Barry likes to stick it to you. The bigger, the better.
Exhibit A:
He's a failure in so many ways, and the empty Solyndra building, the folks who lost their jobs and those who invested and lost because of his deceit stand as testament to his utter contempt for your welfare.
He has got to go.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Yay! Romney is using the expression "crony capitalism" against Obama! I've been saying for a long time that GOP leaders need to differentiate between "crony capitalism" and "free market capitalism" if they want to get through to the voters who don't follow this stuff daily. It'd be better if he just called it "cronyism" but it's a start.
I was happy to see Romney blast away on this issue too. The guy just impresses me more and more every day. :)
As for Obama, let's hope he goes the way of Solyndra!
tryanmax: you are absolutely correct: we need this kind of leadership for those who aren't on the train yet. but for those of us who are, it's a nice direction.
andrew: i am pretty muched scocked at how much i'm liking mitt. he's leading, which is key. he standing firm, which is also key. like i said, i'm shocked and am liking what i see.
Patti, I've been impressed that he just keeps stepping up the attacks and getting stronger every day. This is unusual with Republican candidates and it's a great feeling!
andrew: he certainly is an improvement over mclame, um, mccain.
The only thing disappointing about Romney for me at this point is that the conservative talkers seem bound and determined to deny any conservatism on his part and undermine his momentum. There is practically zero acknowledgement of what Romney is doing right on the campaign trail but tons of armchair quarterbacking about what he could have done differently. With each passing day, though, it gets more and more ridiculous. To extend the metaphor, it's like griping that a 75-yard rush wasn't an 80-yard rush.
Andrew has pointed out on previous occasions that the talkers are playing both sides of the field so they can declare themselves clairvoyant no matter the outcome, and I agree wholeheartedly. To be more specific (which I can't help) I'm noting the narrative they want to push is that the voters want an unambiguously conservative leader and, if Romney fails to clinch the White House, it's only because he wasn't conservative enough.
I see two problems with that argument right off.
First, it's a narrative, just like they take issue with the MSM for using. Is there reason to think that the electorate wants a conservative over a liberal? Of course. But the narrative is narrowly crafted to define a conservative as whatever perfect picture the talker favors, most often an idealized amalgamation of Reagan, Washington, and Jesus Christ. Thus, nobody fits.
Second, it doesn't make sense that if a sizable majority of the electorate wants an unabashed conservative that they would go for a progressive liberal when the perfect conservative doesn't show up. It's much more likely that the electorate wants a conservative, but not a scary socon or a crazy libertarian.
The third problem with the argument, which is really the first point I made, is that it is actually a veneer over the talkers' cynicism or even pessimism. The casual listener hears a bunch of rah-rah for stronger conservatism that what's out there. But as already noted, it's actually the talker hedging his/her bet so that a conservative loss won't reflect badly on themselves. This betrays a lack of confidence, IMO, in the conservative narrative. Frankly, if I weren't personally convinced that Americans want a conservative in the White House, I would find that exceedingly disheartening.
tryanmax: do you trhink that with romney so many conservatives where looking for someone outside of the washington box that when he started to pull away from the crown these same folks just couldn't get past that romney is essentially an insider? i have often wondered that as i listen to the chatter.
i do believe though if he can kill it in a debate, if he can stand and not retreat against the left's "gotcha" politics, if he can be exactly who he is, then we'll win those folks.
those folks will be like the dems today who had the lightbulb go on and have finally figured out what we knew all along: barry is incredibly beatable.
Patti, I actually have to reject the premise on that question because I cannot see Romney as an insider. Holding one office for one term hardly spells "insider" to me.
I think the reason why many conservatives have not gotten on board is because they are stubborn about admitting they had bought into several of the fictions surrounding the man. For example, the "flip-flopper" meme was invented by the Massachusetts Democratic Party when Romney ran for Governor but it was wholeheartedly adopted by his GOP opponents. No self-respecting conservative wants to admit they bought into a liberal talking point.
Similarly, many conservatives have doubled-down on the idea that 10th Amendment freedoms aren't good enough to explain MassCare in the face of ObamaCare. That is hypocrisy plain and simple no matter how you mince it. But no one wants to be a hypocrite. What's more, they've bolstered that idea with a liberal talking point that ObamaCare was based on RomneyCare. The assertion doesn't stand scrutiny, but good luck getting some people to scrutinize.
In short, no one likes to admit when they were wrong. And for too many, if that means withholding support from a candidate that would be good for the nation simply to preserve personal pride, then so be it.
sorry, i should have been clearer. i was speaking, in terms of romney being an insider, as perceived in the eyes of these folks, and part of that is that he has served in the government, ie INSIDER! so many hate to dig around for facts and rely on the surface info, which is totally your point (me thinks).
in other news, did you see the drudge headline today that the libs might not even vote cause they haven't gotten their way with barry?
hey libbies, bad sportsmanship: you are dong it right!
I had missed that headline, but I don't need to see it to believe it. What do you expect, though, when they declare "democracy is dead" every time they don't get their way? Apparently democracy only works when it works for them. Pthzzz!
Post a Comment