ANDY CARD'S "NOT PLAYING WITH A FULL DECK" ON ROMNEY
[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has stumbled into the camp of self-appointed elite leaders of the GOP who are shilling for the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney as a candidate for vice president.
Card told Newsmax that Romney would be at the "top" of Card's list for Veeps (as if Andy Card's list of potential vice presidents is a burning question)
Card further opined:
Of course, Card admits the obvious -- that Romney probably wouldn't be able to deliver Massachusetts to the GOP in November.
And Card apparently believes that McCain could simply trample over Evangelical voters, who like mind-numbed robots will always "take one for the team:"
Apparently the Romney-ians talking points left out the part about "holding their noses" when Evangelicals actually "show up and vote."
Already, the Democrats are trying to paint a McCain Administration, notwithstanding McCain's heterodox views and "maverick" reputation, as "four more years of George W. Bush."
For McCain to follow the advice of "W insiders" such as Andy Card and Karl Rove by picking Romney for Veep would merely reinforce the "four more years" charge in the minds of crucial independent and conservative Democrat voters.
Somehow, somebody in the GOP elite has to come to their senses and realize that in a time of economic turmoil and in the wake of the disastrous 2006 mid-term elections, the GOP cannot afford any hint of "more of the same" or a Bush coronation of the Presidential ticket.
The Gucci Chameleon is certainly "attractive" . . . to Democrats who write attack ads.
Tapping a political neophyte such as Romney, whose massive fortune was made by slashing jobs, off-shoring, and other short-term "bean counter" gimmicks, and who lead a state that “ was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan," would be an absolute disaster.
Card's talking-point "belief" about Romney's attractiveness was hardly shared by the voters in the GOP primaries.
Romney's cost-per-convention-delegate may have set an all-time World record. However, Mitt Romney’s mendacity and make-overs simply didn’t sell, notwithstanding a self-financed, multi-million dollar ad campaign, a multi-million dollar GOP attack radio love-fest, the shadow war by the Romney-supporter-funded, Club For Growth, and a tidal wave of negative robo-calls.
To frame Slick Willard's appeal as a dating analogy -- a majority of voters saw Romney as like a privileged, nerdy “frat boy” lout who’d studied up on a slew of formulas on how to “pick up girls.” . . . a shallow sort of narcissist who would say “Sure, I’ll respect you in the morning,” while expecting his latest “marks” to ignore “all the girls he’s loved before (gun control, $50 abortion co-pays, millions in fee increases that “aren’t taxes,” secret timetables that “aren’t timetables”).” . . . the sort of selfish cad who would maliciously gossip against any rivals to his latest “conquest.”
Given the magnitude of Romney’s arrogance and the vast size of his checkbook, “Citizen Kane 2008" tried to hold on, long after it was apparent that he could not win any contested states, even among conservative Republicans (save his birthplace Michigan, where he sailed to a narrow win on the historic coat-tails of his father and the promise of billions in corporate welfare for the automakers, his spiritual "secret temple home" in Utah and his narrow, unimpressive showing back in Massachusetts).
But, according to Card, he didn't "stumble" too many times.
Romney has proven he can do several things. He can siphon support, drive wedges, and preview attack ad scripts for the Democrats in the fall. And he can change, like a chameleon, his approach and message with the wind.
He is not the ideological candidate for “movement conservatives” – notwithstanding all of the free and paid cheerleading from the Eastern conservative elites– because at his core, Romney is a “process” candidate, not a man of conviction.
Unlike Reagan, he has no great record of conservative thought, conservative leadership, or conservative governance.
His obvious commitment to situational ethics demonstrates that Romney has no ideological “soul.” Romney’s candidacy isn’t about advancing conservative principles – it’s about advancing Mitt Romney to his next self-aggrandizing “to do” in his Palm Pilot. It’s about giving Mitt another trophy . . . another take-over . . . another “conquest.”
Slick Willard found out that money couldn't buy him either love or the White House. So apparently he's now focused on the second best thing -- buying his way into being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
While Romney apparently sells to Bush Administration insiders (the same people who thought that waiting until after the 2006 mid-terms to "can" Donald Rumsfeld was a good idea) and other out-of-touch Ivy League/Country Club Republicans, Romney has virtually no appeal whatsoever to the legions of ordinary rank-and-file Republicans who make up the real backbone of the GOP.
And if the Gucci Chameleon is a "no sale" to a double-digit percentage of the committed GOP faithful, Flip-Flop Mitt' s even less "attractive" to skeptical independents.
Andy Card's simply "not playing with a full deck" on the viability of Romney as a vice presidential candidate.
[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card has stumbled into the camp of self-appointed elite leaders of the GOP who are shilling for the Gucci Chameleon, "Slick Willard" Mitt Romney as a candidate for vice president.
Card told Newsmax that Romney would be at the "top" of Card's list for Veeps (as if Andy Card's list of potential vice presidents is a burning question)
Card further opined:
[Slick Willard’s] attractive, he was knowledgeable, he didn’t stumble too many times, so I don’t think that he suffers from foot-in-mouth disease . . . He is appropriately respected for his understanding of the economy and how it works and what decisions must be made that complement the ability for people to have jobs. He’s filled with integrity, and he’s a proven winner in a Democratic state.”
Of course, Card admits the obvious -- that Romney probably wouldn't be able to deliver Massachusetts to the GOP in November.
And Card apparently believes that McCain could simply trample over Evangelical voters, who like mind-numbed robots will always "take one for the team:"
“When it comes right down to it, the evangelical community will recognize the values of a Republican candidate for president as compared to a Democrat candidate for president” . . . “And I think they’re such good citizens that they won’t stay home. They’ll actually show up and vote, and I think that they’ll vote for the Republican nominee.”
Apparently the Romney-ians talking points left out the part about "holding their noses" when Evangelicals actually "show up and vote."
Already, the Democrats are trying to paint a McCain Administration, notwithstanding McCain's heterodox views and "maverick" reputation, as "four more years of George W. Bush."
For McCain to follow the advice of "W insiders" such as Andy Card and Karl Rove by picking Romney for Veep would merely reinforce the "four more years" charge in the minds of crucial independent and conservative Democrat voters.
Somehow, somebody in the GOP elite has to come to their senses and realize that in a time of economic turmoil and in the wake of the disastrous 2006 mid-term elections, the GOP cannot afford any hint of "more of the same" or a Bush coronation of the Presidential ticket.
The Gucci Chameleon is certainly "attractive" . . . to Democrats who write attack ads.
Tapping a political neophyte such as Romney, whose massive fortune was made by slashing jobs, off-shoring, and other short-term "bean counter" gimmicks, and who lead a state that “ was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan," would be an absolute disaster.
Card's talking-point "belief" about Romney's attractiveness was hardly shared by the voters in the GOP primaries.
Romney's cost-per-convention-delegate may have set an all-time World record. However, Mitt Romney’s mendacity and make-overs simply didn’t sell, notwithstanding a self-financed, multi-million dollar ad campaign, a multi-million dollar GOP attack radio love-fest, the shadow war by the Romney-supporter-funded, Club For Growth, and a tidal wave of negative robo-calls.
To frame Slick Willard's appeal as a dating analogy -- a majority of voters saw Romney as like a privileged, nerdy “frat boy” lout who’d studied up on a slew of formulas on how to “pick up girls.” . . . a shallow sort of narcissist who would say “Sure, I’ll respect you in the morning,” while expecting his latest “marks” to ignore “all the girls he’s loved before (gun control, $50 abortion co-pays, millions in fee increases that “aren’t taxes,” secret timetables that “aren’t timetables”).” . . . the sort of selfish cad who would maliciously gossip against any rivals to his latest “conquest.”
Given the magnitude of Romney’s arrogance and the vast size of his checkbook, “Citizen Kane 2008" tried to hold on, long after it was apparent that he could not win any contested states, even among conservative Republicans (save his birthplace Michigan, where he sailed to a narrow win on the historic coat-tails of his father and the promise of billions in corporate welfare for the automakers, his spiritual "secret temple home" in Utah and his narrow, unimpressive showing back in Massachusetts).
But, according to Card, he didn't "stumble" too many times.
Romney has proven he can do several things. He can siphon support, drive wedges, and preview attack ad scripts for the Democrats in the fall. And he can change, like a chameleon, his approach and message with the wind.
He is not the ideological candidate for “movement conservatives” – notwithstanding all of the free and paid cheerleading from the Eastern conservative elites– because at his core, Romney is a “process” candidate, not a man of conviction.
Unlike Reagan, he has no great record of conservative thought, conservative leadership, or conservative governance.
His obvious commitment to situational ethics demonstrates that Romney has no ideological “soul.” Romney’s candidacy isn’t about advancing conservative principles – it’s about advancing Mitt Romney to his next self-aggrandizing “to do” in his Palm Pilot. It’s about giving Mitt another trophy . . . another take-over . . . another “conquest.”
Slick Willard found out that money couldn't buy him either love or the White House. So apparently he's now focused on the second best thing -- buying his way into being one heartbeat away from the Presidency.
While Romney apparently sells to Bush Administration insiders (the same people who thought that waiting until after the 2006 mid-terms to "can" Donald Rumsfeld was a good idea) and other out-of-touch Ivy League/Country Club Republicans, Romney has virtually no appeal whatsoever to the legions of ordinary rank-and-file Republicans who make up the real backbone of the GOP.
And if the Gucci Chameleon is a "no sale" to a double-digit percentage of the committed GOP faithful, Flip-Flop Mitt' s even less "attractive" to skeptical independents.
Andy Card's simply "not playing with a full deck" on the viability of Romney as a vice presidential candidate.
Labels: Andy Card, George W. Bush, John McCain, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney
posted by Editor at 14:45
33 Comments:
Poor little speedo. Another bitter Huckster supporter who has nothing to offer but mere name calling. I almost feel sorry for him. It is everyone else (this time Card) that is not playing with a full deck. Riigghhtt!
The ironic thing is that it was the Huckster who attempted to belittle Romney's religion -- not the other way around. It caused Krauthammer to label what Huckabee did "Un-American" and caused such great conservatives as Peggy Noonan to say that Huckabee could not be seriously considered for the presidency. Yet, it is Huck supporters that continue to engage in name calling. Must be an evangelical thing. You hardly ever see any Romney blogs attacking Huckabee.
Speedo simply knows that, however hard he tries to spin it, Romeny is the conservative choice while Huckabee's only appeal is to some evangelicals. The fact is that Romney competed in 29 states, won 11 states and finished second another 11 times -- that is 22 out of 29 1st or 2nd place finishes. Even when he came in third place it was usually close. Conversely, the Huckster finished 3rd or 4th 20 times!
The bottom line is that, while competing against each other, Romney got about 3.5 million republican votes -- and the republican conservative vote! The Huckster got about 2.3 million, mostly evangelical, and was/is considered by most of the country to be the right wing nut/preacher candidate. Sorry speedo, you know its true however bitter it makes you.
This time its Andy Card who is the nut job -- sure it is! It can't be the simple fact that Romney was the consensus conservative candidate (except among some evangelicals). Its all a conspiracy! LOL.
Wow. There is a few minutes I wasted and will never get back. Let the envy go, you will feel better!
Boy, there is insightful political anaylysis -- Not! What a goof.
Whats up with Huck supporters? Don't they know the primary is over? What a bunch of cry babies. Get a life and move on. Huck apologized to Romney, conservatives have moved on -- you should to.
You refer to Reagan? The former democrat? One can only imagine what people like speedo would be saying about Reagan's past at the time.
I would much rather have someone like Romney whose position on the role of government on abortion changed than a religious bigot like Huckabee.
As a republican I like Romney even though I was a Fredhead. Huckabee? Never. He had a few funny lines but could never be a serious candidate. He could never win a nomination, let alone a general election.
What is surprising is that the first five readers of this article POSTED SEVEN COMMENTS.
(Apparently the computers in the Romney "war room" are speedy)
While some Huckabee supporters want him as a Veep, others do not. Clearly, to unify the party at this point, McCain probably has to pick someone OTHER THAN EITHER HUCKABEE OR ROMNEY for the second slot.
There are plenty of candidates who would rally conservatives without all of the baggage that Romney brings.
"The ironic thing is that it was the Huckster who attempted to belittle Romney's religion -- not the other way around."
Total lie.
On the other hand, Speedzzter has been very critical of the heretical doctrines of the LDS faith.
The Romney-ians, however, float the religous bigotry card at nearly every turn because they don't want to admit that the REAL REASON the voters rejected Romney (despite his spending vastly more than every other candidate in the race) is that he's a massive flip-flopper and a ham-fisted candidate who ran millions of dollars worth of attack ads.
"You hardly ever see any Romney blogs attacking Huckabee."
Apparently this anonymous writer doesn't get around much in cyberspace.
"Yet, it is Huck supporters that continue to engage in name calling."
And isn't calling Huckabee "the Huckster" and "right wing nut/preacher candidate" name calling?
--signed "The Goof"
See how easy it is for one commenter to leave multiple comments . . . .
As an evangelical from Iowa who supports Governor Huckabee, I don't think blogs like this are helpful. Governor Romney has a lot of support among conservatives and I don't think we win them over to Governor Mike Huckabee by attacking their candidate like this. Just my 2 cents (I was actually suporting Romeny until I got to Know Governor Huckabee).
Don't worry about the LDS, "don't they think that Jesus and Satan are brothers"? snicker, snicker.
LOL. Now it is Andy Card who is part of the vast Romney conservative.
Maybe, just maybe, Governor Romney is a great man with a great family who has an incredible list of accomplishments and might make a terrific chief executive (President). Maybe Governor Huckabee is also a fine candidate. Maybe??
I actually agree with Bags. While VERY different in many ways, with different appeals and styles, both Governor Huckabee and Governor Romney would, I think, make very good Presidents.
People who post these sort of garbage personal attacks against a great man like Governor Romney are usually just trying to compensate for their own personal, ahm, shortcommings.
Governor Romney got a lot more "rank and file" support among republican voters than Huckabee did. Prior to Romney suspending his campaign, Romney got 3.5 million republican votes to Huckabee's 2.3 million. That is a landslide in any election! (and that is not even counting the larger delegate count in favor of Romney) Spin it however you want.
Ever wonder why all of the leading conservatives, from Rick Santorum to Charles Krauthammer, from National Review to Judge Robert Bork to Jeb Bush to Hugh Hewitt to members of the current administration to Laura Ingraham all support Governor Romney?? Is Andy Card really not playing with a full deck? Is it really all a vast right wing Romney conspiracy? Or is it that perhaps, just perhaps, these non-mormons have seen that Governor Romney would make an outstanding President? Put aside the hate and envy.
Governor Huckabee supporters need to realyze that Governor Romney received a lot of support in the evangelical community -- essentially spliting the vote. This sort of stuff does NOT help sway us to Huckabee. I really don't understand all the venom from Huckabee supporters (if anything, it is Romney who should feel resentment -- and he moved on a long time ago). Let the envy go.
Speedzzter,
Thank you for another well written article.
Many of the fiscal conservatives are trying to get Romney on McCain's ticket. McCain doesn't need help in the blue states that Romney is good in. Did the ficons forget Romney promising Michigan extra money? Or don't they even care that he not only bought support with his own money; he also used promises of our tax dollars?
They seem to forget that it takes the Bible belt to win the general election. Social conservatives don't have as big of a problem with Romney's religion as they do with his record of being a bigger flip-flopper than his fellow Massachusetts politician, John Kerry. I certainly wouldn't want McCain to ask Romney's advice on judicial appointments after his record of liberal judicial appointments as Governor.
Granny T
Great article. As for Romney, he's the biggest flip flopper ever in politics. Flip Flopper is a nice way of saying that Mitt is a liar. He tells people what they want to hear in order to get their vote. Proof: http://www.trueromney.com
If Romney's on the ticket, McCain won't win. Evangelicals will not be voting for that pair. McCain needs the South, and he won't win it without the evangelicals.
2006 article:
"Is Mitt Romney Conservative?"
http://www.constitutionparty.org/news_print.php?aid=373
Quote:
I really don't understand all the venom from Huckabee supporters (if anything, it is Romney who should feel resentment -- and he moved on a long time ago). Let the envy go.
End Quote.
The venom, if it exsists is not pointed so much at Romney, (although many, many of us are wary of his weaknesses on the soical issues we consider vital to our voting decisions)
It is directed at the lack of balance in the coverage of the two candidates. The absolute refusal by the conservative media and GOP elites to even admit that Huckabee is a proven leader and worthy candidate.
The presumption that we should let the schills of the GOP tell us how we should vote, AGAINST our better judgement, the implication that we must be stupid if we don't see that they're right... THAT's what generates the venom.
Our personal concerns about the candidate they have chosen to elect 'the conservative hope' is just a side item.
Seriously, when Hannity can list, Romney, Christ and Pawlenty as possible VP candidates, but "can't think off off the top of his head" of anyone else who would be a good selection, what the heck are we supposed to do.
Calmy sit around and say, yes Hannity, the number two in delegate count and popular vote really isn't worthy of consideration? we're fools for supporting him and his platform?
If you want us to get off Romney's back, tell the schills to shut up, or do some real 'fair and balanced' coverage of all the options, instead of trying to brainwash us into accepting Romney as something he has not proven himself to be.
The longer the GOP tries to pretend that Huckabee and his supporters don't exist, or that we are irrelevant, the deeper the wedge they drive between us and the GOP.
And you'd better believe, that McCain isn't getting into the whitehouse without the social workhorses this election cycle.
Anyone who thinks Romney could add value to the ticket is sadly mistaken. He is truly the closest thing that the Republicans have ever had to Hillary.
To suggest that he didn't stumble is something that I'd have to intensely disagree with. He was caught repeatedly in lies (think the Hillary Bosnia lie but it happened about a dozen times). He managed to get all of his opponents except for Tancredo to almost hate him - the staffs of different campaigns actually conspired together to help each other get rid of him because he was too obnoxious (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1709507,00.html).
He is the gift that keeps on taking away. And as some "anonymous" poster had suggested that this is just the work of "Hucksters" (and not the "Mittfits"), you can believe that if you want to. But he is an absolute disaster waiting to happen. He is a very bright man and very successful in his business accomplishments. But he is a blank slate in that he has no core convictions or guiding principles. He will do anything to win, including assail all his opponents. First he attacked Rudy. Then Huckabee. Then McCain. He is a serial breaker of the eleventh commandment. In this way, he is the exact same thing as a male, Republican-registered version of HRC.
If he gets the nod, all you that believe everything you hear on the RINO News Network will be very sorry for the next four years as a Democrat takes the oath of office next January. Those of us who see through the New York talk and who don't want a Democrat to win are opposed to Romney.
[quote]Anonymous said...
Don't worry about the LDS, "don't they think that Jesus and Satan are brothers"? snicker, snicker.[/quote]
What do they really believe?
[quote]On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers.[/quote]
From the LDS official website at lds.org
Here's the link for the correct page at the LDS website:
http://tinyurl.com/27n2hq
I'm not surprised to see so many bigoted comments from the Willard camp, the same clowns that follow every word from conservative talk radio host and some elitist conservative pundits. It’s time for the Willard supporters to face it the man was a sham, for all of the money he spent he should have easily won the nomination but was defeated because of his lack of core conservative principals. Keep up the good work Speedzzter, the truth does set people free.
Why is it that if people don't like Mitt, people automatically think they are bigots? It could be that Romney is a flip-flopper on every issue and "saw" is father, but it depends on what our definition of "saw" is. Or it could be that Mitt spent his own fortune to get 3rd plase in delegates, and 1st place in spending in a campagin, then their is no hope for the economy. It also could be that Mitt is soooo rich and that middle America and the South will not vote for him because they need someone who represents them and who knows their values. It also could be that Mitt is from a NE liberal state and will not add any states come November. I'm a McCain supporter, and if Mac is smart, he will pick Mike Huckabee. Mike was respectful to Mac during the campaign and they worked well with each other. The AARP forum was great. They work as a team. McCain/Huckabee 2012!
"cry babies".... wow- hope you feel better with the name calling... As a continued supporter of Mike Huckabee, calling me a name for believing that he still is the best person to be president, and one of many who will not be beaten down, counted out, and easily swayed to supporting anyone else- I am not bitter- just optimistic that people like Mr. Card will stop giving such unwanted commentary. People outside Washington have opinions that do not reflect what he (and others here) seem to think is good and true.
What would be optimum is expressing opinions without being labeled with name calling... but not everyone is so enlightened and kind.
Mitt doesn't support the FairTax so as a fiscon I do not like that.
Mitt supports ENDA so as a socon I do not like that...that is why I don't want to see him as VP. He also has a hard time keeping it real.
Gee, Speedo. I thought you were dead. Too bad. Life was getting nicer without your sausage factory oratory.
Always get a laugh out of posters like "Granny" talking about how Huckabee needs to be VP so McCain can win the Bible Belt. That is the least of McCain's worries and Huckabee does not even help much!
Not counting Florida, the southern vote was split roughly in thirds between McCain, Romney and Huckabee. Between 65% to 70% of southern republican voters picked the maverick McCain from Arizona or Romney (the Mormon) from Massachusets (with ties to the west and his home state of Michigan) rather than their neighboring southern governor! And in the most important state in the region - Florida - Huckabee couldn't even compete. What good is a southern governor who can't help in Florida!
Romney gets about 30% in the South (30% in GA, 29% in MO, 31% in FL) and is very popular with conservatives in the rest of the country.
You folks might want to look at an election map sometime and look at the battleground states like Forida, Ohio, New Mexico, PA, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado, Washington, and MINN. Huckabee provides very little help in any of these places. As for the bible belt, you may have missed the fact that the latest polling in places like Georgia (where Huck got 34%, McCain 32% and Romney 30%)show that McCain has a 20% lead over the democrats. The bible belt is the LEAST of McCain's problems.
The Romney folks keep crowing about how many votes their favorite former missionary and Bishop snagged.
What they fail to acknowledge is that Huckabee scored millions of votes and almost as many delegates with ONLY THIRTY PEOPLE (at peak) on his staff. Romney surely had that many people just in his "spin room."
The GOP rules and primary calendar were also obviously skewed to favor moderate, well-known and funded Northeasterners by making most of the Southern primaries (where Romney and Rudy were predicted to be less competitive) as proportional, while the most of the Northern primaries were winner-take-all, and by unreasonably compressing the primary schedule. Thus, Huckabee's pick-and-choose, retail campaigning strategy (necessitated by his "from nowhere" start and the "headwinds" of the Eastern media superstars who were always "in the bag" for their Northeastern homeboys).
Huckabee had "no internal polling numbers, no micro targeting strategies" and no schedules more than 24 hours ahead of time. He didn't write take out huge loans (like McCain) or spend millions upon millions of his own money to bankroll his operation. Huckabee ran a "pay as you go" campaign funded by thousands of small donors -- people who skipped lunches, sold wedding rings, and hawked stuff on eBay to raise donations.
Huckabee got stiffed by virtually every conservative talk radio host (who preferred the lazy familiarity of Romney/Club for Growth talking points) and cheated of time in almost all of the debates.
Yet still, he nearly matched Romney's massive, best-of-everything National operation. And ultimately, the final argument for Mitt's candidacy was nothing more positive than "at least he's not McCain."
These facts alone ought to tell you a lot about the real, grassroots enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for these two candidates.
Post a Comment
<< Home