Defeatist GOP Elites Quit on Mitt

RUSH: You know, I could be wrong about this, but here's Bill Kristol, who is saying that Romney... Let me get this quote in front of me. I always put this stuff the bottom of the Stack. Bill Kristol says Romney was "stupid and arrogant," and every Democrat under the sun is retweeting it. On the tape, talking about the 47%, Kristol says Romney was "stupid and arrogant." Every Democrat under the sun's retweeting that all over the place, Donna Brazile and others.

You know what struck me about this? During the primary, all these people -- not all of them, but a lot of the people -- who were telling us, "Romney's the only guy. He's the only chance we've got! Romney's the one," they've bailed. They've bailed on him. Now they're running around saying, "He's not the candidate we thought he was gonna be. He's stupid and arrogant," and all these things. And those of you, you and me, who were said to be problematic during the primaries? We're the ones supporting Romney!

We're the ones trying to do everything we can to help get the guy get elected, because this election's about stopping Obama! This election is about stopping the Democrat Party. This election is very important. It's very crucial. I say it again: I don't think that the inside the Beltway glitterati look at it all that way. I don't think they think anything's really at stake here, except committee chairmanships in the Senate, or control over the federal budget, or finding enough people to tell you they'll go on a cruise with you after the election.

But for all of us, this is ball game, the way we look at it. I find it interesting. We're the ones supporting Romney. And the guys that were all-in at the beginning and saying (muttering), "Romney's the only guy who can win. He's the only guy that's electable. He's the only one," now they're bailing on him. You know all they're doing is trying to protect their own reputations. They think everybody else sees Romney as stupid, so they gotta say so, too, to make sure that they're not looked at the same way people are supposedly looking at Romney.

The American people... Democrats are wrong to this, too. The American people are not fit to be tied, angry, insulted, or what have you over what Romney said on that tape. Let's go back to the audio sound bites. Frank Luntz, well-known... What does he do? Well, he's a well-known focus grouper. He's a pollster. (Just a mental block there.) He does all the focus groups with Hannity and so forth. He was on CBS This Morning today and they had a discussion about the "secret" video Mitt Romney recorded at a May fundraiser.

Again, there are two minutes of this thing missing. David Corn of Mother Jones said (paraphrased), "Hey, we got the whole thing! Here it is! The whole thing's there." Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection blog said, "No, it's not. There's two minutes missing, and nobody knows what's in the two minutes." Norah O'Donnell, the hostette, says to Luntz, "Now you see a number of Republicans, former Republicans criticizing Mitt Romney for his comment. Is this a turning point in the campaign?"

The glitterati, the intelligentsia, the stars inside the Beltway think Romney lost the election yesterday. They really do. That's why it was so hard for you watching television last night 'cause you see all these people on all these networks. "Oh, it's over!" I never met a bunch of quitters like these in my life. I never met a bigger bunch of defeatists! We haven't even had the debates. It's not even October yet. Anyway, here's what Luntz said. When Norah O'Donnell asks, "Is this a turning point in the campaign, Frank?" what she means is: "Okay, Romney stepped in it. Is that it? Is it over now?"

LUNTZ: First we had the 99 to 1%. Now we've got the 47 to 53%. Americans do believe that there's too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility. What they don't like is that line in Romney's statement where he says, "I don't care about them." They want a president to care about everyone, regardless of whether you vote for them or not. First you're trying to decide, are you in the 53 or 47; then (snickers) you're trying to decide, do you pay or not?

RUSH: Now, Frank spends all day with these independents who can't make up their minds, and they're now trying to figure out whether they're in the 47%. But they don't like that Romney said he doesn't care. Now, did Romney actually say that? Did he say he don't care about them? See, if he did, it's a problem, but that still is the opportunity that was presented. He's gone places on TV now like with Cavuto. (interruption) Exactly.

What he meant was: In the terms of the election, those people are already committed to Obama in his view. Obama starts out with 47% of the vote, is what he means. And he's gotta focus on the remaining people that he can get to vote for him. But, anyway, you also hear Luntz say, "Americans do believe that there's too much dependency on government and they want more personal responsibility." So O'Donnell then says, "But Romney was suggesting that these people are mooching off the system. He wasn't offering a helping hand. That's how they might interpret it."

LUNTZ: That's the whole issue. It's the interpretation versus what is meant. I want to make this clear: The race isn't over. It's not a game-changer. Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he's got a tremendous opportunity.

RUSH: There you have it, folks! The expert says it's not over, nowhere near over. And it's not a game-changer, but everybody in the media thinks it is. There was a Politico story somebody sent me last night. It was a Politico headline, or story, and it literally said the race was over last night. It was finished, it was done, because of this Romney comment. Now, Luntz says, "Not only is it not over, if Romney can change the focus with 23 million unemployed, he's got a tremendous opportunity."

I guess what that means is there are some in the 23 million unemployed who would vote for Obama because they want a continuation of unending benefits? My way of thinking -- which I know is crazy, cockamamie, out of the mainstream. By my way of thinking, I don't understand why more than ten or 20% of the unemployed would want anything to do with Barack Obama! Why are they unemployed? Romney hasn't had anything to do with them being unemployed.

Not one Romney policy has had anything to do with unemployment in this country. Not one! The only candidate in this race who can be tied to high unemployment is Barack Obama. Now, somebody explain to me how the 23 million unemployed wouldn't automatically want an alternative to Obama? At least a majority of them. (New Castrati impression) "Mr. Limbaugh, what you are forgetting, sir -- what you are missing -- is many of these 23 million unemployed really blame Bush, George W. Bush, who's really responsible for this!"

Well, there probably is some of that because of the media. But, again, common sense is rearing its head here, and I don't know how you make the case that a guy who has not been in office -- who has never been president, who hasn't had his hand on one aspect of federal policy -- is in any way linked to unemployment. "Mr. Limbaugh you're forgetting something else! There are guys like Romney who are going to increase unemployment by giving all the money to the rich!"

Well, if we've gotten to that point where people think that, then this is all academic anyway, and I just refuse to accept that. I just think this is all cockamamie. I think way too many people on our side fall for this. It's hard to avoid it, I must admit. The media bubble is there every day. Snerdley? It traps him every night! He leaves here with one view of the world after having listened to this program -- and after absorbing the news for three hours later that night, he's back down so low that when he looks up, he sees the gutter.

And if you choose to expose yourself to the modern day so-called news media for any length of time, you're gonna end up thinking the same thing. If you don't think that, then you're gonna think, "My gosh, there's no way. How can we overcome this?" And it's true. There has never, ever, in any of our lifetimes been anything this. We've never seen a news media so activist and in the tank like this for a candidate. Never, never. I mean, to the point of making up news stories, to the point of being ridiculous. The guy in the video caused the riots in the Middle East and ultimately it's Romney's fault?

And they try to do news stories, serious news stories with that premise? Now, I've never understood how the rich steal from the poor anyway. I've never understood the math on that, how the rich got rich from taking from the poor. I know I didn't go to college, but nobody's ever shown me mathematically how that formula works, that the rich got rich by taking from the poor.

RUSH: Wiesbaden, Germany, Angelo. I'm gonna get you. How long do you have here with us?

CALLER: But I was listening to you during the Republican convention and the coverage after the convention, and it struck me that the advisers to Mitt Romney sound to me a whole lot like RINOs that just don't want to lose their jobs. They're so entrenched in the status quo that they just want to keep it the way it is. That's why they're giving him all this, um, I would say "questionable advice" about not running on Obama's very public lack of a record.

RUSH: Yeah, but wait. It's a known quantity. He hired 'em. Is it their fault or his? He hired 'em.

RUSH: It could cut both ways. If you go hire the architects of McCain's defeat and expect something different... So, I mean, they are who they are, is the point. There's not a... (groans) Thanks for the call. I really appreciate it.

I have been accused of many things during my lifetime, but mush thinking is not one of them.

Read the post again — you know, and I know, and every poster here today reading this thread knows, that I meant one person voting twice in their own name.

Your voting for your mother is the right thing to do.

A Democrat would have voted twice for both of you.

Tell it to the guy who wrote it. Better yet see the video he used to link to.

Liberal Mitt's Greatest Hits: What Romney Doesn't Want You to See

The truth is what it is. Romney is a liar, he's a pro-abort, pro-gay, anti-gun MA liberal. He's evil.

” If I recall correctly he was pulling for Chris Christie or Jeb Bush to enter the race. So, yeah, Kristol’s squishy on conservatism, “

Yes, and in 2008 Kristol was pushing for McCain. Kristol is honest and sometimes on target (eg he also has been a Palin fan AFAIK), but sometimes way off. Kristol is honest, but a neo-con and semi-con at times.

In this case, he’s not actually wrong, they were poorly worded statements, but Kristol’s comments are really unhelpful and the focus is a typical media pack hunt mentality. Focus on this while ignoring Obama saying worse than that this past week.

True, Kristol was recommending Palin long before McCain picked her. But I think he later concluded she was brought onto the national stage too soon and I don’t believe he thought she should run in 2012.

I think what Kristol is is a pragmatic conservatism. He doesn’t have a liberal ideology, but he’s more willing to compromise on principles than others would be if he thinks it would make success more realistic.

These elite turds may be fine with another four years of Zero destroying the country and being “flexible” with our enemies.

They may be afflicted with excessive comfort -- comfort with who they are, with their privileges, with their exclusivity of power within the GOP, with their knowledge of politics that, unbeknownst to them, is being obsoleted by the totalitarian Progs behind Obozo.

Ever since Franklin Roosevelt -- and we forget too quickly (with help from academe and the Quisling Media) that FDR's four administrations were crawling with traitors just as Red as anything Bozo's got -- the Left has been making structural changes to the landscape of life in America with their institutionalization of huge national executive organs that promote fecklessness and dependency and indolence in American society.

I will assume [Bill Kristol's] comments are deliberate fodder [he is] providing to the opposition to hurt Romney. I assume [he] intend[s] for Obama to win.

No, if you read Rush's transcript more closely, it's more likely (quoth he, and it is more likely anyway) that Kristol and the other parachuting pundits are trying to protect their stock in trade, their judgment, by pre-bailing on a loser, much the way a stock-market pundit changes his opinion when the trend begins to weaken and possibly reverse.

Many of these same elites supported and voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. ... They said Sarah Palin was too dumb, a Christer, too conservative, blah, blah, blah ....

The whole Atlantic Slope urbanite scene is really divorcing from America -- both the people, and the idea of America. They're steeped in Hamiltonian b.s. about "empire without the King", and they don't even particularly like representative democracy.

Keep in mind, too, that Hamilton, in the last five issues or so of The Federalist, vigorously attacked the idea of a Bill of Rights. That says a lot, but it's never taught or even discussed: but here we have all around us the sequelae of Hamilton's egotistical, self-privileging worldview, and now it's shared by millions, and by a huge majority of those closest to the political centers of power.

As for what they think of the rest of us, here's a primer (and be sure to expand and have a look at the embedded links to the David Frum comments linked on his site, and to the Commentary article that kicked it all off):

http://tinyurl.com/6w37svf

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.