Rove: Romney's Roads to the White House (path to get 270 EVs)

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 23, 2012 | Karl Rove

[Innovative]

On Tuesday, Gallup's seven-day tracking poll had Barack Obama and Mitt Romney tied at 46%. With the incumbent stuck below 50% on the ballot and Mr. Romney's favorability rising, the Republican challenger has a good shot at winning.

To take the White House, Mr. Romney needs 270 votes in the Electoral College. A "3-2-1" strategy will get him there.

Mr. Obama long ago lost his chance to duplicate his 2008 performance. A record of failure will do that. He's now forced to fight for states he easily won in 2008. The odds now narrowly favor a Romney win.

[Colonel_Flagg]

There are those on this site (many of whom I agree with) who think the combination of the liberal Romney and a Republican Congress might be a deadly combination since they will be eager to help Romney advance his agenda.

In that case, there’s no way Romney gets primaried. With a Republican Congress, the Romney DOP-E will do anything needed to run the entire slate for re-election.

We have a peck of trouble on our hands.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I suggest taking a look at the quality of people Willard appointed to the bench in MA. Left-wingers. Exactly the people he wanted in office. In one instance, it had deadly consequences. Brian and Beverly Mauck are the ones whose blood Willard has on his hands.

[Innovative]

“If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you’ll love Slick Willard”

So you prefer a marxist, communist dirtbag like Obama, I take it?

Time to wake up and smell reality: the primaries are OVER — it’s going to be Romney or Obama. Pick one. Attacking Romney gets you Obama.

Time to start a “conservatives for Obama” group.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You can spare me the Slick Willardbot talking points. I’m not supporting the bipartisan leftist establishment cabal set of false choices. You may get a thrill up your leg every time Willard comes on tv, but those of us who are actually Conservatives recognize precisely what he is... a complete and total fraud who is viscerally opposed to the Conservative agenda. I don’t vote for Socialists and I don’t vote for renowned liars. Screw Willard AND his tanner brother Zero.

[Diogenesis]

When you and RomneyCARE attacked Gov. Palin and her
children, you gave America the Undocumented one.

Now? RomneyCARE is NOT the candidate, yet.

And Milt the Backstabber is NO CONSERVATIVE’s candidate.

[trebb]

Romneybot alert. Obama losing means no chance for a conservative president until 2020 at the earliest. More likely 2024 or 2028 after Romney trashes the GOP among the public (again).

Any idea of what damage Obama can do with another 4 years? Some of what's already in place will take years if not decades to correct. "Just give me some space until after my election...I'll have more flexibility..." We'd be better off with conservatives running the House and Senate and someone not nearly as bad as Obama in the WH.

[AnonymousConservative]

Yeah, I can’t argue with you. I’m hoping he’ll be better than zero for four years, but I can’t make a strong case for it. Turth be told, I’m not sure I can really make a case, beyond Mitt being a windsock, and doing whatever he feels he needs to for himself. If he could become a “lifetime” member of the NRA, maybe he can appoint a Conservative SC Justice?

Nor can I argue with the idea that the Republican party would probably better off if he lost.

Then again, I hate Liberals, and want them to see their messiah go down in flames, ala Jimmy Carter, badly, so I’m not really commited either way too strongly, though I lean towards seeing Obama defeated.

Truth be told, I’m astonished an election against 0bama could leave Conservatives so conflicted. I just hope we put in a strongly Conservative Congress.

[Innovative]

“When you and RomneyCARE attacked Gov. Palin and her
children, you gave America the Undocumented one.”

Being misguided is one thing, LYING is entirely different. Your above statement is an OUTRAGEOUS LIE.

That only shows you lost the argument and that’s why you resort to outrageous lies.

[Innovative]

delapaz: “Obama losing means no chance for a conservative president until 2020 at the earliest. “

delpaz — so you are an enthusiastic Obama supporter, I see.

Agamemnon, Another Obama supporter — for your collection.

[Innovative]

With another four years of Obama, there won’t be a country left to save. He will implement programs that can’t be gotten rid of and will pull the US down to a third world status. Look what his first term is like, when he still has to worry about reelection — wait until he is totally unconstrained in his second term.

[Agamemnon]

Agamemnon, Another Obama supporter — for your collection.

delpaz = another internally self-contradicting Obama lacky and surrender monkey. I see that. The guy is such a cartoon of himself.

I have the scalps of so many Obama-bots on my belt at this point, it is getting hard to keep track of all of them.

But, as always, we remain aware of the liberal dissemblers in our midst and dispatch them with the contempt they so richly deserve!

Well done, Innovative!

FReegards!

[delapaz]

Any idea of what damage Obama can do with another 4 years? Some of what's already in place will take years if not decades to correct. "Just give me some space until after my election...I'll have more flexibility..." We'd be better off with conservatives running the House and Senate and someone not nearly as bad as Obama in the WH.

Yes, in fact I do, and I also realize that the damage will be only slightly more than what Romney will do, with the saving grace that he will be term-limited.

[delapaz]

I don’t know what “scalp” you are talking about. My posting privileges are apparently not suspended yet. Although I expect that to happen sometime over the next few months as JimRob completes his surrender to the Romney agenda due to his Obama hatred.

So far I applaud his stance on allowing the conservatives who have been “left” behind when the GOP turned liberal to speak their minds.

Obama is a disaster, but the country is in such a wreck that we could bring Reagan back from the dead and we’d stillc rash. We are past the tipping point, therefore fearmongering tactics will not work with us.

And yes, there will be elections in 2016 and 2020.

[Agamemnon]

I don’t know what “scalp” you are talking about. My posting privileges are apparently not suspended yet. Although I expect that to happen sometime over the next few months as JimRob completes his surrender to the Romney agenda due to his Obama hatred.

I wasn't aware that Jim Robinson "surrendered" to the Romney agenda, as the poster, "delapaz," asserts here.

No one is particularly enthusiastic about Romney being at the top of the ticket, but it appears from his posting here that "delapaz" doesn't hate the thought of an Obama re-election quite enough yet, as he is actually endorsing Obama's re-election.

Seems from what he has written here he is even goading the Board to ban him for his support of Obama.

It is of course up to the discretion of the Board to determine what is the posting longevity of a typical Obama supporter.

Since you, delapaz, are a confessed Obama supporter, if you still have a philosophical "scalp," left, as it has been with other Obama-flaks, yours too, will be mine some day soon, as well.

FReegards!

[dirtboy]

Although I expect that to happen sometime over the next few months as JimRob completes his surrender to the Romney agenda due to his Obama hatred.

Obama hatred? Give us a good reason to do anything BUT loathe Obama.

[Innovative]

“delapaz: “Obama losing means no chance for a conservative president until 2020 at the earliest. “

Agamemnon is talking about you having outed yourself as an avowed Obama supporter. You clearly expressed you are rooting for Obama to win.

Some are Obama supporters, but they are careful to not openly admit it, but you did openly admit it, that you are “so conservative” that you are openly want an avowed Marxist, socialist, anti-American Obama to get another four years to complete his agenda of destroying the US, as we know it.

[Jim Robinson]

Surrender to Romney? NUTS!!

I’ll never vote for or support that abortionist/homosexualist statist!!

I want every God-fearing, liberty-loving American to go to the polls and vote their conscience. I want a turnout greater than 2010. I want the tea party rebellion of 2010 to explode and go viral in 2012. I want grassroots tea party conservatives to be voted into as many offices at every level of government that is humanly possible.

And if it is in accordance to God’s will then I pray that the new moral majority will drive out the godless abortionists, the homosexualists, the militant feminists, the whacko environmentalists, the statists, the socialists, the Marxists, the communists, the activist and internationalist “Rulers in black robes,” and all the corrupt crony capitalists, the evil doers and assorted enemies of God and Liberty from our government at every level and from all of our government and public institutions. I pray that we restore God and Liberty and sovereignty and freedom and self-rule and sanity to our great nation!!...

Vote ‘em OUT!! Recall them!! Impeach them!! Overturn them!! Repeal them!! Throw out the anti-liberty, un-American, unconstitutional evil doers and their corruption, depravity and filth!! Restore freedom and Liberty!!

We do not surrender, we reload!! And fight like hell!!

[delapaz]

And you clearly have reading comprehension failures.

There are two, TWO big government statists that I can vote for, one of which will win.

As of now, yes, I am strategically voting for Obama, because of the two, he gives us a chance to get a conservative in 2016. Romney does not.

I could also consider voting constitution party, and if enough freepers got on board enough to move the needle of CP enough for everyone to take notice I would throw my weight in with them.

Voting for Romney is definitely counterproductive to the conservative agenda.

For the record I live in Ohio, and I do plan on voting for Josh Mandel.

JimRob told me to vote my conscience. Romney is a homosexual loving abortionist who will destroy the GOP. He is as unacceptable a candidate to me as Ron Paul. But he is getting the nod anyway. So be it.

[delapaz]

I wasn't aware that Jim Robinson "surrendered" to the Romney agenda, as the poster, "delapaz," asserts here.

In my opinion, JimRob's unilateral truce on Romney is tantamount to a surrender. For this reason: Romney got a significant concession, a ceasefire, while giving up exactly NOTHING to get it. NO promises of conservative appointments, nothing on the conservative agenda, etc.

Result: what FReepers think doesn't matter to Romney, he can give them nothing and they will get what he wants. Attacks on Obama, implicit support for the GOP ticket, all the ticket.

BTW I am not disagreeing with Jim's ethics, principles, ideals or direction, I simply disagree on negotiating strategy.

Oh and by the way I hate Obama AND Romney and all they represent with the heat of a thousand burning suns.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If there is a top level concern with Mitt, surpassing all other concerns, it would be this:

Does the LDS expect Mitt to keep on getting their personal okay for what he does in the White House?

And based on what? News from the White House? Or personal briefings?

At some point national security issues are going to come into play. It isn’t nearly so much about Mitt leaning to LDS philosophy (if there is such a thing — it seems to me like a melange of garbage), as about his possibly having to ask “mother may I” to live LDS philosophers/prophets who can NOT keep secrets themselves.

THAT could not be tolerated from a President Mitt, though to be fair it is likely Obama is the puppet of puppeteers we don’t even know about (Mitt’s would have a known address in Salt Lake City).