Riehl World View

Conservatives Opposed To Mitt Romney In The General Election

You'll want to read this entire piece by Bill Jacobson.

If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said ”Yes.” I’m not so sure anymore.

That the Romney campaign embraces such people is one of the reasons a large segment of the Republican electorate is moving to a position they never thought possible:

I've already begun talking to some friends about forming an activist group, Conservatives Opposed to Mitt Romney in the General Election. It would not support Obama, but nor would it support Romney, only letting its opposition be known, while otherwise ignoring the presidential race and focusing on House and Senate contests in some key seats, especially for conservatives.

Again, read the whole thing. The GOP will not reform itself so long as it can ridicule and abuse genuine conservatives and count on their votes. If anything, Romney would more likely tarnish the GOP brand if elected and he has demonstrated such low character in his years of desperately seeking the White House, many of us are reaching the conclusion that he's not fit for the job.

There is a solid longer-term case to be made for a GOP House and Senate with Obama in the White House and a GOP that finally wakes up to the fact that it can not so consistently ignore and even malign conservatives.

Rich Lowry Was 12 When Reagan Was Elected And It Shows

That NRO's Rich Lowry would follow up his ignorance and sloppy incompetence as an editor over the Abrams, Lord dust up with a childish petulance suggests his temperament hasn't changed much since he was 12 years old when former President Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. Not only did he apparently drop the ball as a competent editor when publishing Elliott Abram's initial misleading piece, he seems to still have no serious grasp of the issue at hand on March 21, 1986 when Newt Gingrich addressed the House with the special order in question.

If Lowry understood the actual issue and pertinent history, he would appreciate that Abrams attacked Newt Gingrich from the Left, or soft side of national defense that was actually in opposition to Reagan in the sense it sought to undermine him at the time.

Gingrich, on the other hand, was a Reagan ally and his special order was, in fact, more in line with Reagan, than was it opposed to him. Actually, it wasnt opposed to Reagan at all. If anything, a knowledgeable individual would have understood Gingrich's speech as, in a very real sense, contextually cheering Reagan on to fulfill his own vision, while simply pointing out deficiencies inherent in Reagan's administration given the complexity of the political and administrative challenges at hand.

Gingrich was also echoing the sentiments of such luminaries and staunch Reaganites as those he invoked in the special order no one at NRO seems interested in pointing out, see below. If Lowry's ignorant premise in defense of Abram's is to be believed, then we must lump Will, Krauthammer, Kristol and Kirkpatrick in the bash Reagan camp, too. Does anyone believe that foolishness, beside NRO's currently less than esteemed editor? I don't think so.

From the Gingrich special order in question: The fact is that George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Irving Kristol, and Jeane Kirkpatrick are right in pointing out the enormous gap between President Reagan's strong rhetoric, which is adequate, and his administration's weak policies, which are inadequate and will ultimately fail.

It would seem to me per the above, Gingrich had a pretty firm set of thinkers in support of the argument he was making with his special order and I'd stack them up against Rich Lowry given the subject in question any day of the week. Would Lowry now purport to know the history better than they, as well? Or, will he retract his piece? Clearly, if one is going to take Newt to task over this, the above named must be taken to task for bashing Reagan, as well.

This from Lowry's latest bit of adolescent-sounding tripe.

You can read it in all its glory here. (I suspect Newt’s fans will find it unerringly brilliant, while others will roll their eyes.) Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis called on NR today to retract Elliott’s piece. In light of all the above, I call on Joe DeSantis to retract his call for a retraction.

In point of fact, Gingrich didn't only aim to support Reagan against some voices in his own administration in a highly charged debate going on at the time, he also criticized his very own House, suggesting it too needed to be gotten into order. The critical passages highlighting that are in bold below. If I'm correct, instead of functioning as a competent editor and seeking out the complete special order to acquaint himself with the full and appropriate context prior to posting, Lowry simply ran the Abram's smear of Gingrich, perhaps as it fit the days dump on Newt narrative on behalf of NRO Foundation benefactor, Mitt Romney.

The gap between Ronald Reagan's United Nations speech in which he courageously called for support for freedom fighters in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, and Nicaragua, the gap between that speech and the reality of our pathetically incompetent efforts is a gap that should be a scandal if only we took it seriously.

The change for which Gingrich was advocating was not a change in Reagan, it was a change with regard to foot-dragging and undermining going on in Congress and Reagan's own administration - he was also arguing for the institutionalization of Reagan's policy so it continued on without him once he left office, both because Newt thought Reagan was so right and that others were intent on preventing said institutionalization for the longer term to extend Reagan's own vision in the particular area of foreign policy. That was not happening, which is the root - and the only root - of Gingrich's criticism at the time.

Of course, as appropriate Reagan's name would be invoked. He was the President, after all, one Gingrich clearly supported and fully agreed with on the pertinent issue. Should Gingrich have slighted him and not acknowledged him as Commander-In-Chief while making a point in support of Reagan's own vision?

In fact, Gingrich's audience was other than Reagan. It's that context that observers of this silliness like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and Jeff Lord who recall it first hand get, that a then 18 year old Rich Lowry apparently does not. Obviously, he never bothered to fulfill his charge as a competent editor and acquaint himself with it. As to what Abram's actual motivations may be for writing his smear in the first place, I know not. But, clearly, he slipped a fast one past an evidently incurious and disengaged Rich Lowry.  

Fourth, the burden be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with President Reagan's vision and have not fought hard enough to force the changes in the executive branch. We can hardly expect our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends on the left who do not agree with this policy or our friends who are pressured because as Democrats they believe Reagan is right, they exist in a caucus whose majority clearly does not believe Reagan is right, to lead the way in forcing the executive branch to become competent or to lead the way in articulating the case to the American people.

Newt's special order was actually a call to arms in support of Reagan, not some genuinely harsh criticism of the man himself - NOT IN THE LEAST!

The burden must be borne by House and Senate Republicans who agree with the President's vision, who are afraid of the transnational Soviet empire, who understand the Communist Cuban colonial army, and who understand that what we are doing today simply is not good enough.

Fifth, the burden of responsibility must be borne by our own political supporters who have not held our feet to the fire and who have not focused on results rather than intentions.

Call it a bit of now rather old and arcane high rhetoric dug up out of context to smear someone, or call it silly rhetoric as Lowry would seem to infer, perhaps as he must be a rather silly man himself to have taken his editorial responsibilities so lightly, but to fully appreciate its genuine motive and intent one would also need to appreciate the precise debate that was taking place at the time. Because individuals like Levin, Limbaugh and Lord, Rollins and others were there and know the subject as participants, or observers, as I know it, they understand this and, consequently, take great exception to the fraud that Rich Lowry perpetuated.

A mere eighteen years old when the floor speech was given, perhaps Rich Lowry was too overly fixated upon finding some next best acne medication at the time to have paid much attention to political and world events in March of 1986. Certainly, we can forgive the lad for that. But as he now holds the title of Editor at what was once a prestigious conservative publication such as NRO, hopefully it's not too much to expect Rich Lowry to do his homework before publishing Mitt Romney's oppo research next time out. Perhaps he could simply pass it along to Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, then no one would notice or care about it, as she doesnt appear to have any standards at all these days, given the insane garbage that she routinely spews out for Mitt Romney day in and day out.

Important Update: The Entire Gingrich Special Order NRO Used To Attack Newt

Update: While I continue to suggest people read it all and make up their own minds, I took a part from very early in to highlight in bold below. Now you tell me, was Newt criticizing Reagan, or members of the administration? More importantly, why did the editor of NRO, Rich Lowry ignore the obvious context of the item prior to allowing it to be published?

Given all the to do over a dispute between Jeff Lord and this post of his at AmSpec and Rich Lowry at NRO piling on after the original post by Elliot Abrams, here is the entire special order upon which Abram's attack was based. Read it and decide for yourself.

"Sincere, decent, committed anti-Communist Members of the House and Senate who question $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters and ask in vain for a strategy are fundamentally right. The Reagan administration has a huge gap between its President's correct visionary warnings of the transnational Soviet empire and the rest of the executive branch's incorrect, ineffective fumblings and inadequacies."

REFERENCE: Vol. 132 No. 36

TITLE: FREEDOM'S FUTURE: THE FREE WORLD AND THE SOVIET EMPIRE

SPEAKER: Mr. GINGRICH; Mr. WEAVER

TEXT: The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Georiga [Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 60 minutes.

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, this special order and one other which will follow is on freedom's future, the free world and the Soviet empire.

I want to focus on the reality of the Soviet empire, the Soviet transnational threat to freedom and security and the necessity for a sophisticated free-world response led by the United States.

Updated: Rich Lowry's Post On Lord's Alleged Distortion Down The Memory Hole?

Update: Lowry's NRO post is back up this morning, someone claimed it was a coding error. I've never seen that at NRO before. If so, it might suggest Lowry was doing some editing post-publication and somehow messed up the coding. But not my area, so who knows. He has, in my opinion, still doubled down on stupid and insulting as the original post content lacked context making it appear to be Gingrich bashing Reagan. That was misleading. That is NOT the case, see for yourself here.

I've heard of Friday night doc dumps, but not literally dumping documents already published without some form of acknowledgement. Most any responsible blogger would view that as a breach of protocol. What to make of this by NRO editor Rich Lowry? The title remains but the body of the post is gone for now.

Hmm, no response yet from Rich on Twitter. I guess we'll just have to wait. Below are screencaps of the original post from a reader who emailed same from before it disappeared, if one's interested. One should be able to click to expand the images and read them in sequence if desired.

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3 

Image 4

 

Romney's Defeat And GOP Disaster 1, 2, 3

Romney can't get angry about ObamaCare because he's the progressive who implemented RomneyCare. 

Moments later, as the discussion over Romneycare and Obamacare continued, Romney rebuked Santorum, saying, “First of all, it's not worth getting angry about.”

People think Obama is going to fight with Romney if he gets the nomination. He's not. He's going to fight with us. Here's how Obama beats Mitt Romney 1, 2, 3. Obama will remain presidential and conciliatory to Romney, playing him off of his base.

His not getting angry, implementing RomneyCare and all those clips in which Mitt admits he's progressive? The tactic is simple and powerful. Ultimately, it boils down to this - look Mitt, I know you agree with me on most of the issues, but you have to appease those knuckle draggers in your party to get the nomination. So, why don't you just admit it and let's have an honest Left of Center debate?

Meanwhile, Romney will be trying to portray himself as a Republican, though not a genuine conservative at that point. Still, it will accomplish two critical things. The hardcore base will become disaffected as they tire of hearing Romney's own words from the past spouting positons they reject. Some of them will stay home as a result.

Enough moderate voters will, after being exposed to two different Romneys on just about every issue, will conclude he doesn't mean whatever he's saying and is only saying it to appeal to us, and or get elected. Enough of them will reject him based only on that. Step 3 is Romney's defeat. I doubt if Obama even has to break a sweat.

Add in some of the 1% versus 99% nonsense in certain regions, Mitt's wealth and lack of political instincts and principles and the general election won't be in doubt. The capper will be the media. Romney is struggling even with his current air cover, as the GOP establishment media has embarrassed itself carrying his water. But they become irrelevant in the general election. Mitt will lose the one thing propping him up so brazenly, now. Once the mainstream media gets done exposing his warts, contrasted to an incumbent Obama the country already knows and that's all she wrote.

You had better start thinking House and Senate, because we'll need it, regardless of which of the progressives in the race end up in the Oval Office if Mitt's the nominee. And the smart money will be on Obama all the way.

Now, NRO, Elliott Abrams Caught Misleading As Part Of Yesterday's Gingrich Attack

Yesterday, I exposed the bogus C-SPAN video attack on Newt Gingrich allegedly showing him attacking Reagan. That was manufactured with creative editing. Today, Jeff Lord at AmSpec teams up with another source to expose yet another bogus attack on Newt from yesterday's pile on.

These hacks act like new media doesn't exist - so much for NRO's credibility. Lowry's the editor. He should answer for this.  Read the whole thing and spread it around, broadly.

So now I've read the Gingrich speech that is the source of all the hoopla. All seven, fine print pages worth of it exactly as it appeared in its original form.

I can only say that what Elliott Abrams wrote in NRO about Newt Gingrich based on this long ago speech is not worthy of Elliott Abrams.

Specifically, Abrams implies that Newt Gingrich was spewing mindless vitriol about Reagan on the House floor. Not only not so, it was quite to the contrary. Of President Reagan, Gingrich says:

"Let me be clear: I have the greatest respect for President Reagan.

Erick Erickson: Romney Can't Win

I'm often tough on Erick at RedState, so it's only right that I credit him for saying what needs to be said about Romney. He will never see the inside of the White House without a guest pass - and I'm OK with that.

The fix is in for Romney, which just means when he is crushed by Barack Obama a lot of Republicans will have a lot of explaining to do. Newt may not be able to win. But Romney sure as hell can’t beat Obama either if Newt can’t win. The problem remains — Gingrich supporters intrinsically know this to be so and are happy to die fighting. Romney’s supporters are still deluding themselves.

This is Rush Limbaugh from yesterday. Last night Mark Levin strongly made much the same point as regards Romney attacking Fred Thompson and Rudy in 2008. Keyword "hate." McCain couldn't even look at the man when he endorsed him this year.

If you want to know, why do these people hate Romney so much? In 2008, you recall, Huckabee and McCain hated Romney.

I believe it was Dan Gainor who pointed out via Twitter last night, in essence, the establishment may end up getting Romney through but they are quite possibly costing themselves the election to do it. Mitt Romney IS a progressive Republican who will say anything to get the nomination. The GOP sycophants that call themselves conservative in our Beltway media can shill and hide massive weaknesses for Romney all they want. Come a general election, they will be irrelevant and an Obama-friendly media will be calling the shots. Given the bias of so many GOP pundits in the primary, they will have no right to complain about it, as if it would even matter.

For Romney to attack every conservative from the Right, when he is so obviously and so far to the Left of them, demonstrates a complete lack of character and integrity. But slash and burn is all he has, as he has no core conservative principles and can't articulate them in an authentic manner. As much as I hate Obama's politics, as an individual, I have more respect for him today, than I do Mitt Romney. And I am far from alone. If the GOP doesn't realize what that will cost in soft support, or no support at all in the Fall, they are delusional.

With the advent of new media, too many people are seeing, talking and connecting today. The GOP in Washington is not the party of Reagan, it is a party on its way to the political wilderness for a decade or more without serious reform. The clearest sign of that is the support a Ron Paul pulls. It is 2 - 4 times what it should be and is a telling sign of just how many people have written, or are in the process of writing off the GOP establishment.

From RNC head, to primaries, now the primary, the GOP establishment consistently uses all its power to stomp down any conservative. Conservatives are fast approaching a breaking point. The GOP believes it will be fine because it will be all Obama come November. They are wrong. Mitt Romney has gone from unlikeable, to detestable and some of us are not going to forget it simply because the GOP thinks it can blow dog whistles around Obama.

When the GOP nominee formulated and implemented the model for ObamaCare, there's not enough distance between those two dogs to fight for much of anything come the general election. If nothing else, at least we can then finally be rid of Mitt Romney, who has been little more than a blight upon GOP presidential politics for two election cycles, now. The media structure enabling him may remain, but that too will be increasingly undersiege by grassroots-based new media. What we lack in money, we make up for in numbers. And we have the GOP's number thanks to the primary season, as well as several previous recent events.

Yesterday was a despicable day in American politics given the Romney/GOP garbage dump on former Speaker Newt Gingrich - and he wasn't even my guy. That the GOP sycophants and Team Romney will demonstrate absolutely no shame over it makes it abundantly clear that a GOP with Mitt Romney at the helm is unfit to govern America.

Romney Denounces Blind Trust As "A Ruse"

Seriously, there is no issue that you can't find Romney on both sides of. Here he is criticizing precisely what he's using today as an excuse for controversial investments. The man seems to have no integrity at all. Along with everything else, his lack of character will keep him out of the White House in the Fall. h/t ComfyPaws on Twitter.

"The blind trust is an age-old ruse," Romney told the Boston Globe in October of that year. "You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don't invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they're going to get an advantage from me."

Romney's personal financial filing showed that Romney's trust owned some potentially controversial stocks, including China Petroleum & Chemical, which has links to Sudan, and several gambling companies(including MGM and Harrah's, which were sold).

Romney Lied About Blind Trust For Fannie, Freddie Investments

Well, his lips were moving, what should we expect? Romney lies about everything.

The verdict, part two (were all of Romney's Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae investments in a blind trust?): False. Some of Romney's investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were outside of his trust, which means he could have known about them.

Video - Mitt Romney: Bob Dole Is The Last Guy I'd Want To Write A Letter For Me

Via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire. Bob Dole had written a letter to Rush Limbaugh in support of John McCain. Mitt Romney didn't seem to think very much of Bob Dole back then.

More Incompetence From Mitt: Didn't Hide Swiss Bank Account In Time

It's already been reported they wanted to close this account as it might present a political embarrassment. But Romney, who has been running for president basically forever, didn't get it closed in time for him to get away without disclosing it. What was this guy, the face of Bain, while other more competent execs did the heavy lifting? Between his poor campaign performance on the ground that cost him Iowa and South Carolina, I'm not seeing all the alleged competence he purportedly possesses.

Mitt Romney's campaign is amending the financial disclosure forms he filed in 2007 and 2011 to acknowledge that a Romney trust held a Swiss bank account, a detail that had been missing from both reports.

"An amendment is being filed to address this minor discrepancy," a campaign official told ABC News in an email Thursday in response to questions about the apparent omission.

Video Of Newt Bashing Reagan Is Bogus

There's a short excerpt of a 1988 C-SPAN video purportedly showing Newt Gingrich bashing Reagan when talking about how Bush, Sr. should run. As I suspected, it's edited to give a false impression. What you don't see is immediately after when Gingrich praises Reaganism and the Reagan platform. If you can't watch it all, it begins at about 2:30 in to confirm it's the same segment. It's the minute or two afterward you also need to hear to understand that Newt wasn't bashing Reagan at all.

He was merely saying, Bush isn't Reagan and the GOP needs something new to sell. He even points out the Reagan landslide, saying Reagan's platform won 48, or whatever states and was inclusive.

The full C-SPAN video, also embedded below.

Romney Mailer Quotes Jen Rubin, Tries To Make Newt Look Mentally Unstable?

I'm very serious when I say, I'm about at the point where I might have no problem dumping on Romney during the general election if he gets the nomination. I'm not sure I want a guy like this in the White House, regardless of what party he's in.

The New York Times reports today — based on unclear sourcing — that Romney has endorsed a strategy of raising doubts about Newt Gingrich’s “emotional stability.” Well, if that’s the case, here’s Exhibit A.

The mailer also prominently features a quote from my colleague Jennifer Rubin, describing Gingrich’s “well of sleaze.”

Ooo, Philip Klein Had A Brain Fart, As Romney Channels Obama And Alinsky

It's a shame to see a good guy embarass himself like this, but, hey, if someone wants to make themselves look stupid, I'm happy to accomodate and acknowledge their stupidity.

But if any candidate is using Saul Alinsky's playbook in this campaign, it's Gingrich himself.

Gee, I don't know, Phil, but I would think Mitt Romney buying into the Left's class warfare and trying to co-opt it for his campaign yesterday is a bit more Alinsky-ite, along with being incredibly dumb - per John McCormack.

Romney: "I'm not worried about the 1%...I want to help the 99%."

Hopefully, even our Beltway Mittwits can understand how self-defeating it is of Romney to validate the Left's entire argument. As he frames it, it's now about who is better suited to serve the 99% versus the 1%. Because Romney is of the 1%, Obama will win that argument hands down. Trying to equate Newt with Alinsky to carry water for the real Alinsky-ite Republican in the race, Romney, is beyond foolish. Perhaps Phil grew tired of contemplating his navel to have come up with that gem.

Phil can create all the silly theoretical constructs he wants, but he would better inform his readers by picking up on my Big Government item from yesterday in which I established a real and tangible connection between Mitt Romney and Saul Alinsky. I'd have more respect for Mitt if he stopped perpetuating the big lie that he's conservative, because he is not. He's a progressive Republican lying through his teeth to try and get nominated. If the GOP establishment succeeds in getting him through, it may very well have terrible ramifications for the party for years to come as I, like many, am about ready to give up on what is increasingly a dishonest big government party selling BS to its conservative base, so much so that a third party option is looking increasingly attractive.

Top quote from Harry Alford, President and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce: Saul Alinsky and the Romneys’ Progressive Activism

No, Mitt Romney is not a racist. As I researched history, over the years I have come to find that the opposite is the case. The Romney Family has a legacy of pro-civil rights, progressive activism and an understanding of how poverty and inequality can hurt people.

"I think you ought to listen to Alinsky," Romney told his white allies, according to T. George Harris’s 1968 book, "Romney’s Way." "It seems to me that we are always talking to the same people. Maybe the time has come to hear new voices," he said.

During all of this advocacy, his son, Mitt, was evolving as a man. He idolized his father and emulated his legacy.

GOP Hypocrisy: Obama's "Un-American," "Pro-Poverty" But Newt's Over The Top?

There's no such thing as "almost" un-America. Boehner's just using empty rhetoric because he thinks it leaves him room. My only point in citing this is, I'm sick of the GOP hypocrisy. If Gingrich said this, we'd be hearing how unelectable he is because it's reckless, or over the top. But apparently it's fine for the current Republican Speaker of the House to throw the word "un-American" around. Meanwhile, Mitch Daniels, who some want to backdoor into the nomination, said Obama's "pro-poverty" in the GOP response. You mean like, the "Foodstamp president"?

Washington (CNN) - House Speaker John Boehner Tuesday forcefully denounced the Democrats' campaign theme that they are for the middle class and Republicans are for the wealthy – saying the politics the president is running on are "almost un-American."

"This is a president who said I'm not going to be a divider, I'm going to be a uniter, and running on the politics of division and envy is – to me it's almost un-American," said Boehner.

The Speakership is a nation GOP position, the GOP response is national positioning by definition. It seems to me, Newt is more in-step with the GOP, than is the milquetoast, Romney. Speaking of Romney, Byron York has the real story of Newt's past ethics issues. You can see how much Romney is lying about that.

Given all the attention to the ethics matter, it's worth asking what actually happened back in 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Gingrich case was extraordinarily complex, intensely partisan, and driven in no small way by a personal vendetta on the part of one of Gingrich's former political opponents. It received saturation coverage in the press; a database search of major media outlets revealed more than 10,000 references to Gingrich's ethics problems during the six months leading to his reprimand. It ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong. After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

Via NRO: Mitt Looks Small, Newt Looks The More Presidential

I've already had my say on Mitt Romney's latest incarnation.

If Jay Nordlinger at NRO had this impression, what impression do you think Mitt left on voters that were tuned in? Way to go, Team Romney!

When Mitt brags about himself, and criticizes Gingrich, he does it very, very badly. I mean, both of those things. He is lousy in those two modes: bragging and criticizing.

Actually, Mitt is nagging Newt — picking at him — more than criticizing him.

I have to say, Mitt looks small, and Newt big. For the first time (in my view), Newt looks mature and Mitt juvenile. For the first time, Newt looks the more presidential.

Congrats Capitalists: Reagan Democrats Abandon Romney

They're called Reagan Democrats. And if our idiot GOP elites weren't so dumb so as to try and conflat what's interpreted as predatory capitalism, with ethical free enterprise, they wouldn't have invested so much effort in tarring the entire party with this brush.

But the most interesting finding is among whites with incomes of under $50,000: His negative numbers among them have jumped 20 points, from 29 percent to 49 percent.

The argument for free enterprise can be made effectively to this critical demographic. But that takes the right message and, just as importantly, the right messenger. Mitt Romney ain't it. If the capitalism uber alles crowd were half as smart as they think they are, they would have appreciated that, it was that Romney's critics were trying to point out and they were never attacking capitalism in any form worthy of defending.

Add the income issues to Romney being unable to project himself as anything but an elitist, and you have a real losing combination in a national election. What is it about this simple point that you fools can't understand? To re-invoke Reagan:

In late 1979, during an economic strategy meeting, Ronald Reagan was talking about his upcoming presidential campaign. At one point, somebody expressed concern that John Connally, the former governor of Texas and another presidential candidate, was gaining support among corporate chief executive officers, with all the financial support and credibility that that entailed. Reagan said this didn't bother him at all. "Let him have the Fortune 500," he said. "I want our campaign to stand for Main Street, not Wall Street. I want us to stand for the worker, the shopkeeper, the entrepreneur, and the small businessman." Reagan's instincts were right on the mark.

Romney Adviser To Jen Rubin: Mitt's Not A Man Of The People

Should it really surprise that Jen-Jen runs to Romney advisers for answers? No, of course not. However, this says so much about Romney I wanted to highlight it. The rest of her item is the usual trash Newt garbage direct from Romney central, as well. Proceed if you must. The portion I put in bold doesn't even make sense, for God's sake.

A Mitt Romney adviser had this reaction when I asked him about audience participation: "The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the guidelines for the general election. They don't allow audience participation. So it makes sense to select a nominee who can thrive under real-time conditions. If a candidate can't deliver a good performance without a cheering section, it's like picking an Olympic athlete to swim for us who is afraid of water."

Add that to this beyond annoying comment Romney recently made and you start to get a sense of the man. Esquire appreciates the significance of it. Emphasis mine.

"Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?"

Willard thereupon dropped a bomb on himself.

"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms.... But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach."

Those words, and the entitled attitude with which they are so luxuriously chandeliered, should kill any campaign being conducted in 2012.

They're correct. One doesn't need to portray Romney as an out of touch (and unconcerned) elitist. He does that all by himself. Whether it's an audience, or a discussion of income issues, other than his planned campaign little get togethers with the folks to show he cares, Romney projects the image of someone who believes the important decisions must only be left to the important people in important rooms - or isolated on debate stages. We wee folks, well, if we behave, they may let us look in from time to time. But, other than that, we should mind our own little business and not concern ourselves with important matters.

There's nothing conservative about that attitude - it's Leftist progressive, top down all the way - and beyond repulsive to the average American. One can only imagine the lack of transparency in a Romney administration. Romney may be a real fire cracker in the boardroom, but when it comes to the public square, he's a complete dud. And if you think Obama and Axelrod won't put him and this in the worst possible light in any campaign, leading to defeat, you have stars in your eyes - or maybe little sparklers, like dear old Jen-Jen.

Romney's Big Debate Flip Flop Could Sink Him

I've no problem saying that my immediate gut reaction to last night's debate was that Romney managed to stop the bleeding. All in all, I believe he scored a slight win on points and presence, though I'm not certain his attacks on Gingrich will get him the traction his supporters think - traction he very much needs at this point. It's the larger story playing out and the flip flop it entails that could sink him if Gingrich wants to capitalize on it, or it becomes the take away from last evening.

Romney is feeding into his own worst problem: who is Mitt Romney and what does he actually believe in? And just how arrogant are his consultants to think no one saw this coming? It's as if they think they're the smartest guys in the room because they've never bothered to take a look around inside it.

It remains to be seen how Romney’s sudden change of debate demeanor will play with voters who had previously watched him try to maintain an above-the-fray posture that seemed to look forward to the general election.

Romney struggled to sustain the intensity of his criticism for the duration of the evening, as the debate veered off into Florida-specific subjects such as sugar subsidies and the more than half-decade-old Terri Schiavo case.

Here is what I tweeted over 24 hours before the debate. It's precisely what happened; their only saving grace may be that when Newt gears it down a bit, it's not his best mode of operation. But the bigger problem is, Romney doesn't seem to have a mode of operation that comes with any authenticity in public settings.

They must think Newt's dumb. If he acts the statesman, doesn't take the bait, Mitt is left hanging out to dry as a desperate, angry guy.

On paper, take away the progressivism he demonstrated in Massachusetts and Romney is the ideal GOP candidate. I see that and understand why many like him as the potential nominee, especially some within the establishment. The problem is, once you get beyond the resume and take a good look at him, there's no way to confidently discern who, or what he is - or how he might govern. He's too much of a chameleon and not a very good one.

His changes, from progressive to conservative, or now from statesman to attack dog, are so convenient, transparent and, ultimately, clumsy and ham-fisted, it seems that, no matter what Mitt Romney does, one always comes back to his core problem - who the hell is Mitt Romney and what the heck does he actually believe in?

Until that problem is solved -and I'm not sure it can be, he may, or may not win the nomination, but I doubt he'll ever beat Obama. Like him or not, at least voters get a sense that they can know the man. I would not underestimate the value in that simple proposition.

Yes, we now have yet one more iteration of Mitt Romney. No longer the poised and presidential-looking frontrunner, the proverbial man from inevitable; now, he's the almost feisty, or perhaps too-dogged attack dog born of desperation because he was trounced in South Carolina. Well, golly gee whiz, folks, now, really, who among us didn't see that one coming?

I can't speak for everyone, but I know I did. And so too did Newt Gingrich, obviously. I'll reiterate and add one item. Maybe his partially misleading attacks on Gingrich will take Newt down a peg, or two, if not more. Unfortunately, this latest program him and push the button version of Mitt Romney may just take himself down along with him. That doesn't bode well for the GOP's positioning coming out of any convention, except perhaps to have innoculated both men a bit from their larger faults or problems. As for Newt Gingrich, I get that, too. Many don't like him. But at least one comes away with a sense that they may know him enough to pull the lever for what he's selling. And that, more than anything, is what matters to me as we face off against Obama come November.

They must think Newt's dumb. If he acts the statesman, doesn't take the bait, Mitt is left hanging out to dry as a desperate, angry guy.

 

Romney Flip Flops, Abandons Capitalism On Florida Housing Issue

via Memeorandum -- Hate to link TP, but it looks as though Mitt's die hard dedication to free enterprise has its limitations when an election is on the line. He'll be handing out a lot more than fifty bucks from his own pocket when Mittens is through if he ever sees the White House.

Before a GOP presidential primary debate in Nevada, the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation, Mitt Romney said that the government should not try and prevent foreclosures. “Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney explained.

That was then. Fast forward to Florida today. Why is Mitt Romney not defending capitalism and shifting Left? Oh, that's right, he wants to hit Newt on the housing issue. Typical Romney, his position is what it needs to be for that day's political situation. What's the point in electing someone when you have no idea what they'll do from day-to-day. He also seems pretty erratic these days. Hmm. Must be the pressure.

The idea that somehow this is going to cure itself all by itself is probably not real. There’s going to have to be a much more concerted effort to work with the lending institutions and help them take action which is in their best interest and the best interest of the homeowners.

Review: Ameritopia: The Unmaking Of America

I was honored to have been able to read my friend Mark's Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America some time back in a pre-publication form. It's a fascinating book both from a political and historical perspective. My review is posted in full at Big Government.

Timely because it cuts to the heart of the political struggle playing out in 2012, timeless in that it’s a concise yet thorough primer addressing the two core philosophies that drive all American politics, the depth of understanding of both Liberalism and Conservatism and the critical struggle between them it provides represents a wealth of information and insight to empower the Conservative and political activist of today.

Desperate Romney Using Leftist "Big Lie" Tactics: Newt Was Vindicated

Romney said there's no place for attacking from the Left in GOP politics. Actually, Newt was attacking from the Center, home to many a Reagan Democrat. But in perpetuating the big lie from a political prosecution courtesy of Nancy Pelosi, a desperate and now flailing Mitt Romney is most definitely taking a page from the Left in his ugly and unnecessary attacks on former Speaker Newt Gingrich. God, America hates sore losers.

And that's precisely what Romney is beginning to look like. He thought he owned the nomination and it was his for the taking. How else, besides incompetence, to explain such a weak performing campaign? This below via Legal Insurrection, read it all - with video. Newt was vindicated of the charges Romney is now lying about in attacking him.

In 1999, Brent Bozell wrote a great column about how the media covered up Newt’s vindication, Newt Is Vindicated, But Nobody Knows It:

Mitt Romney’s campaign is in trouble.  The trouble is not just the South Carolina vote count.  Romney’s internal polling almost certainly also showed that he was behind in Florida, as public polling released today reflects.

More worrisome for Romney is a growing chorus of doubters within the Republican establishment and conservative media who are beginning to wonder out loud whether Romney is electable in the primaries or general election.

Now you can add to the list the Romney campaign, which uses the worst of Nancy Pelosi’s machinations to its advantage, and like the mainstream media, hides the truth.

 

Mitt, Christie And Coulter's Latest Laughable Hypocrisy

Mittens sure is getting a might testy for such a laughable hypocrite.

Mitt Romney tells 'interrupters' at rally to 'take a hike'

Chew on this one if you will. Romney and the establishment are deeply offended because Newt waxed Mitten's ears in South Carolina partly because he's, in their words, a showman and a buffoon performing for we dumb the people. Right?

Helloo? Who is Mitt Romney's chief elected surrogate today? Why, that would be none other than Chris Christie, thank you very much. And no one would even know the NJ Governor's name if he hadn't had a camera crew follow him around for a year or more so he could yell and bloviate at anything from a teacher, to a media type.

Of course, in the establishment's view, because Chris Christie did it, that should get him on the short-list for Vice President. But, Newt? Even if we concede the worst, not that I am, and Newt was simply performing? Sorry, all he did in that case was out Christie Christie with better, more significant targets on a bigger stage. 

Who knows? Maybe like Mitt, the pudgy Gov's simply jealous of being upstaged. heh! I mention Coulter in the headline, as we all know where she lies down, as opposed to stands for conservatism, these days. These idiots act like there's no new media today and we aren't watching so as to point out their silly games and blatant hypocrisy.

Sorry Mittens and Christie, you lose, again!

Mad Mitt Beyond BlunderDome

A previous post expressed my concern that Mitt Romney lacked the good sense and sound judgement, if not the virtue that might have prevented him from sinking to this level. Evidently my concern was well founded. Emphasis mine.

Mitt Romney: Newt Gingrich is a ‘failed leader,’ ‘disgrace’

ORMOND BEACH, Fla. – Mitt Romney landed here Sunday with a simple message: Newt Gingrich is a failure and a fraud. And a disgrace. And a hapless showman. Standing under a brilliant orange Florida sunset, Romney delivered his longest sustained critique of the South Carolina primary winner to date – ticking through a list as if he were reading off Gingrich’s Wikipedia page, and undercutting each item as he got to it. 

There will be time to say more, if this is to be Romney's Modus operandi in Florida. For now, it's unclear if he's confusing demonstrating passion in the more positive aspects of his message with angrily spewing slander, or if we're seeing the flailing of a desperate candidate who perhaps thought the GOP nomination was his for the asking before being trounced so completely in South Carolina by former Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Whichever it is, it's most un-Presidential and runs contrary to the finely crafted image his army of consultants have crafted for him over the perhaps too many years he's been running for president. In that sense, I think it will backfire. As entertainment, Mad Mitt Beyond BlunderDome is a decidedly B grade movie. As a tactic in a presidential campaign, it rates a solid and rather unfortunate F for failing.

Newt, The Tea Party, Palin, Perry, Reform Evangelicals, Etc ...

I understand it's all about Newt vs. Mitt all the time. But I would ask that people think about a the bigger picture. All I'll say briefly about Newt and electability is, if in 2007 someone told me a black man named Barack Hussein Obama would defeat Hillary Clinton in the Dem primary and John McCain in the general election, I would have said they were crazy. So, please stop telling me you know for a fact what result any match up might produce in November of this year.

We may all think we know, leading to a number of different opinions, but no one knows for a fact.

Politics is about coalitions. Whatever nominee we decide upon for 2012 will be the name and face of things, but what they'll represent is the broader coalition behind them that elevates them to power. Newt may be an imperfect vessel, frankly, there is no such thing in politics; however, I do see the potential for two critical coalitions to do battle as we go forward in the primary.

Mitt owns the political and financial establishment that has run Washington post-Reagan and gotten us to where we are today. For all his imperfections, I see the possibility for a coalition to come together around Gingrich with names like Tea Party, Palin, Perry, Jindal, the conservative grassroots and Americans just interested in serious political reform. There is also plenty of room for reform-minded evangelicals and libertarians in that coalition, given the various factions and leaders.

None of those groups has enough clout to make much difference in Washington on their own. But together, they can exert enough power to make a difference if they can come together. And the coalition that elevates a politician will get a seat at the table once they are seated. That's the nature of politics.

At least think about it. Newt may not be your ideal candidate, he's certainly not mine. But I know that if Romney wins, the ideas and people I most believe in will not have a seat at the table. On the other hand, with Newt Gingrich, I believe they will.

I also believe he can win the general election, just as any other candidate has the potential to win, or lose one race. Just ask President Barack Hussein Obama if you don't believe me. The Democrat establishment said he couldn't win in 2008, obviously he did. You're welcome to hold the opinion that Newt Gingrich can't defeat him in 2012; I don't believe Romney can. But please don't defend your opinion to me as fact unless you have a crystal ball - in that case, email me, I want to talk to you about buying some lottery tickets.

Romney's Ugly Politics Now Surfacing In Surrogates

One of the things fellow Republicans and political observers have never liked about Mitt Romney is the wholesome piety he exhibits on the stump, while his hacks and PACs engage in some of the ugliest politics around. He can flash that plastic smile and pretend all he wants, but people know the cold fish doesn't shy away from the politics of personal destruction. If anything, his campaigns embrace it more than most, while feigning ignorance and pretending otherwise himself.

This is why so many people in the GOP have come to dislike Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney backer and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's comments this morning that Newt Gingrich "embarrassed" the Republican Party has the formerr House Speaker's Florida campaign co-chairman, Alan Levine, fuming.

"Far be it from me to tell the governor of New Jersey to focus on his own state, but this isn't a way to begin a campaign in Florida. It's disappointing," said Levine, a former healthcare chief under Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal who is new a private-sector hospital executive.

But now he's panicking because his South Carolina campaign has become a laughing stock. I've talked with some long-time operatives on the ground, in some cases, they've alienated more people than they've pulled in. There's also talk that his people in Florida are starting to panic, too.

Mitt Romney can use a legal facade to feign ignorance with his PAC problems. But he can't do that with his surrogates who come with faces and names. He could call, or call-out a Coulter, or Christie and ask them to stand down. But he won't. And even if he did, he wouldn't mean it.

His weak political skills are catching up to him. Unable to truly connect with voters, it now appears he's going to try and rely on some slash and burn surrogates to tear the other guy down.

It won't work. Ultimately, all this vitriol is going to circle back and make him all the more unlikeable to the base, something he already is to a good degree. If he keeps it up, this puppy, Mittens, is going down. The use of surrogates, not PACs for his ugly brand of politics, brings it just a bit too close to home for him to continue to hide it. Voters always reject real ugliness in politics. They'll reject both it and Mitt Romney this time around, too.

And Now NRO, They Are Making Romney Look Pathetic

Via Charlotte Hays writing at NRO's The Corner. Oh, yeah, the Peggy Noonan that's writing these days is reeeally going to save their man Mitt. 

Mitt, call Peggy Noonan and beg her to take a leave of absence from her day job to give you the words. She’s helped your type before! Convince people you can beat Obama by beating Newt. Fight dirty if you need to. Newt will.

Add that to Jen Rubin's sad plea for help and Hugh Hewitt invoking liberals on Mitt's behalf and I think I spy a trend. Last night it was being reported that Romney-connected sources were claiming a pending endorsement from Jeb Bush as things move on to Florida. Jeb promptly and smartly, I would add, declared his neutrality.

Mitt Romney is either a big boy and a capable politician, or he is something less than what it will take to win the GOP nomination. Whatever the case, if he wants to be President of the United States, it would be nice to think he can get there without his supporters with a byline flailing about making him look like such a weakling in need of an intervention and massive assistance.

They are making him look like something of a pathetic figure at this point and I doubt the sympathy vote is a winning strategy. But then, who knows, the GOP establishment behaves so much like liberals today, perhaps one will propose a government program designed to save Romney from his own mis-managed campaign and weak political skills.

Jennifer Rubin Loses It, Pens Open Letter

No seriously, she didn't? Yes, yes, she did. LMAO Not long ago, Rubin was a liberal John Kerry supporting Berkeley grad, today she's firing off open letters to any number of GOP leaders by name as an alleged conservative from the Washington Post. You can't make this stuff up. But it's her pleading missive that's even more bizarre.

Hey guys, you know those voters you rely upon to ply your trade, well, you need to step up and tell them how stoopid they are immediately because my dear man Mittens is being threatened and you won't have a political party if you don't act.

Oh, yeah, why not just tell them to shoot themselves while she's at it? This woman thinks just like a Leftist. What the voters think doesn't matter, it's only the people in charge who can be trusted to make decisions. Good grief. It is getting beyond insulting that the Post would label her a Conservative.

Is it remotely possible this is a parody site and the Post never let us in on the joke? Bold from original at link.

Dear Govs. Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal; Sens. Jon Kyl, Marco Rubio and Jim DeMint; and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and Mike Pence (R-Ind.):

... here’s the thing: The voters in their infinite wisdom have just given a huge boost to perhaps the only GOP candidate who could shift the spotlight from President Obama to himself, alienate virtually all independent voters, lose more than 40 states and put the House majority in jeopardy.

We’d be looking at four more years of Obama’s economic policies, four more years of strained relations with allies, several new Supreme Court justices and an unprecedented power shift to the executive branch.

It seems, gentlemen, it’s time to get off your . . . er . . . time to get off the bench and into the game. It is time to make the case for winning conservatism — a conservatism attractive to centrist voters that can be translated into a reform agenda. If conservatism becomes a movement of anti-media bashing and hyperbolic rhetoric, it will cease to be a force in American politics. And if it is led by an egomaniac whose personal advancement takes precedence over any principle, the GOP will be (correctly) mocked.

So how about it? One of you can run yourself. Or you can instead collectively get behind a not-Gingrich candidate. But really, if you are to have a Republican Party to lead one day in the future, you can’t very well do nothing.

My own view is that any one of you would be preferable as a candidate to Newt Gingrich, as would either Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney. So chat among yourselves and decide on a game plan. Figure out how to avoid being dubbed the “sane Republicans who let the party burn to the ground.” But don’t dawdle. There’s another big race coming up.

Best Regards,

Right Turn

Hugh Hewitt Channeling Liberals For Romney

Regardless of what one thinks of Newt, or Mitt, as candidates, should we really be relying upon statements from Democrats like Donna Brazille and James Carville to determine who would be our best nominee? Why bother with primaries, let's just watch MSNBCLSD and guide on that? No. Sorry, they think and act like liberals and that matters. I disagree with Hugh. We aren't going to win the hearts and minds of many voters for conservatism by listening to what liberals have to say about us, or our candidates. I also take strong exception to something Hugh suggests down below. Please scroll down for that. It's important.

“We’re ready to take out some of the balloons we’ve been storing,” is how Democratic strategist Donna Brazile greeted the idea that Newt would win by a significant margin in South Carolina, an hour before the polls closed and Newt was indeed declared the winner. She was echoing James Carville, who said much the same thing. So what is it that makes these two lefties happy about Newt’s win?

They think they know that tonight’s result means one of two things — Newt as the GOP nominee, which they pray for, or a battered and bloodied Mitt Romney as the president’s opponent, which they will settle for.

They are wrong on both counts.

The South Carolina electorate didn’t vote for a person or a platform; they voted for a personality — the fiery, combative, MSM-hating Newt. They want the GOP nominee to charge at the president, throw around the term Alinksyite, push back at John King and Juan Williams, and shout out the absurdity of Barack Obama as president and the destructiveness of his combination of epic incompetence and awful ideology. 

I suspect that the GOP as a whole has a lot of this pent-up anger at the Manhattan-Beltway media elites, and they too have been cool to cool hand Mitt as a result.

Here's my other problem. How is it that winning suddenly becomes the opposite of fighting? Emphasis mine.

But if, having been indulged, that passion for a political fistfight ebbs and the desire to win grows, Romney will be a much, much better nominee for having blown a round on points and too timid by far a strategy.

I get it. Personally, Hugh may not care for the rough and tumble, or whatever. But if we know anything about the Left now led by Obama, we know they are ruthless and will fight hard for every vote, real, imagined, or fraudulent. And, by the way, what was that Obama said? Oh yeah, now I remember. Yet, Hugh suggests that if we want to beat this guy, we have to get over wanting a fistfight? That doesn't sound like a strategy for winning to me; it sounds like a sure way to get knocked out.

White House to Democrats: 'Punch back twice as hard'

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

Insulting Video: Romney Will Say Anything To Get Nominated

From Mitt's disastrous concession speech last night - via Byron York's item. Read it, then see the 6 second video. Emphasis mine.

It was perfect in every sense but engaging with the voters. Romney's stump speech was a clipped -- some would say dumbed down -- list of generalities, concluding with this: "I love this land, I love its Constitution, I revere its founders, I will restore those principles, I will get America back to work, and I'll make sure that we remain the shining city on the hill."

Tell us about it, Mitt.

h/t Greg in comments.

I found the speech especially hollow when Mitt referenced the "shining city on a hill", clearly trying to sound Reaganesque. This from the same guy who said "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."

Romney's Disastrous Concession Speech

A contemporaneous Tweet by Gingrich supporter, Bill Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, highlights one reason why last night's concession speech by Mitt Romney may have been one of the worst examples of one I've ever seen - and that's just the beginning. Romney did virtually everything wrong and nothing right in it, while looking to be one page behind on virtually everything.

Mitt's speech motivating me to oppose him even more - #IamNotaCommie

For better or worse, when Fox News and other networks are calling Newt Gingrich's SC win a "blow-out," it is his night. Romney should have thought better of it than to try and make any part of it his in the manner he did, even when playing to a home crowd, such as he was.

A graceful and sincere, though not over-done, congratulations to Newt and an acknowledgement of the other candidates would have been a nice start. From there, Romney could have served himself well by acknowledging his failure in making his case with the voters of South Carolina, following it right up with a commitment to understand what went wrong, so as to improve. That would have been the mark of a serious and humble candidate seeking our votes and been some push-back against charges of incompetnce sure to come.

Instead, except perhaps for giving the appearance that he was a bit befuddled by his defeat, not only did he not acknowledge it, he went on to launch an even more strident attack against Gingrich than usual, on a night that was Newt's and Newt's alone.

How many waiting to see if Newt would match his win with a fitting speech, or perhaps go too far in victory, were really interested in hearing Romney try to tear Gingrich down after he had just got done trouncing Romney and his campaign in South Carolina?

Few, I would wager and his tirade ran the risk of painting Romney as perhaps the worst of all things in politics - a sore loser.

Other than that, all Romney did was rattle off his usual talking points with no more conviction than usual, leaving one wondering if they are things that Mitt believes, or simply the day's talking points scripted out for him by some staff member.

The Romney campaign is in trouble - articles like this one from The Hill:

Doubts creep in as an awkward Mitt Romney tries not to lose the GOP nod

and this one from Byron York in The Examiner:

Why Gingrich won -- Why Romney lost

pack a strong, if not damning, message for Mitt Romney and his campaign.

Unfortunately, rather than demonstrate that he's getting it as a means of turning a page, setting himself up for a more positive pivot to Florida, last night Mitt Romney did everything to confirm the negative stories.

In addition to that, rather than demonstrate some new found ability to genuinely communicate with voters on the more positive aspects of his message, his continued failure to do so combined with his strong attack on Gingrich and the grossly inappropriate timing for it runs the risk of making him look overly negative and almost shrill out of desperation. If he falls into that trap, the other campaigns won't need to attack him, he'll begin driving voters away in droves all by himself.

Several recent stories make it clear the would be inevitable emperor, Romney, isn't wearing the right, if any, clothes just now. There's time for him to change that. But everyone else either knows it, or is catching on fast, except perhaps for Romney and his campaign.

To expand upon a point from Byron York in the Examiner from last night, Mitt or someone with his campaign better figure it out, along with some other things while they're at it - and fast. If Newt remains disciplined enough to not hurt himself and Romney makes a few critically bad moves right now, the nomination could begin slipping away from him faster than many may think possible given his resources and establishment support.

Mitt Romney's team of seasoned campaign professionals may not think Newt Gingrich has any business playing a deciding role in the race. But they better believe it, and they better take seriously what the Gingrich challenge represents -- before it's too late.

Romney Flunks Critical Competency Test

Along with simply having been a businessman involved in high finance, Mitt Romney's great claim to fame and qualification for the presidency is the notion that he's a highly competent technocrat, or manager. One of the main criteria routinely employed to judge a politician's competence is how well he or she manages an effective, winning campaign.

Along with exposing Romney's significant shortcomings as an effective campaign politician, recent assessments of the Romney campaign, from The Hill yesterday: Doubts creep in as an awkward Mitt Romney tries not to lose the GOP nod ... to Byron York's concise but thorough analysis of what went right and wrong in South Carolina do not support anything close to the idea that Romney is a competent manager of staff, or tactics.

As it stands, it would seem the notion that Romney is somehow a competent manager and planner is based more upon image and myth, than substance. The fact is, his organization failed dismally in South Carolina. Romney can attack Newt Gingrich for an alleged lack of managerial experience all he wants; the fact is, the Gingrich political organization outperformed Romney's on several counts across many key areas. York's analysis is linked again below - emphasis my own. 

Why Gingrich won -- Why Romney lost

How did it happen? For one thing, all the talk about Romney having a hugely superior ground organization turned out not to be true. "They did not do the retail politics that a Santorum and a Gingrich have done over time," said Kevin Thomas, chairman of the Fairfield County Republican Party. (Thomas was neutral in the race.) "I think Newt's people, they had more on-the-ground staff, and they worked." There were a lot of them, too; after Gingrich's strong showing in the debates, said Susan Meyers, Gingrich's media coordinator for the Southeast, "We have so many volunteers, our phones are melting right now."

Gingrich's campaign was also faster and more nimble than the Romney battleship. "There is a very strong contrast between the two campaign organizations," said Gingrich adviser (and former George W. Bush administration official) Kevin Kellems. "In military terms, it's speed versus mass. Newt Gingrich's operation, and Newt Gingrich as a man, has a great deal of speed -- intellectual speed, decisiveness. The Romney campaign is much more about money and size, having hired half of Washington D.C. And sometimes, speed beats mass."

Breaking: Rove Was Wrong, But Romney May Yet Make History, After All

Given news out of Iowa late last night, we can now definitively state that Karl Rove was incorrect when he took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal to tout Romney's alleged history-making achievement after his New Hampshire win. However, it now seems as though Mitt Romney may yet be poised to make a bit of history, after all. 

Romney Makes History

In an open race for the GOP nomination, no Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mitt Romney has.

The Republican Party of Iowa issued this statement at 20 minutes before midnight last night.

In order to clarify conflicting reports and to affirm the results released January 18 by the Republican Party of Iowa, Chairman Matthew Strawn and the State Central Committee declared Sen. Rick Santorum the winner of the 2012 Iowa Caucus.

Consequently, if the polls are accurate and Newt Gingrich is declared the winner of the South Carolina primary before 11:40 PM tonight, Romney would effectively be the first GOP front-runner in history to lose both Iowa and South Carolina within one 24 hour period. 

Newt Gingrich heads into South Carolina election day as the clear front runner in the state: he's now polling at 37% to 28% for Mitt Romney, 16% for Rick Santorum, and 14% for Ron Paul.

Assuming that plays out, RiehlWorldView would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Romney campaign on its history making achievement, ... or, perhaps, lack thereof might be a better way to phrase it. Heh!

The Hill: Romney Exposed As Very Weak Candidate That He Is

So what if Mitt's money still has him well positioned in the primary? That does not change the likely outcome, that the media, Axelrod, Obama and the Democrats will eat Romney for lunch. Obama has more cash than Romney and can campaign. Plus, he's an incumbent. Beating one at any level is no small feat. Bland and bumbling is not going to get 'er done!

I'm only one of many people who have been seeing and saying this all along. In my opinion, too many people have been looking no deeper than a resume, a pile of cash being thrown around, good hair and a suit. What it requires to be a strong presidential candidate is simply not there with Romney. He's a punching bag, not a heavyweight.

His political instincts are non-existent, he's aloof and can't connect and there are plenty of weak points to attack that he is absolutely horrible at defending, usually only making things worse. Read the whole thing.

It’s important not to overstate the perils Romney faces. He is still by far the best-funded candidate in the race. He has a state-by-state infrastructure that is the envy of his rivals. Even if he were to lose Saturday's South Carolina primary, he would  likely remain the overall favorite to clinch the nomination.

But the procession of errors has been striking nonetheless — and it has raised concerns among many in the GOP about his vulnerabilities in a general election contest with President Obama.

Most of Romney’s awkwardness has revolved around questions about his wealth. During a heated exchange during a debate last month, he ill-advisedly offered to bet Perry $10,000 that his own account of what he had written in one of his books was correct. Perry declined, saying he was “not in the betting business,” but the episode heightened perceptions that Romney is out of touch with most Americans.

The same pattern keeps cropping up. Earlier this week, he was asked about the effective tax rate he pays on his income, and managed to injure himself twice in the space of a few sentences. First, he acknowledged that his tax rate was “probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything.” He then added: “I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.”

The first claim was almost certainly true. Romney’s income is believed to come chiefly from long-term investments rather than earned income, and that would indeed make him liable for capital gains tax levied at a 15 percent rate. But it still places the multimillionaire in a more lightly taxed band than many voters — something which Newt Gingrich tried to take advantage of with his mocking proposal to introduce a “Mitt Romney 15 percent flat tax.”

Perhaps even worse was Romney’s “not very much” comment. His latest financial disclosure form, which covered the period from February 2010 to February 2011, revealed that he earned $374,327 for speeches. The sum is approximately seven times the median household income in the United States.

Those remarks had been preceded by a televised debate at which he gave a muddled response about whether he would release his tax returns.

Romney flubbed the tax-return question for a second time at a debate last Thursday, eliciting boos from the crowd when he said he would “maybe” follow the example of his late father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, who released 12 years of tax returns when running for the presidency in 1968.

Romney’s mangled syntax on these occasions seems symptomatic of a wider personal unease in discussing his finances. GOP consultants say he needs to get over that discomfort if he is to prove an effective candidate.

Short Must See Video: RomneyCare vs. ObamaCare

Powerline would now have us believe that if you think Newt Gingrich can win, you're "delusional." I would respectfully suggest that if you are backing Mitt Romney and calling yourself a small government conservative, it is you who is delusional.

Ironically enough, as proof, I'll h/t the video below to ... Powerline: ANATOMY OF ROMNEYCARE. h/t @robpublican on Twitter for the link. For small government conservatives, ObamaCare is the defining challenge of our day. If we do not re-visit and soundly defeat it, the government will expand it's reach and power in new and extremely dangerous ways - dangerous to liberty, that is.

I would also again recommend reading an item by Hillsdale Professor Paul Rahe via Ricochet to understand the significance of all this. True, he also mentions Gingrich; however, Newt has admitted that he was wrong multiple times during national debates. Mitt Romney has refused to do that and has opted to stand by RomneyCare, instead. Per the video below, you will see how impossible it will be for him to successfully fight ObamaCare given his own currently stated position.

I would like to believe that, if Romney is the Republican nominee (as I have long believed he will be), conservative voters will hold their noses and vote against Barack Obama (as I will do). The support that Ron Paul is now drawing in Iowa and elsewhere suggests, however, that this is in no way certain. Even, however, if Romney and the Republicans win an historic victory in 2012, I doubt that anything will be done by this managerial progressive to roll back the administrative entitlements state. If I am right in my fears in this regard, the Tea Party impulse will dissipate; the Republican party will split; the Democrats will return in 2016; and 2012 will be seen in retrospect as just another bump in the long, gentle road leading us to soft despotism.

ANATOMY OF ROMNEYCARE

Jennifer Rubin On South Carolina: Then And Now

The all wise and analytical Jen-Jen Rubin on South Carolina, January 2nd.

Newt Gingrich, who may be headed for fifth in Iowa, is playing a similar game. He says that he’ll rally in South Carolina and Florida. This is even more daft than Perry’s game plan. In South Carolina, it’s hard to see how Gingrich would do any better with evangelicals than he is doing in Iowa (not well at all)....

The Romney camp doesn’t appear to care one way or another whether Gingrich continues. He’s as much a help to Romney (in serving as a useful foil for the former Bain Capital executive) as he is a hindrance. His ability to land rhetorical blows is vastly diminished now that his own character and record have been shredded.

Aside from her usual and now laughable slash and burn antics, should we really be surprised the WaPo's resident conservative genius has suddenly decided South Carolina is a whatever and has moved on to Florida? No, of course not. What's truly laughable is that the WaPo pays our gal Jen-Jen for anything alleged to be analysis. They should make her work in a cheerleader's uniform, though I doubt it would do much to help her main man Mitt.

... next week, whatever the outcome in South Carolina, everyone moves on to Florida and it starts all over again. So who wins Florida, and does that race give the winner a lock on the nomination?

Under Pressure, Romney Misfires On Ethics Probe

What genius came up with this one? Romney was shaky in the last debate after being pressured in the previous one. Now his campaign looks to be feeling it, too. And this is the Beltway's dream team? It's also a smart way to remind people you haven't released your tax returns, Mitt. He's been flummoxed by that same question in two different debates, now - not a good sign of a solid campaign.

Mitt Romney, in an apparent response to demands that he release his tax returns, calls on Newt Gingrich to release the ethics probe that got him bounced from Congress, admonishing: “I wouldn’t do it piecemeal. Do it all at once.”

It’s not really clear what Romney means by “release” in this context. After all, if Gingrich does want to “release” the probe, either piecemeal or all at once, it won’t be hard: It’s already posted online right here on the ethics committee’s Website.

Most everyone I know believes the longer this goes, the weaker Romney will get. And we're supposed to rely upon that to beat Obama and Axelrod? No thanks. I'll take my chances with Newt. At least I know there's the potential to actually gain something for conservatism. Given this latest by Mitt and his other gaffes, plus a look back at 2008, everyone can mess up - but, all in all, Gingrich lands more and better punches. Mitt's a light-weight with a tendency to shoot himself in the foot when the pressure's on. No wonder he's thinking of ducking the next debate. Geesh!

Also, Chuck Norris (see here) and Big Foot (below) have now both endorsed Newt Gingrich. How can you lose when those two have your back in a knock down, drag out? heh!

Why I'm Backing Newt Gingrich

For conservatives, I'm a might tired of the weenies who prance around on the Internet as if they're spoiling for a fight, then when someone with a little fight in them comes along, they start sounding like pussified Republicans. Oh, God, no, we can't have that go on!!

One of the Left's big advantages is, they aren't afraid of a little passion in their politics. They're also more willing to take risks. Well, there's a rule of thumb that applies, higher risk is required for higher reward. Look it up in your capitalist manifesto, when you climb down off your high horse and stop defending it, when it wasn't under attack in the first place.

I didn't start out backing Newt Gingrich. Perry was my guy. He's gone and you go to war with the army you've got, or you can sit in your tent and pick your ass, while government continues to grow and we continue the long, slow slide into statism that's been going on for almost a century, now.

It is inconceivable that we will see any serious Right-leaning reform from a guy like Mitt Romney. He may work hard at some things when it suits him, but he has no history of fighting for anything other than perhaps parochial interests when the current is seriously against him. And the current in Washington and the media is most definitely against conservatism.

Romney will make Bush's Compassionate Conservatism look like the real thing. At this point in our nation's history, what in the hell is there worth fighting for in that? We may as well turn out the government approved light bulbs and hand over the keys to an establishment GOP every bit as invested in big government, as are the Democrats. They just like to tinker around the ever expanding edges of it on their own behalf.

Well, I'm not down for that. And most certainly not now. We do not have four or eight years to fritter away on Obama-lite, which is precisely what Romney is. So much so, in fact, he may not be able to win the general as his record indicates there isn't really enough difference to warrant throwing Obama out in the eyes of many voters.

Say what you want about Gingrich, one can look at his record and see someone who actually was once involved in some serious reform of the right kind in Washington. I watched the debate last night and all the others, sorry, but Santorum does not impress in this regard. I'm sure he's a fine man and I have resisted criticizing him, but that dog won't hunt, most especially in any general election. So, get over it.

Conservatives now have but one horse to ride; otherwise, you may as well saddle up with Mitt and head off into the sunset with whatever you think is a genuine form of conservatism. Romney is not going to expend one iota of political capital selling it, or fighting for it, because he doesn't believe in it. He is as elitist and out of touch with the working class that empowers Reagan conservatism as is Obama. And he's damn near as progressive in terms of government being the answer to everything, as long as he's the one who gets to make the decisions. That's not conservativism. It's bullshit.

We're in a fight to save what remains of the vision we have of America as conservatives. Whatever he's done, or not done, we can tell that Gingrich appreciates that particular vision. He is also showing himself to be an effective fighter. However he got there - the people that have voted decided it, not me - that's where he is. And he's demonstrating a willingness to fight for conservatism, but some of you bad-asses are afraid to fight for and with him?

The hell with you, punch your ticket and scurry to the back of the GOP's big government line like the losers that you actually are. I went into 2012 looking for a fight for the right reasons and the right cause - and as it stands today, there's only one guy left standing who looks anything like close to suitable to mix it up on our and conservativism's behalf. And, dammit, I'm going to fight with him, not run away like a coward because I want to look politically correct, or smart.

We'd still be a British colony if we had to rely upon what passes for a Republican and too damned many conservatives today, we're they around in 1776. Tremendous risks were undertaken to found absolutely the free-est, most glorious nation on Earth we call home. But you can't risk taking a chance on a former Speaker of the House to simply make a beginning on trying to turn it around?

Hell, you may as well tear up your passports and citizenship papers, too - you don't look like half of what I always thought a traditional American was. You're just another loser willing to turn the other cheek as big government smacks you around, because it's the easy and oh so smart thing to do.

Well, screw that. I'd rather go down fighting for what's right and what I believe in, than limp away like some over-compromised alleged conservative, but ultimately unprincipled clown, because when the call went out at what is widely considered to be a pivotal moment in American political history, I couldn't manage to stand up and be counted upon.

Epilogue For Levin's "Ameritopia" Available Free Online

I was sincerely honored and privileged to have had the opportunity to read my friend Mark Levin's latest, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America a little while ago. I'm re-visiting the press copy now as a refresher and will be posting a review at Big Government, most likely on Monday.

I believe it's a rather unique and important work, especially for movement Conservatives, and will address that in my review. I really do marvel at the amount of work Mark puts in on behalf of our common, though certainly not collective, cause.

The epilogue is now available online.

Why The Media Wants Romney To Win The Nomination So Badly

This recent item in the New York Times below is in good part what's behind the liberal media's desire to see Mitt Romney get the nomination. Now, I don't see Romney quite this way. But the left does. Religion, wealth, a "retro vision of the country." In short, in Romney they see everything they have been working to destroy for decades. They even want to pretend he isn't flawed, hence the over-looking of his many gaffes and retorts that invite his being slammed. But they don't slam him, ... not for now.

Read it. Then realize how badly they will aim to destroy him in the general. And as his campaign stands today, he'll be a sitting duck. He's configured perfectly for a GOP primary today, even if he had to contort himself and disregard principle to get there. The media has already annointed him. But remember the day after McCain got the nomination and they turned on him, the first story being some alleged affair, or something? That was nothing.

In Romney, the media, wrongly, in my opinion, sees the perfect symbol of everything they are against. Now, imagine what it would mean to them and the Left to beat him, especially with Obama? For them it will be like turning a page in America that can never be turned back. And only a fool would think they won't do everything to destroy him after having made him appear so invincible. Unfortunately, combined with a lack of enthusiasm on the part of conservatives because he's actually such a weak candidate, they very likely will get their wish.

What’s Race Got to Do With It?

Pundits have already begun the endless debate over whether Mr. Romney’s wealth and religion are hindrances or assets. But there has yet to be any discussion over the one quality that has subtly fueled his candidacy thus far and could well put him over the top in the fall: his race. The simple, impolitely stated fact is that Mitt Romney is the whitest white man to run for president in recent memory.

Of course, I’m not talking about a strict count of melanin density. I’m referring to the countless subtle and not-so-subtle ways he telegraphs to a certain type of voter that he is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president. It is a whiteness grounded in a retro vision of the country, one of white picket fences and stay-at-home moms and fathers unashamed of working hard for corporate America.

Maybe It Would Be Better If Romney Lost The General Election

Maybe it would be better if Romney loses in the general, assuming he gets the nomination, of course. I don't hate Obama, however much I detest his policies. Supporting this on behalf of the GOP may be the more distasteful of the two options. I could sleep with a cheap hooker and come away with more self-respect than voting for a guy with a record like this.

We are on a path to nominate someone who campaigned against Reagan, campaigned against the Contract with America, campaigned against those who are pro-Life, campaigned against 2d Amendment rights, campaigned against conservatism, and designed and enacted the precursor to Obamacare from which he will not back away, yet may successfully convince Republican voters that he is the most reliable conservative.