is setting Trump up for failure. As long as no responsibility for the current condition of catastrophe points back at them.

So if you thought Benghazi, servergate, ISIS and terrorism, or the scandals of Obama and Clinton mattered, you’d be wrong. What matters is can Trump unify and solve all the genetic problems the illustrious insiders have caused? It is repulsive and revolting.

The estabos’ feud, bitch and grudge match is now with the voters — not just Trump.

RightRing | Bullright

A fast moving analogy

[barely satire]
My friend Gene and his wife are big NASCAR fans. (duh!) Recently, he was comparing politics to racing: ‘If drivers promise not to do certain things, to try to win, it would be ridiculous’, he said. To which I said ‘if they did, somebody would take advantage of it. Or, someone would lie.’

It dawned on me that technique could give the race to the worst guy. Everyone promises not to do this or that, and the one guy who does not live up to the bargain wins. But isn’t that how we got Obama?

McCain said “I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

And “No, ma’am. He’s a decent family man…not an Arab,” McCain said. “We want to fight, and I will fight, but I will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, and I will respect him.” Then Romney took certain things off the table and wouldn’t talk about them. What happened?

In Illinois, team Obama successfully played the record chase. When Republicans tried that with Obama it was deemed out of bounds, off limits. “Records… you’re just birthers.” Republicans agreed. Then Obama used the worst tactics. That’s just politics, they said.

Republicans said, ‘we won’t play dirty politics, we’ll run a clean campaign.’ Obama ran the dirtiest campaign he could. He won. Then he said I won fair and square, “I won.”

Would they do that in NASCAR?

However, candidates and drivers would do well to remember, there are always plenty of diehard fans waiting for a 4-car pileup, and are disappointed when they don’t see one.

Update:
In Gene’s words — “I would never get in a race car if the crew said this car can’t win”.

Message to Romney

My message to Mitt — [CC: RNC]

floating message in a bottle
This may not be agreeable to some people, but it is just my opinion.

Mitt, you are so well-versed and proper about things but you need to study up on making a graceful exit. My issue with this goes deeper than an appearance in an interview. It’s a bigger problem.

First of all, this is contrary to what you did between 08 and 2012 elections. Then, you deliberately took an ultra-low profile. You played games on whether you would run or not. But you organized secretly behind the scenes and coerced support within the RNC establishment – “below the radar” as your aides suggested.

Why you played “hide and seek” games is beyond me; most of which probably ended up damaging your campaign in the end.

I suggest you were wrong about that political strategy then as you are wrong about taking  on a public campaign now. On a minor note, might I also suggest you take a course on Alinsky tactics since you still don’t seem to understand them? While your campaign was in full swing, you did not take on the radical left,  so why would anyone expect you to now? Or is your motivation for reentrance onto the political stage more for “influence” like between elections?

Anyway, I for one think its time we move on. We have enough to worry about with elected reps not listening to the voters.

So I’m placing an ad, here is a draft:

WANTED IMMEDIATELY: a conservative (leader) with an honest to goodness set of testicles, not ashamed to apply them. Must share knowledge of the real threat facing America. No on the job training; must have experience dealing with loony lefties and their lying “mouthpieces”. Pay to commensurate with abilities – not all in “currency”.
Must be able to function outside support network. No babysitting or focus group services. Only died in the wool conservatives need apply. Strong backbone and stomach is required, frequent heavy lifting involved. Serious inquiries only! – 1 000 fixitUS

What if Romney won

If Romney had won, we would be a few weeks into a new administration and the questions would be flying fast and furious from the media. There would be so much to harass criticize Romney over. Media would have to hold secret group sessions just to decide which of the many criticisms they would attack Romney on, since his taxes were published and still fodder for attack dogs. (no shortage of them) “Is he a certified criminal?” Why even ask?

They would no doubt ask, “what are you doing about the sputtering economy?” … “and what exactly are you going to do about the debt CRISIS? You cannot ignore it.” They would chant about bringing the troops home from Afghanistan.  His innaugural speech would be labled one of the worst, completely lacking content or specifics.

By now we would be still going through a massive list of pardons and a final of flurry executive orders Obama left. All irreversible they say.

Of course, mad dog media would be all over the initial appointments, looking for every minority. The word “controversial” would be attached to everything Romney says or does.  They’d tell him he has no mandate for judges or anything else.

The Senate would be in denial and telling him they will not rubber stamp anything he wants.  And they’d be making sure he understands the limits of executive power. They would lecture us on the “Advice and Consent” responsibilities of the Senate. The word “bipartisan” would be used in every other paragraph just to remind us how partisan Mitt is.

Everyone who remotely knew Romney would be interrogated to find the “secrets” and “truth” Mitt is hiding.

They would debate on how many weeks of a honeymoon he deserves while they aggressively go after anything he says or does. And they’d pick apart any White House trappings or changes the first lady makes. And all the stories about his family they stumbled across over the campaign would be lined up and ready to hit the front pages — after a brief, invisible honeymoon of course.

Oh, what a different story it would be, from the Marxist left.

There suddenly is a whole ot of front page material with all the issues they’ve been ignoring for four years. There had better not be any vacations planned soon with all this urgency about the economy, debt, and this mountain of issues to deal with.

And then the first lady “is no Michelle Obama…how will she ever manage – if she can?” Basically, the media declares they’ve been given a mandate to challange everything.(its a whole different world now) After all, Mitt had no mandate for anything.

Of course there’s always the blatant racism…. so much to write and say about that. All those disenfranchized voter suppression problems to have months of hearings on. “Racism” would be a byline in news broadcasts and echoed from street corners. “Remember, he’s a Mormon too.” So much to say about that.

And we would be less than a month into his term. Who knows what they’d be like in the second year.

Oh well, back to an even uglier reality.

A Meeting: Obama, Romney?

So Obama wants to have a meeting with the guy they labeled a tax cheat, that killed a woman, who is out of touch with Americans, who wants to outsource all our jobs, and who has money in a Swiss bank account. (etc, etc.)

A while back, Dana Perino said on Fox that Romney should get off the stage, go away, suggesting we don’t need to hear from him. I agreed and havent’t changed my mind. It seems every statement he makes is more fodder against Republicans, and the left calls it a gaffe anyway.

So why a meeting? Is his role as a whipping post for Democrats not quite finished? What is the deal? Does the Liar in Chief want new ideas? Seriously, would Obamassiah be interested in anything Mitt says? Is this another self-serving grandstanding of Obama….to tell everyone “I won”?

No doubt all we will hear is Obama’s side of it anyway. Or is it yet another opportunity for Obama to pander to his base?

Why oh why?

Wisdom from Abroad

 
Here is someone who took a look at this election from afar. In a piece on the Gates of Vienna, titled “Cowards Lose”, he mentions all the stories about problems within Ohio and Florida. But you would never know or hear it from the mainstream media. And, at least from what I heard so far, Democrats have dropped the charges about disenfranchised voters or all thei criticism of new voter ID policies. All I have seen is a gloating over the win.

He leads off with this:

“Barack Obama Reelection Signals Rise Of New America,” crowed Howard Fineman at Huff-Po on the night of Barack Obama’s re-election to the presidency. “President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.”

True, I’d heard Fineman say pretty much that on air that night. It shouldn’t shock me but… “moving beyond ” all that? What is he drinking, did he see the same campaign I did? Obviously not, this Campaigner-in-Chief politicized every one of those continually, in a pandering fever never witnessed in America before.

Takuan Seiyo writes about the margins in Ohio and in Allen West’s district.(Florida for that matter) Isn’t it possible that those problems made a difference?

Of course, lib-progs would call them spurious claims but the left has made a mockery out of our electoral system. Anything that doesn’t fit their ideology is discarded — just like Obama does.

I was recently trying to relate it to something and could only come up with an analogy between two TV shows. (something people might understand) For Libs it was like American Idol does Washington. Or it was like Survivor to others. Evidently, American Idol won the competition.

Fast and Furious, Benghazigate, Solyndragate move over. I guess that is all irrelevant along with the means of his reelection, or even his first election.

Ref article: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/11/cowards-lose.html

Now we’re told Obama will speak tomorrow, “substantively”. Why should he start now? (not that he will) He’s avoided any substance for years.

Changing the Dynamics

 

Remember Kerry’s infamous statement, after firing his campaign manager, that he was “changing the dynamics”.

What’s ironic now that Romney won the debate is that Kerry was Obama’s debate coach. Is that hillarious?

All bets are off and apparently those early celebration plans for Obama will be put on hold, with the Kolbe beef order. Everyone can have a bad night. But comparatively how bad? He told us after the attack on our embassador in Libya that they had a “bad day” loosing 4 people. I’ll bet to Obama that day did not compare to his evening in Colorado. What a shame he is probably a lot more concerned about this night than that “day”, enough to change his itinerary a little.

Obama always was a demogogue and idelogue, nothing more. The agent of change is not really the change agent. Surprise. “Mr Obama, you are now entering reality. We will be landing in a few moments. Fasten your seatbelt, you will experience heavy turbulance and a very rough landing.” (you may want to put your head between your knees and brace yourself too)

Even throwing out a life line for 100 thousand new teachers could not save him. I particularly liked Mitt’s use of the phrase “trickle down government”. It was a grand slam for which Obama has no response.

And despite stealing more speaking time than Mitt from early on, about 4 min total, it could not save his defenseless record. All the extra talk could not help. It is unexplainable. Then he threw out a Hail Mary to Bill Clinton who could not protect him. That was a classic example of sophistry. He attempted to claim that merely putting tax rates back to what they were under Clinton would recreate the economic windfall of those years. This is equivilent to telling the patient to click his heels three times and wish himself well.

So trying to recreate the effects of a booming economy will cause one. Gravity will now be reversed. Except for one thing: that was a completely different economy than now, minus a whole lot of our national debt. Clinton had the good fortune of a tech bubble where Obama has a debt bubble, which cannot continue forever. But he’s still blowing it up. If you looked up “specious” in the dictionary, this should be the example.

Still, it made for entertainment. Seeing Obama call out the Hollyweird crowd to campaign for him was a great trailer. Maybe they will soon realize what Obama meant by “all in”. Then they have to get the hang of how it works. When you say “forward” you are supposed to be looking and thinking backward, say toward Clinton…or anywhere except to reality. Just keep repeating the word “forward” while Obama talks about the past. And when Obama talks about saving Medicare he means cutting payments to providers, to plug the giant sucking sound in ObamaCare. Where’s Ross Perot when you really need him?

Pre-debate Spin Saturates Media

 

The spin machine must be cranked up to max in Chicago and Washington. As the focus is shifting to the debates, the Democrats theme is that Mitt has had more practice and is fairly good at debating. (Gibbs, Messina, Axelrod et al) So the White House appears to be parsing expectations for Obama, at least the first debate – domestic issues.

“Gov. Romney is a very skilled debater,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. His boss, by contrast, is long and windy, “so clearly the governor has the advantage.” — exactly what Gibbs said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/22/debates-obama-camp-downplays-expectations-romney-looks-for-game-changer/#ixzz27LUvCA12

I saw a consensus among Dem operatives pointing out Romney has done a lot of debate prep already and playing down the abilities of Obama. What reason could they have for patting Mitt on the back? It’s about winning and losing, just like the election. Hedging his bets. If debates don’t go well, Obama can dismiss them as irrelevant: “What really matters is the election”, they’ll say. Is that his strategy, to discount the relevance of debates as overblown?

If the media does not spoon-feed Obamessiah a victory: first declare it anyway, then they redefine the weight of debates. He’s usurped everything else he can get his hands on, so why not the debate process too? Thereby try to deprive Republicans of any claim of victory.

Or basically, just what you would expect from a self-serving jackass.

What Debates?


October 3, 2012
Topic: Domestic policy Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

1st debate – Domestic Policy (Lehrer)
VP debate – Foreign and Domestic Policy
2nd debate – Town Hall: questions foreign and domestic policy (Crowley)
3rd debate – Foreign Policy (Schieffer)

Team O calls “Interference” on Israeli PM

Guardian UK reports:

Binyamin Netanyahu gambles on Mitt Romney victory

Israeli prime minister denies interfering in the US election, but his relationship with Barack Obama grows more antagonistic

 


Harriet Sherwood in Jerusalem
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 20 September 2012

The political TV advertisement featuring Binyamin Netanyahu and the slogan “The world needs American strength, not apologies” is likely to fuel claims that the Israeli prime minister is interfering in the US presidential election in support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

It comes increasing during anxiety that Netanyahu has overplayed his hand in displays of warmth and enthusiasm for Romney while his relationship with Barack Obama grows more antagonistic. Some say Netanyahu is gambling too heavily on a Romney victory on November 6 and that if Obama is re-elected, the potential blowback could be damaging not just for the prime minister but for Israel itself.

Mark Regev, Netanyahu’s spokesman, said the advertisement had “not been co-ordinated with us, we were not consulted and no one asked us for our permission”. In an interview last week with the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli prime minister rejected accusations of interference in the election, saying they were “completely groundless”.

But, according to Yossi Verter writing in Haaretz recently, US officials had relayed to a “very senior Israeli figure” that “in the eyes of the Democratic administration, Netanyahu is perceived as campaigning on behalf of Mitt Romney.” To the president and his aides, the Israeli prime minister’s actions look like “crude, vulgar and unrestrained intervention in the US election campaign”.

Joe Klein of Time magazine described Netanyahu’s recent behaviour as “an unprecedented attempt by a putative American ally to influence a US presidential campaign”.

The editor of the New Yorker, David Remnick, said Netanyahu seemed “determined, more than ever, to alienate the president of the United States and, as an ally of Mitt Romney’s campaign, to make himself a factor in the 2012 election”.

[…/]

Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/20/binyamin-netanyahu-gambles-on-mitt-romney

Romney shows slight edge

And the survey says, according to Rasmussen:

Friday, August 31, 2012
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting support from 45% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

Today is the first time Romney has held the advantage in a week. See daily tracking history. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters now see Obama as Very Liberal, and 30% see Romney as Very Conservative.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Demonizing Ryan

The fear is all over the Democratic Party. They like to rerun the last election — like some generals fight the last war. Thus, they are all out to demonize Ryan. If they could just dehumanize him because the more people see of him the more humanized he becomes.

Obama’s “bitterness” is now at its worst, to say nothing about his “antipathy” toward Ryan. And he is clinging, to whatever he can.

Ryan is not what the left paints him as. So they do what they did to Palin in 08, they campaign against him. Is this the first time an incumbent pres ran against a VP candidate? Obama also has a knack for going after anyone on the other side who is popular, aside from him. How dare anyone upstage him. For that I suppose Ryan is a threat to Obama.

I will not list all the things they’ve called Ryan or his plans, just so far. But even Obama called his plan social Darwinism or a Trojan Horse — he should know something about that. Just like the campaign shot Obama took at his imitation press conference that “you can’t just make things up.” I wonder if he could copy that memo to Harry Reid?

Obama has his composite “Julia”, which I guess qualifies as a plan to him.

But Ryan actually has some plans and has done lots of analysis to get there, as opposed to Obama’s demagoguery and demonization. Oops, Obama said he wasn’t running a negative campaign. There’s a big tall one for you.

Out of touch, out of mind


How out of touch is Barack Obama? That is a serious question, and I’m not sure of the answer. Everyone heard Biden’s comment last week, which was to get a cheap laugh while making a point. But Obama has his own “you didn’t build that”, among other comments like “the private sector is doing fine”. So it does indicate he is on a different plane than the American people. Seeing how he hops from fundraiser to fundraiser with celebs and the wealthy Hollywood contingent to feed his campaign. When he does speak off the cuff, or unattached to the teleprompter, he often sounds disconnected and other times aloof .

After all, the unemployment rate has even ticked up. Energy prices have skyrocketed under his watch. Scandals surround the administration from leaks to Fast and Furious. Solyndra-gate and the list is growing. The economy is on life support, barely breathing. We see the results and consequences of a long recession on his watch. And then he sounds so condescending talking about business owners. He throws around his rich should pay their fair share mantra. At the same time he says “the private sector is doing fine.” Whenever his statements are challenged, he says his words were taken out of context. This has been his response since 08 that people have taken his words out of context.

But look at the “context” that he’s making these statements: the economy on the precipice of a cliff – jobs being America’s number one concern along with the economy. And he’s out making statements like that. That “context”, of his statements, tells us a lot about Obama. Couple that with Biden’s poor attempt to pander and make cheap jokes. An off comment, or out of touch?

But it doesn’t stop there. Feeling a little heat in the campaign he does a flurry of friendly interviews. So he has to make his case and his campaign never ends. Okay. But look at the interviews he does, being asked what his favorite Mexican food is? Americans are so curious about that. Nothing else to ask, no other questions? Yet he hasn’t and will not have a press conference, even drawing complaints from the WH press pool. Then, when asked in an interview, why is it naturally a question about his workout music genre, to which he rattles off a list as if prepared?

No, president Obama, Americans are more concerned about “context” of the country and the condition of the economy, and their fears about the expense and effects of ObamaCare, and the context of his dismal record. That is the context of his remarks. So don’t lecture people on “context”. His statements are out of context and out of touch.

Or while he goes to play his 120 rounds of golf – and he must have improved as president with all that practice. It seems its Obama taking things out of the context of his failed record. Ignoring the context of a hurting country while he defiantly plays class warfare or hounds Republicans about Romney’s tax records. Does America care about Romney’s tax records?

Yet while Obama campaigns around the country, he repeatedly mentions his scholarships and their role in his “career” (for lack of better word). So where did these scholarships come from that were so important and why did he have to seal them off? What is there to hide? He demands Romney put out his tax records. He has mentioned the scholarships several times making them central to his campaign. But he won’t even tell us the source of those scholarships. Then he lectures us on context. Why doesn’t Obama put it in context for us?

What about the context? Why does he ignore and take everything out of context… America’s context? The context of the will of the people. The problems we face, his failed policies. Americans care about context. That context is everything.

RNC says Obama is doing softball interviews

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-mock-obama-softball-interviews-185024556–abc-news-politics.html


His last formal White House press conference was March 6.

I’d like to know why he insists on taking America out of context?

Star Search of the Right


There have been a few news dribbles about the convention.

Much has happened under the radar, at least behind the media’s back. One of Obama’s campaign co-chairs is getting a speaking slot at the RNC convention in Tampa. The now former Democrat, Artur Davis, is the big notable mention. This ought to shine a light on the sweeping disenchantment with the Hopenchange bandwagon from hell.

I’m not sure that giving a prominent spot is justifiable though. I mean especially from someone who actively worked so hard to ring in this inexperienced divider in chief and his class warfare brigade in 08. Sure its worth acknowledging. But other than being seen as just a turncoat now, I don’t know the larger purpose. Is it to say, “many of us have woken up” and give voice to the disenchanted former supporters? I’m just not sure how much good it will do.

But much like a few people have already said about the convention, it may be more informative to see who is not on the speaking roster than to judge it by those who are. That may be more the point. It doesn’t seem they will be enlisting Allen West for a much-celebrated slot.

Then there is McCain. Well, at the risk of being redundant, I’d much rather hear what Allen West has to say than endure another canned speech from McCain. (especially as some of his former advisors seem poised to sabotage this ticket) And who knows what McCain might say or do by election day? “Stay tuned…”

So the real story might be who is not on the RNC roster.

Hey, how about Robin Leach opening the convention? Seems they are doing everything else to try to choreograph the event with just the right ambience.

Ref:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/meet-the-republican-national-convention-speakers/2012/08/14/36b1f242-e18c-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_gallery.html#photo=14
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/16/gop-convention-to-feature-former-obama-co-chair-artur-davis/

Romney to make VP announcment


So Romney will make his announcement at 8:45 am Saturday. All indications are it is Paul Ryan. If not there will be disappointment.

Clearly Mitt moved it up to hopefully impact the race. Sure, after all reports say the polls have dropped. He wants to boost the polls. Well, they will say it will fire up the base and Tea Partiers.

But, hello, the base is fired up and they’re mad as hell. Its Romney’s campaign that looks like it needs a match to be fired up. And maybe we can put an end to idiotic remarks coming from his chief talking heads. Its not Republicans or that base that are the problem.

The survey says: media bias running wild

The big bash: 86 percent of Romney coverage negative

By Jennifer Harper – The Washington Times

Media bias has gone from bad to ridiculous.

During Mitt Romney’s overseas visit earlier this week, 86 percent of the coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC “emphasized Romney’s perceived gaffes,” according to a content analysis of 21 major news stories by the Media Research Center, which also compared Mr. Romney’s trip to a similar excursion made by President Obama in 2008.

The results: The broadcast networks committed 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage to Mr. Romney, and 92 minutes of “gushing” to Mr. Obama.

“The near unanimous negativity of their coverage is as outrageous as it is transparent,” observes the center’s founder Brent Bozell. “It’s impossible to look at the fawning coverage of Obama’s trip in 2008 compared to the sliming Romney has taken in 2012 and not see a clear agenda on the part of the liberal media.”

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/3/big-bash-86-percent-romney-coverage-negative/

There’s a surprise!

Other post: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/mitts-on-track/

Mitt’s on track

Mitt might be back in the USA now, but the soundtrack from the trip will not be forgotten quickly. It was not meant to be. Stainstream had all these descriptions of gaffes and controversy all through their media coverage. Pictures of reporters shouting at him as he walks away.

What, no effigies burning yet? I’m dissapointed; they’re slipping. I guess it was short notice. One would think it was a disaster. So the Brits were pretty hard on him, just like the US press. I wish they had half this much criticism for Obama when he was running. No, that was a love fest. A glory tour. Even as Obama made mistakes and insulted people here at the same time, they still fawned over him. Maybe they don’t like Romney too well, you think?

You know what that did? It made me like Romney even more. If they don’t care for him, that’s an asset not a problem. So stick another feather in Romney’s hat, they are not fond of him. Boo-hoo. Great, I don’t want anyone in the WH that Brits are in love with. I don’t want romance. That just confirmed the problem with Obama. I remembered another reason I can’t stand Obama.