Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    If we’re so sure to lose playing it safe, why not shoot for the moon?

    If we’re so sure to lose playing it safe, why not shoot for the moon?

    George Will and Erick Erickson predict near certain loss in the presidential election.

    George Will:

    “[T]here would come a point when… conservatives turn their energies to a goal  much more attainable than… electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal  of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate..  [C]onservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure  Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013,” writes Will.

    Will argues that a Republican-controlled Congress would be able to strongly  oppose the president’s agenda.

    “If Republicans do, their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh  filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation … [A] re-elected Obama — a lame duck at noon next Jan. 20 — would have a  substantially reduced capacity to do harm,” he says.

    Erick Erickson:

    When you have a candidate few people really like, whose support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whose raison d’etre (a 4am fancy word) is fixing an economy that is fixing itself without him, and who only wins his actual, factual home state by three percentage points against a guy no one took seriously only two months ago, there really is little reason for independent voters in the general election to choose him if the economy keeps improving….

    At least we can be rid of him and, hopefully, his most ardent cheerleaders on November 7th when what the rest of us know will happen unless an economic catastrophe happens.

    This tape dug up by ABC News doesn’t help the election narrative, or give me confidence that we know everything we need to know about either of the two frontrunners:

    video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

    Nothing Will or Erickson says about the weakness of our most likely nominee, or currently second most likely nominee, is anything I haven’t said before in substance.  I am not so pessimistic about the general election, however, notwithstanding these weaknesses.

    But neither asks the question whether, if we are so sure to lose with our current top two choices, we should stop playing it safe and swing for the fences.

    Or at least shoot for the moon.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    raven | March 3, 2012 at 5:11 pm

    WoodnWorld | March 3, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    Huh?

    Still no case for Romney, I see.

    I offered my opinion: Romney is a loser and will lose. That’s it.

    You’re free at any time to detail my “handful of logical inconsistencies.” But I’m not sure you want to open the door on a comparative analysis. The rest if blather. I said nothing about polls other than to observe that it is Romney’s people always opportunistically hyperventilating about one or another poll — or remaining studiously silent when he intermittently tanks.

    Pointing to polls is one more substitute for, or distraction from, an actual case for the candidate.

    Further, how strong can these poll numbers be if a month ago Romney was badly trailing Santorum and three months ago badly trailing Gingrich?

    Rather than anhedonic, I consider my argument totally hopeful. Only by discrediting, humiliating and purging the last of these elitist weasels and losers from our political culture can America recover. Romney is a relic of a moribund political class. If we haven’t kicked his craven, preppy loser ass by the convention, Obama will finish the job. Then we have a chance.


       
       0 
       
       0
      WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 4, 2012 at 8:01 am

      Yes, that’s all you have. An opinion. Nothing more. At some point you are going to have to come to grips with the, yes, fact that the majority of primary voters do not agree with you. Put another way, you are losing.

      As I just said to Hope up above, I see no need to “make a case” for Romney, especially (and I cannot emphasize this enough) to someone like you. Without me, and in spite of you, Romney is doing a far better job making his case with the people who matter. Put another way, your opinion does not matter. You being actually right or secretly the smartest person in the class does not matter. The majority of Americans do not care what you think and until any of you can prove how Newt, the current loser, becomes a winner, I don’t care what you think or what you have to say about the primary.

      You can try to spin your comment on polls and try to make it out as though Romney supporters are the only ones who intermittently use them but the facts are Newt supporters would use those same polls to make their case if they could, one, and two, the only reason why they don’t is because they can’t.

      Given your penchant for opinions, and the unshakeable faith you place in your own, I can see why you would so flippantly dismiss the single, best quantifiable measures we have for a candidate’s predictive performance. You strike me as more of an emotion rather than reason, arts rather than sciences type.

      Finally, an opinion of my own: I don’t think you are capable of analysis, either comparative or otherwise. 1st gear for you is inflated rhetoric. 2nd, “that’s just blather.” 3rd, “trrolllll.” You have no 4th, and certainly no intellectual “overdrive” that I can discern other than the ability to properly spell/punctuate. Reverse for you is, in spite of your being wrong about this, you are secretly right about everything else and, last but not least, your engine runs on “hopeful anger.” So yes, I’ll open that “door” any day of the week Raver.


         
         0 
         
         0
        raven in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 4, 2012 at 12:53 pm

        I have no illusions that my opinion “matters.” I’ve observed that Romney is a loser and I maintain he will lose. Make what you will of this. I’ve provided what I believe to be a fairly solid and empirical litany of reasons why I believe this. The chief one: he’s a loser. He lost to McCain and Huckabee, as both played with him like two cats with a mouse before quartering him up for lunch. In his one clash with a Leftist he got clobbered, dropping 20 points in the polls after his final debate and his tone-deaf flailings. The man has never galvanized, moved or inspired a constituency with exciting growth potential or provided intellectual or polemical substance whatseoever to the conservative movement that I can detect. His anal and fearful strategy seems to be to be to say as little as possible and be the last man standing. He may succeed. But his failure to understand or, forfend, lead the seething and shifting forces within the country and conservative corpus will prove disastrous.

        I admit I also personally despise him. I grew up in the Harvard culture with dozens of privileged, entitled daddy’s-boy preppy twits like Romney. No more of that for me.

        I called you a troll because you represented yourself as a neutral above-it-all booster of the “best candidate” when you were anything but. The January 29th thread I cited earlier here embarrassing laid it out. Your “critique” of Romney was laughably transparent foolishness — definitive trollery.

        You haven’t and evidently cannot make a case for Romney. You assert I won’t listen or am too afflicted with intellectual vanity or obduracy to comprehend. This is a boilerplate dodge. You refer to logical inconsistencies in my arguments but won’t cite them. You make other vague slurs and slights. Who cares, in the end, you don’t make a case for Romney.

        It’s just this: I’ve never heard a cogent and persuasive argument for Romney, at least not one without the constitution of a gingerbread house. Instead I’m told to look at the polls, think on the basis of caution and calculation, tremble at the electoral dangers of right-wing extremism, weigh the importance of not scaring away “independents,” i.e., submissively worship at the false idol of electability. No one stands up and full-throatedly defends this guy as a champion of this or that belief in the manner that people do for Santorum and Gingrich. Meanwhile Hope Change tirelessly and with specifics exhorts the cause of Gingrich, a flawed man and candidate but a genuine and deeply thoughtful warrior.

        Romney is a loser and will lose. Hold me to it.


           
           0 
           
           0
          WoodnWorld in reply to raven. | March 4, 2012 at 3:06 pm

          Ok, got it. Besides the anger issue, and the possible inferiority issues, and the chip on your shoulder, you are right, everyone else is wrong. Roger that. For someone who despises elites as much as you claim, you certainly adopt the mannerisms of the class. As an unashamed, “Establishment elite” I know, I recognize the symptoms. In addition to having been surrounded by the same sorts you were growing up, I went to college at one of those ridiculously expensive private schools and had to put up with some of the same attitudes, but I am not bitter about it.

          You refer to logical inconsistencies in my arguments but won’t cite them.

          Ok, I’ll bite. Some recent examples:
          “Move that goalpost as much as you like.”
          -Romney’s a loser. If he does happen to win the primary, he is still a loser. If he, for some reason, by some miracle, does win the general, he is still a loser because we all lose, or something? Did I paraphrase that properly? Do I really need to highlight how ridiculous that sounds?

          “A historical fallacy of sorts.”
          -Mitt Romney lost to a Kennedy. In Massachusetts. He conceded to McCain, very graciously, well before he had to. Are those really the two biggest bullets in your “Loser Gun?” The two brightest observations you have made over all the years? It apparently doesn’t matter to you *how*, or *why* he lost, just *that* he lost. This is the basis for your calling him a loser. This is what you call an argument. Seriously?

          Argumentum e silentio
          -It’s not that you are too “intellectually vain,” but rather that you mask some of your ignorance with intellectualism. I *could* make a case for Romney, I could provide *my* reasons why I support him; I simply choose not to. Why would I? Why would I here? That’s what you don’t comprehend Rave. My silence on the matter, my not taking your cheap bait isn’t for want of ability, but rather my not caring enough to get that personal with someone who is, at the end of the day, not listening to anyone but himself/herself.

          The Burden of proof.
          -You don’t need to make a case for Newt or prove how he can win, but I must make one for Mitt and prove he’s not the loser you think he is? And you say I am dodging. You are holding me to a standard that you are somehow exempt from simply because you aren’t for anything and want to burn it all down to the ground. If you can show me how Newt can win, I will rise to the challenge and make my case for Mitt Romney. Hold me to it. Until then, get off the “make a case” schtick, it’s intellectually unbecoming.

          I could go on and on and have a long list of some of your greatest hits to work with, fierce little rants I have been collecting over the last month or so, but to be honest, I am tired and the next couple days are going to be rough.

          The only case anyone needs to make for Mitt Romney right now is that he is quietly kicking everyone’s ass. I don’t need the polls, although they certainly help. All I need to do is look at the delegate count. If trends continue, we are rapidly approaching case closed.

          In January, I really was torn between Newt and Mitt. That was sincere and I don’t give a flying hockey puck whether you believe me or not. I will concede that people like you solidified my decision for me very rapidly when I realized many of you are more against Mitt than you are for another Republican candidate and, worse, that many of you are more against Mitt than you are Obama. There is a vast difference between Hope Change and you and I am happy to see that you see it as well. Hope stands for something, you apparently stand against everything.

          Take the last word. If you post something I will come back and read it but I’m a little over this discussion and really want to move on.

          For what it is worth Raven, I respect the fact that you keep coming back and (not even begrudgingly) admire your passion. I suspect only a small handful of us are paying attention to this thread any more and commend you on being here even though we probably don’t have an audience.


             
             0 
             
             0
            raven in reply to WoodnWorld. | March 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm

            “Move that goalpost as much as you like.”

            One goalpost: Romney will lose to Obama. He may also yet lose the nomination. That he’s even in doubt at this point of winning the nomination with the preponderant money and machine advantages he’s had for five years is rather incredible. That’s all I’ve said. Hold me to it.

            “A historical fallacy of sorts.”
            -Mitt Romney lost to a Kennedy. In Massachusetts… He conceded to McCain, very graciously, well before he had to… Are those really the two biggest bullets in your “Loser Gun?”

            Disingenuous. The case for his electoral flaccidness and loser-ness has been made repeatedly (by myself and others) and the record involves more than losing to a Kennedy. He barely won his first term as governor (the lowest margin for victory of any republican who’d run in the modern era) against a no-name non-incumbent. With sinking poll numbers, he didn’t run for a second term. (In contrast, republican Bill Weld’s 65% victory for his second term). Ted Kennedy was at his lowest ebb in Massachusetts and was eminently beatable. Romney was even with him as late as September. He then collapsed. Failure in the clutch: that’s what makes a loser. He lost to McCain and Huckabee despite the same ridiculous advantages. We know as a fact his ratio of money spent to votes won is the widest gap in modern history. In any case, the loss to Kennedy is dispositive as Kennedy employed the Leftist tactics one can expect to see from Obama. Romney responded haplessly.

            “Argumentum e silentio”

            And I’m the one who uses intellectualism to mask inadequacies? “Argumentum e silentio”? You’re kidding, right? You’re making an argument by not making it because I’m unworthy to hear it? You “simply choose not to”? Yet you consume chunks of bandwidth with windy expatiations about why you’re not making the argument? Why would you make it “here”? Why not here? Isn’t that why “here” exists?

            More incoherence: you don’t care about getting “that personal” but then get that personal lengthily explaining why you won’t get that personal.

            And what is “personal” about making a case for Romney?

            “The Burden of proof.”

            I accept no burden. I’m being entirely negative. I said that upfront.

            In any case, I’ve made the case for Newt at least a dozen times, and many others have as well and still do. NO ONE has made the case for Romney. Romneybots just keep churning the smug and self-pitying pot about how no one listens or we’re too stupid to understand and it’s beneath you to try.

            “I could go on and on and have a long list of some of your greatest hits to work with, fierce little rants I have been collecting over the last month or so, but to be honest, I am tired”

            But not tired enough to keep you from rambling about what you might do but are too tired to try.

            “In January, I really was torn between Newt and Mitt…”

            Sorry, not buying it. I’ve seen that faux neutrality shtick too many times. You were bearding for Romney.

    […] “But neither asks the question whether, if we are so sure to lose with our current top two choices, we should stop playing it safe and swing for the fences.” […]


     
     0 
     
     0
    raven | March 4, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    I should add that Romney is a loser for far more reasons than bottom-line electoral outcome. He’s a metaphorical loser in his fearfulness and failure to defend and advance conservatism. He’s a loser by employing leftist tactics against fellow conservatives. He’s a loser by defending the media against Gingrich’s attacks — indeed, what greater loser could the Republicans put forward than a man who came to the media’s defense. At this fateful moment in history, at this point of conservative revival, there is no greater loser for us than Romney.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend