Replies

I think most here are misreading Jindal's remarks. He didn't say anything about pandering. Using Romney's turns of phrase, which were in their own way, as clunky as Akin and Mourdoch's though on a different matter, are not the way to persuade people to vote for you.

Romney's campaign was astonishingly vapid and content-free and feebly negative ("in over his head"). Yeah, I know he had his five to 59 points for fixing the economy, which was mostly composed of platitudes. I also don't expect ANY politician to get too specific about what to cut. But, man, if you are going to go negative, go NEGATIVE, and on Obama, not on the 47% or on anybody whose votes you might want. This was Dukakis redux; for those who recall, Dukakis wanted to make the election about "competency". He had it, Bush the Elder didn't. Great playbook there Romney, he wanted to be Mike Dukakis, Wendell Willke and Steve Forbes (decent man, awful candidate) rolled into one. ONCE in a while you get the successful businessman who is the whole package. Pete DuPont and Peter Fitzgerald are two that come to mind. Most of the rest are "in over their heads".

This is NOT the time to be gunning after anyone who questions the man who ruined the election of 2012: Mitt Romney. He is killed, now we must BURY him, not praise him.

Too bad Mr.-Competant-Business-Man-who-saved-the-Olympiscs-and-fixed-Massachusetts couldn't even run a dcent GOTV operation or spend his money efficiently on ads (he did the same with the ads in 2008).

This is an anti-Romney site. We just happen to be more anti-Obama, so many chose the poop sandwich over the strichnine ... fine.

But now it is time to understand that the GOP-E is going to try to hang this on us, instead of their own candidate that they shoved down our throats. So, don't worry about Romney getting criticized. He got his chance, and for his extra $100,000,000 in campaigning and the mask being ripped off of Obama at least to some, he couldn't take the ball over the goalline, or even move the needle much. He is a negative example of what NOT to do, not one to be defended.

Great post. By any chance were you listening to “Rush” today? Doug urbanski (sp?) was on there and I found myself saying “where was this guy before the election?” He was spot on! Talking about how if you want to beat the alinskying left and their media in a battle (election), you have to Actually Show Up and get around the media. Then he showed several brilliant ways to beat the media, and mentioned how herman Cain did one of the ways (before his candidacy was derailed).

One was: have a short, sweet, viral talking point. Cain had 999. As Urbanski explained, it almost doesn’t matter what your plan is (though it should be a good conservative plan); it needs to be spread around, mocked by the opposition, but gotten into the average joe’s brain, and make a lot of people start thinking about it. Could it work? Even those who say it could never work were talking about it. To rise to the level of getting mocked on SNL means your plan is getting out there.

This is how you get right over the media. Make them work FOR you. A 59 point plan or whatever is BS. Urbanski ran through a bunch of other easy points one could use, including “term limits.” If you decided to run on this, get the bums out, then the media falls in and starts broadcasting that we need experienced politicians, etc. but the average joe will think about it and wonder if we really need the Harry Reid’s, or even the republican entrenched... It has thus gotten around the mouthpiece media.

He also criticized the Romney camp For not fighting the fight: Romney could have won if he answered Obama’s negative ads (85% were) in the battleground states. GO NEGATIVE ON YOUR OPPONENT OR DON’T RUN. I’d like to have McCain and Romney show me the science behind darker skin meaning a greater person, because both of them clearly believed it. Romney must have felt Gingrich was pasty enough to go negative on.

He also