Mitt's Missed Moment

Debate | October 17, 2012 | None

[Jess Kitting]

In tonight's debate, Mitt Romney missed a great opportunity to zing Mr. Obama.

Here's the line Obama used, and what Romney could have said (and still can in follow-up speeches, if he chooses to use it):

Obama: We have to dig ourselves out of the recession.

What Romney can say to that is: Mr. President, when you are in a hole and you keep digging, the hole doesn't get smaller; it gets bigger!

Isn't that what you have been doing for the last four years, Mr. President, digging the hole of debt deeper and deeper?

Where I come from, when you're in a deep hole, you stop digging! Mr. President, your policies are digging us so deep into debt that we may never get out of the hole.

[Morpheus2009]

Hey, yeah Romney didn’t say everything he could have, but it’s important to not use up all the attacks/criticisms in one debate, keep it going for whatever is left.

[Morpheus2009]

Don’t forget he’s simply a juggernaut: he in pretty much undated by media insults.

[Ken H]

R did fine. Plus there's this little gem hanging out there (quoting from another FReeper):

"The question that cannot be ignored for the next debate will be... Why did they continue to use the red herring about the video if they knew it was an act of terrorism the next day?"

I don't see a way around that for O. He's hosed either way.

[tumblindice]

You ‘re a real piece of work, Yosemitest.
Here’s what I wanted to see: Obama calls that rascally Romney a “capitalist establishment GOP” and so forth and so on, and Romney retorts, “Well, I’m rubber and you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
So Zero replies, “Grow up!” And Mitt fires back, “I don’t grow up—I throw up, and your mother laps it up.”
This leaves Zero speechless, so Mitt clasps his hands over his head and yells, “I win!”
I can’t believe I’m pecking all this down on a Kindle. And that I could be on the testicle-chomping fish thread.
Stay cool, goodnight and go Mitt, you wild and crazy Mormon you!

[Yosemitest]

I don't share your confidence.

On another thread, WhiskeyX's analysis is very good on

Republican Primaries being manipulated by RINOs, and mind-numb Democrats following marching orders from the left.

" The Democrats-Progressives-socialists-communists-whateverits have a political tactic in the elections in addition to their typical vote frauds.
What they do is
have a Democrat pretend to run for election as a Republican in the general primary election against a genuine Republican challenger
who threatens to unseat an incumbent Democrat.
In the general primary election they then instruct nearly all of the Democrat voters,
their zombie voters in the graveyards, their captive nursing home voters, and voters in the prisons
to vote as Republicans for the Democrat running as a Republican in the general primary election.
Then the fake Republican candidate puts up a token campaign which loses
to allow the Democrat incumbent to win the General Election in November.
In this way the Democrats get to run only Democrats in the General Election,
leaving no genuine Republicans for Conservatives to vote for in that election.
Romney is represented as a former independent voter turned Republican,
but he serves the same purpose as the typical Trojan Horse Democrat running for election as a Republican. "

"Mitt, It's Time To Quit!"



Mitt. It’s time you quit!
Your credibility isn’t worth spit.
RINOs, the “Establishment”, and Democrats all agree,
But in the General Election, to Obama they’ll flee.
Against Obama, liberals and moderates know you’ll lose.
But conservatives, Romney they’ll never choose.

Mitt, our loyalty you can’t buy.
Back to Massachusetts, you’d better fly.
Just like Gerald Ford, Bob Dole, and John McCain,
Nominee Willard Mitt Romney will result in the same.
As a Governor, your record isn’t that great.
Out of 50 states, your popularity was number 48.

Your experience, the “Establishment” types tout.
Defending federal bailouts and FDIC loan forgiveness will find you out.
Democrats and RINOs cower from their liberal wives,
Supporting Romney with nothing but lies.
In 1994 Ted Kennedy showed Willard to be a great bane,
With Mitt’s Bain, and Bain Capital, Obama will do the same.

Damon Corp, with Romney paid $119 million in a fine.
Yet Willard says, for his leadership, it’s time.
He claims jobs he can create and taxes he can lower,
47th out of 50 in growth he rates. Can it get any slower?
$740.5 million dollars a year, fees and taxes under Mitt increased.
Will the half-truths and lies from Romney ever cease?

For Liberty and Freedom, we don’t need “Flakes”,
But Romney says Healthcare responsibilities belong to the States.
Conservatives stand for “Self-responsibility, Self-accountability, and Self-reliance.”
But against these things, Willard’s actions scream in defiance.
“Establishment Republicans” thinks Romney can help take back the Senate,
But they know that for President, Mitt can NOT win it.

Like everything the “Establishment Republicans” try to do,
It leads to failure, and we get the bill, as well as the screw.
In their corruption, little change do they seek,
They don’t want our Freedom to peak.
Their craving for power has pushed their bravery,
To ignore our Constitution, and sell us into economical slavery.

So Willard, don’t lecture us on the need for “patience” and “compromise”.
Romney, be selfless. Conservatism is on the rise.
Choosing the lesser of two evils, isn’t what we desire.
You let them rewrite the language. Where’s your fire?
Romney, they accuse us falsely, and you do little.
Where’s your response, or can you only twiddle?

Mitt, you don’t have what it takes to lead.
So with you I plead.
Do you really want to go from Obama-care to Romney-care?
With you, this nation will pull out its hair!
Go somewhere and quietly think … and sit.
“Know your own limitations!” Mitt. It’s time you quit!



By Yosemitest, Mar 15, 2012

RUSH: Santorum Was Right About Romneycare
Read this article.


The "Republican Establishment's" hatred for conservatives is well known.
Jon Bershad wrote about Rush's analysis of their PANIC.


How many times has the "Republican Establishment" treated us to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”?
After we elect and RE-elect the "Republican Establishment", they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail.
It may be worth it for the GOP to lose some elections - if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If we didn’t know it before, WE ... the Tea Partiers, now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, we can thank the "Republican Establishment" for impressing this so indelibly upon us!!!
I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none.
But my ... LOATHING ... for the "Establishment Republicans" ... is even stronger!
The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Yosemitest]

I like your verse, but I question your logic.
Mitt was very milk toast, at best, and way too mild.
He's just another RINO !

[rurgan]

Your democrat talking points don’t fool anyone

I think you are a democrat

[Yosemitest]

Not HARDLY !!!
I want a REAL Conservative !
One that makes Rush and Glenn Beck look moderate.

[rurgan]

You are campaigning for Obama, running negative ads against Romney at the height of the election when Obama needs it most. have you no shame campaigning for the most despicable, most socialistic, most evil, most liberal piece of communist crap that ever slithered out form under a rock , Obama. sure you are a democrat.

[newzjunkey]

You can't handle that your narrative about Romney is falling to pieces.

He's showing to be a strong competitor against Obama with what could be the right message, the right timbre, at the right time.

[newzjunkey]

I want a REAL Conservative !

And I'm sure you couldn't find one to suit you in any office in the land. That's just your excuse to avoid responsibility for picking among flawed people putting themselves forward to actually get things done.

[Erik Latranyi]

When Obama says he created 5 million jobs, I would say that is nice, but we need 23 million more.....in other words, the President’s policies need four more terms to get the job done!

[Kharis13]

Whenever our Dear Leader begins blaming Bush, I’d like to hear Romney say, “You know Mr. President, firefighters inherit fires everyday, but they don’t throw gasoline on ‘em”.

Or

“Yes, the President inherited a mess. And he took that mess and turned it into a national nightmare.”

I believe Obama’s die has been cast. His oh-so-optimistic run in ‘08 has given way to crushing failure. We’ll know in less than three weeks.

[johnthebaptistmoore]

Mitt should of said, “Even your own Vice President, Joe Biden, said that the middle class has become “buried” during the last four years!”

[jmaroneps37]

I don't understand your comment. Obama looked inept and was caught in many lies. The questions were not at all friendly to Obama and he was hurt by many. I give this 5 points Romney 2 for Obama and a tie on one. Look at Luntz’s focus group before you read what the media has to say. It was Romney's night again and this is over.

[Yosemitest]

You couldn't be MORE WRONG if you tried!
Their "Fabian Fascist" or our LIBERAL "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN"...
What the hell is wrong with you!

[Yosemitest]

I'll repeat it, AGAIN !!!

On another thread, WhiskeyX's analysis is very good on
Republican Primaries being manipulated by RINOs, and mind-numb Democrats following marching orders from the left.

" The Democrats-Progressives-socialists-communists-whateverits have a political tactic in the elections in addition to their typical vote frauds.
What they do is
have a Democrat pretend to run for election as a Republican in the general primary election against a genuine Republican challenger
who threatens to unseat an incumbent Democrat.
In the general primary election they then instruct nearly all of the Democrat voters,
their zombie voters in the graveyards, their captive nursing home voters, and voters in the prisons
to vote as Republicans for the Democrat running as a Republican in the general primary election.
Then the fake Republican candidate puts up a token campaign which loses
to allow the Democrat incumbent to win the General Election in November.
In this way the Democrats get to run only Democrats in the General Election,
leaving no genuine Republicans for Conservatives to vote for in that election.
Romney is represented as a former independent voter turned Republican,
but he serves the same purpose as the typical Trojan Horse Democrat running for election as a Republican. "

NOW ... Can you get that through your brain-washed skull ???


"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice, but she dropped out.
Bachmann became my first choice,and she dropped out.
Cain was my second choice, but he dropped out.
Now ... Newt was my second choice, but he challenged Rush.
So now ... Rick Santorum, who use to be my third choice, is now my first choice.

But Romney, ... well at least he's not as bad as McCain was.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[Yosemitest]

I didn't see that.
All I saw in the second debate was a weak Romney, who had the chance, many times he had the chance, to hand Obama his head.
And Romney didn't have the guts to get in Obama's face and PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Obama is an EVIL man, and is INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY.
Romney is a weakling, not worthy of MY vote!
Newt is who we need, and Romney can't cut it!

[advertising guy]

if you do not vote for Romney to out Obama....then you are your own BBQ’s meat and you chose to do it.

wow

[Yosemitest]

You keep supporting liberalism, by voting for Romney, and you'll never have conservatism again.
Wake up!!!