This Post Served Sans Brain Bleach

Posted on | February 13, 2012 | 19 Comments

by Smitty

Earlier, Stacy’s Green Room post about my otherwise righteous governor, McDonnell, doing the dirty work for Romney got me thinking:

McDonnell’s argument is dishonest and, furthermore, why can’t Mitt Romney fight his own fights? Should Mitt Romney wish to pick an argument with Santorum over this issue, by all means let him do so, instead of hiding behind Bob McDonnell’s skirts. Does anyone think it enhances Romney’s reputation to deploy his proxies to make liberal arguments against a conservative rival in a notoriously liberal venue like CNN? Why are Republicans doing the liberals’ work for them?

How badly does Romney want to win? Will he give it the Full Klinger?

I had thought that maybe photoshopped onto Sarah, for the hair, would be funnier, but here we avoid messing with the Gov and score some cultivated chest. Humor is about the tradeoffs.

Props to The Curmudgeon!

Category: Mitt Romney

Comments

19 Responses to “This Post Served Sans Brain Bleach”

richard mcenroe
February 13th, 2012 @ 11:22 pm

Mitt Romney, the Meg Whitman for a New Generation!
Reliapundit
February 13th, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

Hmm… so McDonnell, Odonnell, Bolton, Thune, Ayotte, Haley, Coulter, are all RINO’s or liberals now!?

Puhleeeeeeze.

Mitt was firmly on the right of McCain in 2008 and has moved further to the right ever since.

Mitt was the first major pol to endorse Haley and Ayotte and Odonnell – taking on the establishment while newt was endorsing Dede Scozzafava and Rick was silent.

Mitt has actually had to balance budget – unlike career politician Santorum (who was busy piling on earmarks to his donors).

But why should I bother you with facts?

Obviously facts have very little to do with your opinions.

All you want is to nominate the person you feel is THE MOST CONSERVATIVE in the field, regardless of the facts, their experience or their likelihood to be able to raise the money and run the organization needed to defeat Obama – let alone attract the independents and moderates we will need to defeat Obama.

Mitt is to the right of Santorum on many issues (immigration, taxes, earmarks, etc).

Romneycare was a 70 page bill overwhelmingly passed by the Massachusetts legislature. No one anywhere has EVER challenged its constitutionality. And demanding that people who could afford to buy health insurance stop freeloading off other taxpayers and wither buy insurance or pay for their healthcare bills themselves is not LIBERAL.

Romney supports Ryan and Wyden-Ryan and if elected will repeal Obamacare.

The fact that he signed a major piece of healthcare reform makes him a more credible foe for Obama – one who is immune from Mediscare.

Santorum wouldn’t even win PA if he was on the ticket. Santorum won;t carry women or independents and therefore GUARANTEES (all caps so it mist be true!) a loss.

OR SHOW ME HOW WE WIN WITHOUT GETTING MOST OF THEM!

WAKE UP.

Please?

I want to defeat Obama and Santorum can’t.

Maybe Daniels could’ve – or Jindal – (or even Perry had only his campaigning had matched his resume).

Neither Newt or Rick can defeat Obama.

Mitt can.

And don’t tell me about polls right now; right now, they’re just name recognition contests.

We mustn’t nominate the fellow who throws the best red meat at the base – that won’t win us the White House in November.

We need an experienced executive who knows his way around the economy and finance and has experience turning things around – turning LARGE ENTERPRISES around.

We need Mitt.

McDonnell is right: we need Mitt. Now.

🙂
Adjoran
February 13th, 2012 @ 11:53 pm

Oh, please, what a stretch!

Stacy is just splitting hairs. If the policy of women in combat is bad, why? Because it allegedly leads to bad results? Because of what? The only difference between that policy and the old one is the addition of the female people to the combat, right? So, no, Santorum’s got nothing against the female soldiers, as long as they know their place?

As to McDonnell, he has every bit as much right to speak as any blogger does, and Romney has every right to quote him and use him as a campaign spokesman. If Santorum objects, why can’t he come out and say so? Why is he hiding behind a surrogate fedora? Or are there a different set of rules for Stacy’s team?
richard mcenroe
February 14th, 2012 @ 12:10 am

Funny how Romney fans LIKED polls when he led them.

Your Mitt is a pro-abortion, pro-gun control East Coast liberal who appointed liberal judges who gave us Massachusetts gay marriage. He has stated his belief in global warming and he gave us freaking ORomneycare.

That, and he’s run a whole series of dirty, negative campaigns he hasn’t even got the stones to own up to, leaving his gamekeepers to flog the uppity peasants for him.
Tennwriter
February 14th, 2012 @ 12:12 am

What an essay.

The Conservatives have been shouting for the last year at least….Nooooooo! to Mitt Romney. Time for Mitt’s guys to give up, and support Santorum or Newt (I like Santorum more, but I’m not too picky).
Mike Rogers
February 14th, 2012 @ 1:24 am

Mittens hides behinds any skirt he can find. Can’t quite visualize McDonnel in one, though!
Mike Rogers
February 14th, 2012 @ 1:26 am

We need Mitt Quit, right now!
He won’t fight his own fights, but uses surrogates.
The peo you list, may not be RIONs, but they are bought!
ThePaganTemple
February 14th, 2012 @ 6:34 am

Mitt positioned himself firmly to the right of McCain, but was able to do so because at that time he was the only viable alternative after Fred Thompson wasted all our time acting as McCain’s stalking horse. Hucklefuck was never seen as anymore than a social conservative and a fiscal moderate at best. So there just was nobody but Mitt. Unfortunately, Duncan Hunter never achieved any kind of traction, because he wasn’t well enough known and probably because it just wasn’t the right year for a national security conservative.

Mitt is not a conservative. If he was, he would have run as a conservative for governor or Senator from Michigan, or New Hampshire, etc.. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to run in Massachusetts.
Quartermaster
February 14th, 2012 @ 7:43 am

The case against women in the Military, much less in combat, has been dicussed for years and shwon to be highly corrosive. It’s been pushed because of “fairness,” or “justice,” when all the feminists want is to destroy the military.

I still have the gut feeling the nominee will be Romney, but he will have serious trouble rallying the troops. I doubt he can win against Obama because they are too much alike.

If Mittens is the nominee will have a choice between the Soros approved candidate, and another Soros approved candidate. It will make little difference. I doubt it would matter no matter who is elected. The country has been on this path since 1865 and I think the tipping point is now 40 years in the past.
Bob Belvedere
February 14th, 2012 @ 7:48 am

Willard also never balanced the budget. The Legislature in Massachusetts did.

1) The Governor there has very little power.

2) The Legislature ignored every budget Willard submitted and wrote their own ones. The budget is required to be balanced in the Bay State. However, they get around that by passing Supplemental Budgets every Winter. The only reason The Commonwealth achieved any fiscal stability in Mitt’s years as Governor was because House Speaker Tom Finneran [D] was a fiscal hawk [in Mass. the GOP is so weak and such a joke, many conservative-minded people run as Democrats in order to have any chance of winning].
Adjoran
February 14th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

So if you are against women in the military, are you saying they can’t do the job? If that’s not what you are saying, what are you saying?

The experience of the Israelis, the Russians, and our own military tend to belie your assertions.
Adjoran
February 14th, 2012 @ 9:45 am

You’ve never seen Presidential candidates allow surrogates to do the dirty work?

Where do you live? A cave?
EBL
February 14th, 2012 @ 10:03 am

Pink looks good on Mitt.
richard mcenroe
February 14th, 2012 @ 10:46 am

Because REAL conservatives are comfortable with seeing women get shot at because American men are too effete to make it through four months of training…

Look, the reality of military service in wartime is that EVERYONE is a target, especially when the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists. Women are going to wind up fighting. That doesn’t mean we should want to see them doing a door in Helmand province…
richard mcenroe
February 14th, 2012 @ 10:46 am

Seen it. Fed up with it. Won’t stand for it. It’s a simple enough progression.
Tennwriter
February 14th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

I think the Israelis tried full integration, and then backed off on it.

Besides, the situation of a country with their backs against the wall is not that analogous to a hyperpower.
Mike Rogers
February 14th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

But of course – Mittens elevates it to a whole new art form!
ThePaganTemple
February 14th, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

Yep, I sure have. It’s spelled C-O-W-A-R-D-I-C-E!
daialanye
February 15th, 2012 @ 12:52 am

I was in the service at a time when women weren’t allowed near combat. I have to admit that their cute little fannies added a lot to the social aspect, but not to the military aspect. They were fun, but allowing them to go into harm’s way approaches the idiotic.

To add a historical note, in a raid by some of Patton’s troops during WW II a US tank shot up a closed truckload of Germans who turned out to be female — anti-aircraft specialists. Even seeing enemy women’s bodies spill out of the truck was upsetting to our men.