Monday, December 5, 2011

Did Romney Help Create His Opponents Next Ad?

Romney's speech is remarkable in that instead of just describing John Kerry, he describes himself to a T.  Romney's opponents are going to have a field day creating their next ad.

Romney tries to think why Kerry has changed positions so often, why he finds it so difficult to come down on one side of an issue. Then he goes on to describe what voters today are wondering about Romney himself.
How can he take a position which tries to satisfy both sides?

I think the problem for those who look at him and wonder how he can be so vacillating, it stems from the fact that he is very conflicted, that he is drawn in two different directions.

If he is with an audience he gets where he wants to identify with and wants to satisfy that audience, he gets where he will say what he thinks they want to hear.

In his own party he has a problem.

He's trying to be on both sides. He ends up not sounding like he can take a position one way or another.

He sounds like a person incapable of coming down firmly on one side of a key issue.

Voters in 2004 ended up voting against a conflicted candidate and voted for a resolute George W. Bush. Romney of 2004 makes the case that if Romney of 2012 were to be the nominee, he would be another conflicted candidate.


Anonymous said...


FastFacts said...

Problem is that Romney is not a flip-flopper any more than Gingrich, Perry, Cain, Bachmann, or Paul. Study finds that he is not a flip-flopper minus small issues such as being a hunter, favorite book, and favorite move.

craigs said...



Anonymous said...

wow, rw you are a pathetic and sad little hermit, I dont know if your employed but tell your boss that you need a 2 weeks vacation.If not I have a beachside cottage hut on the beaches of Tahiti in the pacific and I will gladly let you vacation there for a week, all inclusive for free, (you have to come up with the airfare to get there). Stop wasting your time "trying"to dig up dirt on the next president of the united states.Maybe you should look into gingrich's closet full of things to write about. My offer stands buddy.

Right Wingnut said...

Bosman, The "Right Wingnut" who posted at 6:39 is not me. Please ban that POS.

Right Wingnut said...

Good catch, TC.

Paul said...

Wow, TC. You get zero points for this one. It's not even worht a "nice try" sort of tribute. The point you have tried to make, the parallel you have tried to draw here, is based entirely on a lie. Granted, you might not have invented the lie (Democrats did), but you have run with the lie and made it your own. Perhaps you should look up some real evidence for alleged Romney inconsistencies before trying to make hay of them. I agree with Bosman here: "Silly."

Paul said...

I'm sorry. It was CraigS that said: "Silly."

Terrye said...

What a dumb post. Romney is no more a flip flopper than Gingrich is.

The truth is the right is using Democratic talking points to go after a Republican candidate...that is especially true of those self serving hypocrites on talk radio.

Stupid people are going to get Obama reelected.

Lionhead said...

There has been considerable 'buzz' by the Marxist / Socialist Media, RINO commentators & others as to the desirability & electability of Romney. Before conservatives go off the cliff into the abyss of illusion with Romney, let's look at the facts. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts.

From Reuters:

From Zero Hedge:

The Romney skeletons are rattling in the closet. He is truly one step away from disaster with an FOIA request.

I say again, choose wisely.

Paul said...

Lionhead, I saw and read that Reuters article, and it was completely shameful and pretectious journalism. Quite dishonest in the implication that computers were upgraded because staffers wanted to wipe out and cover up Romney records. Not a single reference as to the real reason: A Democrat administration was on the way in! DUH!!!!!!! That is the way it is usually done, to remove records that could be missused by the opposition party soon coming in. Another gross and irresponsible omission, is that no mention was made of the fact that the Romney administration has already complied fully with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. Romney detractors and liberals have already been pouring over those records, which were 100% preserved on paper in archive. The Reuters article also implied some sort of wrong doing based on the fact that application for permit must be made to get access to the records. SO WHAT??!! That also is reasonable, and was not a hindrance to those who HAVE ALREADY SCRUTINIZED those records and came away disappointed that they could not find any malfeasance. This is not anything new, it is not an expose', and it is certainly not news-worthy. What it is, is simply a very shameful attempt to mis-inform by means of omission and innuendo. I guarantee that there will be NO INVESTIGATION, because, aside from a bit of ignorant sensationalism, there is absolutely nothing there! Shame on you, Lionhead, for picking up this trash and running with it.

Paul said...

correction: pretentious (journalism)

Lionhead said...

@Paul, with all respect, I strongly disagree with you. You're making up opinion sans facts in your statements.
First: "Another gross and irresponsible omission, is that no mention was made of the fact that the Romney administration has already complied fully with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act."

The FOIA request is going to be made by Reuters. It was not made earlier as you've implied in your statement.

Second: "Romney detractors and liberals have already been pouring over those records, which were 100% preserved on paper in archive."
If so, let's have the published results for such research & the who, when, & where.

This reflects on the man's character & electability. IMHO, negatively. I will await the results of the FOIA request to make any further judgment calls.

Conservatives need a man or woman of character, values, consistent thought & action. IMO, better candidates are currently in the race. You obviously have strong views on Romney. I urge you to step back, consider the facts when they come out & look objectively at them.

May the best man or woman win based on their records & service in office. Not by media manipulation, coercion or pandering to the voters emotions.

Anonymous said...


I didn't listen to the video, but it just seems to me that you're only point anymore is being anti-Romney.

I understand that you don't have anyone to support, but can't you find anything better to do that diss Romney with baseless criticism? You're in RW territory, and I think you're much too nice for that.


Paul said...

I stand by what I have said. It is normal practice to clear the computers of e-mails and other electronic information. This Reuters attempt at a smear job is consistent with other Democrat tactics of presenting what is customary and normal as though it were unprecedented and suspicious. Unfortunately, such dishonest jabs below the belt do produce opinion shifts among the ignorant or the severely biased. You have accused me of bias, but it is also clear that you are biased in the reverse, or you would not so joyfully accept whatever nonsense you hear from Democrats that wish to select our nominee for us. I'll be saying: "II told you so" when this request for investigation is summarily denied.

Lionhead said...

@Paul Just to set the record straight, Reuters has released their follow up article to the one I referenced. I believe it will clarify things for you.

Here are some bullet points:

* Massachusetts will allow SOME public access to hundreds of previously off-limits boxes of official records... (new records)

* [t]he state had allowed access to SOME of the estimated 600 boxes of paper records... (old records)

* [l}ater they relented and allowed access to about 20 percent of records that previously had been opened for public inspection.

* Republican and Democratic opponents of Romney say the scrubbing of e-mails and the claim that his paper records are not subject to public disclosure hinder efforts to assess his performance as a politician and elected official.

(emphasis supplied)

I think this mollifies the bias issues you raised. The research into the documents will proceed.