Tag Archives: Romney’s Advisors

Perhaps not,I explain why/Who will Romney pick as veep? A conservative. – WashPo #2012 #GOP

Who will Mitt Romney pick as vice president? A conservative. – The Washington Post


RRD:Of course notwithstanding the delusions of some Romney supporters,Romney is not,in fact the nominee.
But he is the most likely nominee,and speculation on who he would nominate is legitimate.

Cillizza floats the standard three candidates:Jindal,Christie and Rubio,and he argues,(not without reason) that Romney will follow in the footsteps of his predecessors & pick a ”opposite number” so to speak.

I am not convinced of that.

First picking a Vice Presidential Candidate is not like picking out a shirt or a car,neither the shirt or the car can refuse to be picked,a Vice Presidential Candidate can.

They may not believe that the Presidential Candidate will win,or they may not be ready,or like Mitch Daniels,they have family members who may object.

Second,Romney is a creature of the establishment,& one of the oft repeated claims of Rockefeller Republican Strategists is that Mccain made a blunder in choosing Palin,not simply because she was a unknown,(or a “incompetent” or the Liberal’s version of the Whore of Babylon and Jezebel rolled into one et-al),but that he made a mistake simply by choosing ANY conservative,since Mccain needed to differentiate himself from Bush & demonstrate his ”Maverickyness” (as Palin,or Tina Fey might have put it),by picking someone like…Tom Ridge,or even Joseph Lieberman.
Now of course most Republicans would recoil at the thought of picking a pro-choice Republican for the Vice Presidency,but after all,
they ”would vote for a bag of cement if it had a R after it” &
“where will they go”.

Liberal Republican Strategists have invested heavily in the idea that Conservatism is toxic,and that elections are won “from the center”.

And who do you think is advising Mitt Romney?

But Mccain did pick a Conservative?

Yes and “look what happened”,the Liberal Republican Strategists(LRS?)would say.

If you accept the deluded notion that your base has no choice but to vote for the party’s candidate
,if you accept the premise that morale is irrelevant,& that the base is “locked in”,then why not do whatever you think will win over the independents and pick the most liberal Republican “Modernizer” you can(with the added benefit of poking those ”wingnuts” in eye ,while you’re at it), (fn1)

It is important to remember that Romney includes among his advisors some of the same people who worked for Charlie Crist.(fn2)
And it is also important to recall that Romney,is,well,Romney.

He is a Northeastern,Liberal Republican.

Romney is the type of person who would readily accept the arguments of the LRS’ that the base ”has nowhere to go”.
The man lives in a wholly different world than the,average Republican,much less the average Conservative.

He may pick a Conservative,or a pseudo-Conservative like Christie,or he may pick a Moderate.
Time will tell,if he gets the.nomination.
My guess is that he does not want to ”repeat Mccain’s mistake”.
I wonder if Tom Ridge,or Colin Powell for that matter,is open to being the nominee.



Murphy suggests Tom Ridge as VP.

First Bad Idea From Murphy in A While – National Review Online


To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell Mike Murphy – NY Daily News


”But facts are facts. An inexperienced governor of a small state, she lacked the experience to be President and brought nothing to the ticket except a surefire knack for exciting voters who were already reliably Republican. It was a strategically awful choice, and I said so – both on and off microphone – at the time. Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She “excites the base.”

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base – those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it – must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.”

RRD:Set aside for a moment what you think of Palin,note instead that Murphy believes that the party base ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it”;that is,that they do not care about who the candidate is,or what the candidate does,they are robots without political beliefs,without convictions,without ideals,without values,they are just useful idiots to be mocked,ignored,& betrayed with impunity & yet still be expected to go door to door,day after day,week after week,knocking on thousands of doors,making phone call after phone call,since they ”will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R …attached to it”.

I am reminded of the lines from Atlas Shrugged “Oh,you’ll always produce…”,& ”you’ll do something Mr.Rearden…”.
It also reminds me of the painting Ayn Rand mentioned in “The Money-Making Personality”,a monk,a missonary,returns from preaching the Gospel to the people,to speak with high ranking officials of the Catholic Church.His hands are bloody,cut,he has suffered tremendously for his beliefs.
He tells them of his struggle,and the results.
They are living in luxurious surroundings.
One of the Cardinals is asleep.
One of the Cardinals plays with a dog.
The third looks at the monk with a expression of bewildered contempt,as if to say “why spend your time on hard work,when you can have relax and have fun like we do”.


See below:

Romney Campaign Run by Charlie Crist’s Political Aides


RRD:For a contrary view see:

Romney’s Crist people aren’t really Crist people | Saint Petersblog


RRD:Rubio also came to Romney’s defense,rather oddly calling the man who gave us Romneycare, a “conservative”,(perhaps because Romney endorsed him?)

Rubio: “Mitt Romney Is No Charlie Crist” | The Weekly Standard


RRD:My view?
Yes,Romney has many advisors,including those who have worked on the campaigns of Crist AND Rubio,and yes the fact that these people are among his advisors, doesn’t mean that he will take their advice.
However they are,nonetheless,his advisors,and they did,in fact ,advise Crist,and while taken in isolation, the fact that he has ex-Crist advisors is not that damning in and of itself,we are talking about Mitt Romney;someone who is known for pandering to liberals,and for reversing himself,someone whose senoir campaign advisor made the infamous Etch-a-Sketch comment,and someone whose aides reportedly told Politico that they believe that Romneycare would help Romney in the general election.


Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com


Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Politics

Politico:Romney advisors think Romneycare will help him with independents by showing his ”compassion” #obamacare #2012 #teaparty

Mitt Romney or not, GOP is coming for ‘Obamacare’ – Alexander Burns – POLITICO.com


…..“The debate right now is fundamental and there’s one candidate in this race who can actually make the contrast that is necessary to take the Republican position, conservative position,” Santorum said outside the Supreme Court on Monday. “There is one candidate who is disqualified to make the case.”

RRD:I am not a Santorum supporter,(he has problems of his own),but Santorum,(and Gary Johnson and Ron Paul,when you can find coverage of them),are correct,this is a fundamental moral issue and one of Individual Rights ,and the GOP is reverting full-bore to its suicidal mee-tooism that helped give us Obamacare.

For why this is a disaster see:

“Obama’s Atomic Bomb: The Ideological Clarity of the Democratic Agenda” by John David Lewis


….”Romney and his aides view things differently: Since the outset of his 2012 run, they have privately predicted that “Romneycare” would be an asset in the general election that could help cast Romney as a kinder, gentler kind of Republican that swing voters can embrace.

More recently, Romney has sought to reassure conservatives by vowing to scrap the federal law “root and branch,” though he has also pointed to the Massachusetts law as an example of his compassion as a governor.”

RRD:From the “Etch-a-sketch” comment to this,(assuming it is accurate),the man’s own campaign is vindicating the predictions and fears of his critics.

….”Regardless of how swing voters ultimately view the Massachusetts law, it still presents a quandary for the rest of the Republican Party, which has typically been able to paint in the broadest of rhetorical strokes when discussing the federal law and its impact on individual rights. And softening Romney’s image is not necessarily an urgent priority for Republicans focused on the House and Senate.”…

RRD:Translation:Romney will kick the legs out from under our efforts to defeat statism,and Republicans in the House and Senate are frightened that Romney will so alienate the GOP Base that they will not vote,and Congressional Republicans will be slaughtered in 2012.
If true,such is the “practicality” of the GOP.

“Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, a Romney endorser who has also brought suit against the federal law, said that the party would have to be “slightly more nuanced” in its health care messaging with Romney at the top of the ticket.

RRD:Those who participated in the 2008 campaign know exactly what is meant by “nuanced”:Self-defeating hypocritical partisanship that,at best,undercuts the efforts of those of us who oppose and condemn the Individual Mandate on principle,and at worst leads some to sell their souls by shilling for a position that they never would have taken had not a Republican taken it.

There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything,” he said. “As a matter of public policy, those guys are goners. But I think there’s a lot of people in between that understand the difference, where states can make their own decisions.”

RRD:”There are people that, as a matter of public policy, think they shouldn’t be required by anybody to do anything”,indeed,they include the Founding Fathers,Objectivists,Libertarians,and a significant portion of the Teaparty and Conservatives;including some of the most dedicated,passionate and energetic activists.And what does he mean by “goners”?That they will not vote for Romney?
Not true,I will not,but I know many who believe that Romney is the “lesser of two evils”.
Or does he mean “goners” in that they are marginal figures?If the latter then he has it backwards:the argument that the Individual Mandate violates individual rights is what has motivated people to oppose it,(due to their vestigial knowledge of,and respect for,the concept of individual rights),it is the narrow,legalistic argument that does not have wide backing.(And don’t get me started on the absurdist irony of the “states can make their own decisions”;on


what?Whether to violate individual rights?On the Individual Mandate?On Forced segregation?On Forced abortions?On Eugenics?On Slavery?)


Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Obamacare