Jump to content

“Party elites” not so keen on Romney after all?


saveliberty

Recommended Posts

party-elites-not-so-keen-on-romney-after-all
Tina Korbe, Hot Air:

“Party elites” not so keen on Romney after all?
posted at 3:40 pm on January 24, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Nate Silver suggested in a column yesterday that the GOP establishment might not be as firmly in Mitt Romney’s camp as the anti-Mitt, anti-establishment crowd would like voters to think. According to Silver, endorsements from party officials are one measure of the elite appetite for a candidate — and, while Mitt Romney has more endorsements than any of his competitors, he has far fewer than historical precedent suggests he should have by this point in the primary. Silver postulates that some officials have hesitated to endorse because the possibility that another candidate will enter the race is always tantalizingly proffered by one pundit or another.

Andrea Mitchell recently made a comment that suggests Silver might be right that the GOP establishment is actually relatively cool toward Romney:

“I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney can not win here in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saveliberty

 

See This Reply

 

Thanks, Valin! I don't agree with Rush. I think that the party leadership believes that neither Romney nor Newt can beat Obama, and that's the difference. I also think that Newt is not a threat to what Rush sees as Republicans eager to spend. If that were true, why would Senator Coburn be so deeply against Newt? I appreciate what Newt has to offer but it is a fair concern that leadership and management are areas where he needs to develop.

 

The real problem is that primaries creating a Super Tuesday, then states moving selection up so early - making the "decision" before a candidate has really earned the nomination and proven his/her strengths - that has been limping along, promoting weak candidates. Where the R party did well in the past is that the convention really meant something. Yes, the selection was in a smoke filled room but the convention figured out who really was electable.

 

This is something that needs to be fixed and it's good to have the discussion now as to whether deal with the outcome of a bad process in a way that has been proven to work and then fix it going forward, or to let it all fall where it may and deal with the consequences in 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saveliberty

 

See This Reply

 

Thanks, Valin! I don't agree with Rush. I think that the party leadership believes that neither Romney nor Newt can beat Obama, and that's the difference.

 

I think that is Rush's main point. That Obama is unbeatable. So the question is, how do you beat him with leadership that doesn't think you can? (this assumes that Rush is right in this assumption)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saveliberty

 

See This Reply

 

Thanks, Valin! I don't agree with Rush. I think that the party leadership believes that neither Romney nor Newt can beat Obama, and that's the difference.

 

I think that is Rush's main point. That Obama is unbeatable. So the question is, how do you beat him with leadership that doesn't think you can? (this assumes that Rush is right in this assumption)

 

No, I think that they agree that Obama is beatable, just not by Mitt or Newt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saveliberty

 

See This Reply

 

Thanks, Valin! I don't agree with Rush. I think that the party leadership believes that neither Romney nor Newt can beat Obama, and that's the difference.

 

I think that is Rush's main point. That Obama is unbeatable. So the question is, how do you beat him with leadership that doesn't think you can? (this assumes that Rush is right in this assumption)

 

No, I think that they agree that Obama is beatable, just not by Mitt or Newt.

 

 

In other word not beatable. For better or worse, the candidates we have are the candidates we have. If the PTB want to see what a real revolt looks like...bring in another candidate now.

 

I think both of them could beat "The One", and they both be fine as President. I prefer Newt because of....*Ideas. With Romney as George Will says his problem is his Romneyness.

 

*Style vs. Substance

Newt Gingrich’s wonkiness trumps Mitt Romney’s platitudes.

 

 

More Panic

Why Mitch Daniels Should Enter the Race: The Real Conservative Alternative

Ron Radosh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

;) Valin! I think very highly of you, but here you are misunderstanding my point. The point is that the primary process is prone to producing weaker candidates, which is made worse by the Super Tuesday and early process. If evidence for my point is needed, just check out the vacillation of the various Not-Romneys since campaigning began.

 

There are individuals who can beat Obama and it would be good to think about the convention as a means to select that person.

 

corrected verb tense

Edited by saveliberty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An added note: I don't often have access to a radio while Rush is on, but I did catch part of a program that made me roll my eyes: There is no poll, no evidence to measure this, but Rush just "feels" that people want to replace Obama with anyone.

 

Then he made the comparison to 2010, which is not right. In 2010, seasoned pollsters for Democrats, Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen were watching and correctly saw a tsunami. That is not in sight at this point. Part of the trouble is that now Republicans have a seat at the table and the Democrats and media (but I repeat myself) blame Republicans for whatever is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink.gif Valin! I think very highly of you, but here you are misunderstanding my point. The point is that the primary process is prone to producing weaker candidates, which is made worse by the Super Tuesday and early process. If evidence for my point is needed, just check out the vacillation of the various Not-Romneys since campaigning began.

 

There are individuals who can beat Obama and it would be good to think about the convention as a means to select that person.

 

corrected verb tense

 

 

Is that the fault of the primaries or the candidates?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink.gif Valin! I think very highly of you, but here you are misunderstanding my point. The point is that the primary process is prone to producing weaker candidates, which is made worse by the Super Tuesday and early process. If evidence for my point is needed, just check out the vacillation of the various Not-Romneys since campaigning began.

 

There are individuals who can beat Obama and it would be good to think about the convention as a means to select that person.

 

corrected verb tense

 

 

Is that the fault of the primaries or the candidates?

 

The primaries. Mitt wouldn't win in a convention because he would not have the confidence of the convention. Newt have more of an uphill battle because he would have to find a way to win over a crowd skeptical after giving him the car keys in '94 and losing the mandate by '97.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wink.gif Valin! I think very highly of you, but here you are misunderstanding my point. The point is that the primary process is prone to producing weaker candidates, which is made worse by the Super Tuesday and early process. If evidence for my point is needed, just check out the vacillation of the various Not-Romneys since campaigning began.

 

There are individuals who can beat Obama and it would be good to think about the convention as a means to select that person.

 

corrected verb tense

 

 

Is that the fault of the primaries or the candidates?

 

The primaries. Mitt wouldn't win in a convention because he would not have the confidence of the convention. Newt have more of an uphill battle because he would have to find a way to win over a crowd skeptical after giving him the car keys in '94 and losing the mandate by '97.

 

When we get right down to it, I think the problem is not so much the system, but getting good people to run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1708994146
×
×
  • Create New...