Posted on 09/10/2012 3:11:38 PM PDT by tsowellfan
On her Monday radio program, conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham ripped into Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign for its lackluster performance based on unfavorable polling data showing Romney trailing President Barack Obama, despite the bad economy and high unemployment numbers...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
So far there is no "THIS".
The same can be said about Obama but his people could care less what Obama's plan is. Besides, as the incumbent he's got an advantage except when you look at his performance. When you do that, Romney should be up 10% in even the most liberal polls.
Romney needs to get specific about his plans last month. Time is needed for word of mouth to spread those plans around from friend to friend, relative to relative.
She keeps this up about Willard and her and Ann Coulter will get a big cat fight. I want to hear Coulter’s answer to all these polls saying her lover-boy has already the election.
You picked him Laura.
It will take effect no matter who wins. Maybe a name change, but it will not change, which is what I have predicted ever since the traitors passed the bill in the senate. I also said from the beginning that the court would not over turn it. My other prediction was that none of the none running would ever be president, I really hope that I missed that one.
From Google, she seems to have endorsed Romney in 2008, but doesn’t look like she endorsed anyone in 2012. Of course that was part of the problem, with Palin and so many other conservatives sitting on the sidelines not endorsing anyone until way too late in the primaries while endorsements for Romney from the establishment piled up. Romney had such a financial advantage, the only chance would’ve been for people to rally around one single opponent and let all the grass-roots donations go there.
If the GOP cannot beat Obama, they won’t have to shut down the party. Obama will do it for them.
I listen to her show almost every day and I do not remember her “wanting Mitt”. If anything, she probably wanted Santorum. She made it clear if Mitt wins she’d support him. No different then most other conservatives. Willard won the GOP primary. This speaks to how poor the GOP primary field really was. It is what it is. Mitt is the lackluster candidate we all knew he’d be, but this is who we’ve got and he’s better than Obama.
“Governors across the nation on both sides of the aisle are setting up the state ends.”
You have to set aside everything you know about incumbent races. This is the first time for this "historical" candidate has run for reelection.
Obama knows how critical this is to his reelection bid in light of his record of failure. It's not coincidental you see his surrogates and the DNC playing the race card.
I've said it for year or more, this is not John F. Kerry up for reelection. Romney can only win by convincing independent voters they are not racist or hateful for voting to let Obama go because of his failed record. They need permission. This was a big part of the convention's message and I noticed many didn't pick up on that.
I'm largely satisfied with Romney's general election campaign to date. It's been smart, I think it's his best chance at victory. We'll see what comes next.
Don't get me wrong I like LI very much. Agree with her 80% of the time but when it came to Romney vs the pack, I felt she had Romney's back. Washington republicans are no different than democrat republicans.
When all is said and done and IF Obama wins (which I personally don't think so) The Karl Roves of the world will still be employed and you and I will not.
I remember when she was trashing Sarah. I often wonder whose side these pundits and radio hosts are really on. Laura is one I don’t trust.
Not complaining about it - just pointing out why the Republican Party may lose with their candidate. If they do the same in 2016, same problem.
Who knows - maybe the Severe Conservative Romney will win.
The financial collapse happens anyway. The Fed meets this week and may go for QE3,
The consultants seem to think ads should be dumbed down because all the hicks and rubes out there don't understand all that "policy." What the consultants don't get is what Clinton proved in his DNC speech. You don't need to be factual, you don't need to be logical, you just need to SOUND like you know what you're talking about when you eviscerate your opponents. And to do that, you need to cite detail that makes it SOUND like you're basing what you say on specific details and facts. People know what it sounds like when a school kid gets up to give a book review and hasn't read the book. The details have to be there. And a smart kid can fake them even if he hasn't read much of the book.
At this point though, I believe the political consultant class is every bit as liberal as the media, and is specifically throwing the election to Obama by giving Romney bad advice. This is doubly true if Romney's team actually is made up of people from Taxahomochusetts. And Romney is not smart enough to understand why it's bad advice, the way Newt Gingrich could.
But,but Laura!!! We were told ROMNEY was the ONLY one that could beat Obama, that was from all you FOX folks.
Yep. Been sayin' that since 1988.
Sadly, I'm stuck with voting for the latest in a long line of GOP milquetoasts, or risk being tossed out of the Romney sycophants club here on FR.
I agree 100!
GOP fight to win, or CLEAR THE STAGE OF HISTORY, joining the Whigs.
Amazing. I have never, ever heard her peep criticism about Willard Mitt Romney before. Uppity gentile woman.
I would have said, “Good! We need more millionaires. Millionaires create jobs. Millionaires don’t live off the government dole. Millionaires don’t break into my house. Millionaires spend their own money, not the taxpayers money.
Only small, envious people begrudge others being successful. The jobs created by the rich will empower America much more than taxing them more. Tax them until they are no longer rich, and we all suffer...taxes are fleeting, jobs are ongoing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket -the rich - never works out well. An economy where anyone can get rich by hard work, elevates us all.
Obama squanders our money like a bratty nephew who inherits - and squanders - the family fortune, and when it’s gone, he’s on skid row again.
History says Obama loses. I say by 5 to 7 points (that would be a blowout by modern political standards).
Laura Ingraham apparently has a homosexual brother. And she has apparently said she changed her views on homosexuality after he came out. I believe that this election nothing is more important to most of the elites of this country, no matter what party they’re in, than to legalize same-sex marriage. It has totally taken the place of electing the first black president. The stock market is booming and these people are well-off, so the economy is secondary to them anyway. Bad or good, they’ll do fine. But nothing is more important to them than exercising the morality they’ve been educated with in place of Judeo-Christian values for 40 years, and that is to prove they aren’t “prejudiced.” Electing the first black president was the best way to do it last time. This time it’s to help the movement to legalize same-sex marriage nationally succeed. Obama knows it which is why he made that a plank of the Democrat platform.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.