For a while now, the Obama camp has been acting like they are scared of Mitt Romney. They have been fairly obvious about it. OK, very obvious.
I have suspected for some time that this is a head fake. They really want Romney.
Dem operatives have been letting it “slip” that they are really afraid of Romney but so far, the media has treated Romney with relative kid gloves.
Now to confirm my thoughts, check out this particular piece of political fiction from Laurence O’Donnell claiming Obama doesn’t want to tun against Romney.
That confirms it, they want Romney. Bad!!
Donna Brazile, running off at the mouth on TV the other day, may have even let the truth slip.
“Mitt Romney won tonight because no one touched him. And for Democrats, you know what? It was good news for us . . . because we believe that the weakest candidate is the candidate that the Republicans are not attacking. And that’s Mitt Romney.”
So the class warriors want Romney. I wonder why?
Palin said the mainstream media would take a hands-off approach to Romney “in order to bolster Romney’s chances” to “finally face Obama.”
According to Palin, the mainstream media and Obama would then portray Romney as someone who is out of touch with regular Americans in the general election.
“They are already gearing up to portray him, accurately or inaccurately … as being out of touch with the working class,” Palin said, nothing that Romney’s wealth and perfect family may make it easy to paint him as someone “being a bit out of touch from working and middle class Americans and from the challenges we all face.”
Palin continued: “My opinion is that I can see what’s coming … the media will try to bolster Romney so they can tear him down, and that is quite unfortunate.”
She is exactly right. They intend class warfare and Mitt is the poster child for that. I dunno if it will be effective, but that is their plan. They want Romney.
January 9, 2012 at 5:04 pm
SPOT ON!
January 9, 2012 at 5:23 pm
I can already see an ad that closes with – Mitt Romney is the 1 percent.
I can't but help see Mitt as Hillary 2.0. Its all about image, and cankles and coiffed hair don't compete with our dear leader banking jump shots with service men on an air craft carrier.
January 9, 2012 at 5:52 pm
No, no Anon "January 9, 2012 12:23 PM", Gov. Romney is Kerry 2.0 (both from Mass., liberal/wishy washy, and part of the 1%). I agree that if Romney wins the nomination, there will really be two Democrats (et al.) running.
January 9, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Palin is a VERY astute politician.
Romney cannot run against ObamaCare.
He governed Massachusetts, so can he run against 'high taxes'? 'Gay marriage'? 'Too much regulation'?
Worse: he is the very picture of the East Coast BigBank/BigCapital candidate. Does anyone seriously think that will play well in the Upper Midwest? the South?
He's been running for 20 years, and barely escaped Iowa……
January 9, 2012 at 10:32 pm
As a democrat, that will be sending money to Obaba, I truely think Romney is the biggest threat to the second term. No other candidate can grab the center like Mitt and his beliefs (such as they are) are so flexible, he can be anything to anyone.
His minus's, Mormon, rich, His biggest plus, not Obama. Every other candidate, other than Huntsman, has large negatives.
January 10, 2012 at 2:54 am
Romney will not have my vote when he gets the nomination. Unlike most Repubs, I don't "fall in line" like a lemming to support whatever useless candidate the party nominates to run for President. Time for a new party to rise and replace the neo-con status quo Republicans.
January 10, 2012 at 3:03 am
"Obama Wants Romney"
Unfortunately, so do Republican establishment lemmings like Matt Drudge and folks at Fox News, apparently. "Republican" does not equal "Conservative," which is why I won't vote for someone like Romney.
January 10, 2012 at 7:10 am
I agree totally!
January 11, 2012 at 1:24 am
so, in effect you guys will be voting for Obama if you don't vote for the republican nominee (as unhappy as some of may be with whoever it is)…remember…Perot is the reason we got Clinton, and Clinton seems like a paragon of decency and wisdom compared to the ONE. As for myself, I'll vote for whoever we need to defeat Obama, and that will be the repub nominee..DDD
January 11, 2012 at 3:57 am
They want Romney but they'll be satisfied with any of the others but Paul. They are all CFR tools but him. Paul is the only one who is different from Obama. The rest will do just as W, did: pay lip service to evangelicals and religious folks and laugh at them behind their backs once elected. They fall for pretty talk every time.
January 12, 2012 at 2:23 am
"so, in effect you guys will be voting for Obama if you don't vote for the republican nominee…"
This is precisely the weak-minded, appalling attitude that has brought down the Republican party and must be done away with. Every election now, the Republicans put up a lame, big-government, establishment, neo-con candidate, and every election, we are told that we must obey and support the party's candidate lest we help the Democrat. And every election, the vast majority of Republican lemmings get suckered into this trap, obey the party establishment, do what they're told and support the worthless Republican neo-con. The establishment knows the lemmings will always do what they are told, and so we continue to have one worthless nominee after another as the cycle continues. This attitude has rendered the Republican party useless. I am tired of being fed garbage every Predidential election and being told that I have to eat it or else I might get something worse. Shove it. The Dems voted in one of the most liberal Presidents in history, yet the Republicans are too weak-minded to ever vote for a true conservative. That's pathetic.
The attitude that unless we support the Republican nominee, we're essentially "helping" the Democrat is appalling and arrogant. It means that conservatives are expected to fall in line and compromise for the Republican establishment's desires, but never the other way around. The better solution would be for Republicans to abandon their party's establishment and support a true conservative third-party candidate. But the arrogance of these attitudes causes many Republicans to consider it blasphemy to ever question the establishment's pick.
You say that Perot is the reason we got Clinton. What if I were to tell you that Bush I is the reason we got Clinton, and that Bush I should have dropped out so that Perot could win? The establishment never views things with the shoe on the other foot like that because that's how pompous they are, and most Republican lemmings have been duped into following suit. Also, Perot was not necessarily a good candidate, but another thing to consider is that Bush I is still the one responsible for giving us Clinton because Bush I stunk.