2012 GOP Presidential Campaign -- "This individual's going to accuse me of an affair for an extended period of time."

Good morning! What's up??

http://www.picturesof.net/_images_300/Jesus_Christ_With_His_Arms_Spread_Royalty_Free_Clipart_Picture_090706-204270-807009.jpg

This seems to be the deleted line from Romney's book:

"We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care."

So he's talking in general terms, not specifically about the mandate--Romney's right. Taking it out of the book looks bad, though, and it is a bit of a fine line. And I imagine the distinction will be lost in the flap over the bet itself.

http://rlv.zcache.fr/marquez_sanford_pour_le_president_2012_tasse-p168912406325063493zvaib_400.jpg

at least two magnificent reasons this should happen

Good explanation of Gingrich's (wildly misplaced) appeal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/opinion/sunday/douthat-professor-gingrich-vs-professor-obama.html?_r=1

Bam is gonna be difficult in debate for anyone when he proceeds to answer every question with "Good point... but did you kill Osama Bin Laden?"

http://i.imgur.com/Zo9ya.jpg

romney's book isn't as damning as the public statements he made, but I guess the whole changing the text for the re-release is irresistible as a slam.

I suppose it depends in part on who the Republican nominee is, but I'd be surprised if Bin Laden carries much weight in the debates. I would think the Republican could sidestep that fairly easily: if you don't have a job, how relevant is that to your life?

One thing Hillary's side argued throughout the 2008 nomination was that all her vulnerable points were a matter of public record--that the Republicans wouldn't be able to dig up anything new because everything was already out there. (Probably wishful thinking in terms of Bill's post-presidential activities, but anyway.) I wonder if all Gingrich's baggage is already out there, or if there's more to come. I don't know. If there's nothing more to come, I think he can hang on--it doesn't appear right now that hammering away at what's there is helping Romney and the rest (sometimes, witness last night, it even backfires). If there's more, that's different.

The Newt / Sanford liaison hasn't yet come to light.

For reasons I mention above, I think the change in romney's book is plenty significant.

Newt continues to gain in SC and Florida:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/11/9365498-gingrich-opens-up-big-leads-in-south-carolina-and-florida?ocid=twitter

But...

In hypothetical match-ups, the president [in Florida] leads Romney by seven points (48 to 41 percent) and Gingrich by 12 points (51 to 39 percent).

In South Carolina -- a reliable Republican state in presidential contests -- Obama’s approval rating stands at 44 percent, and he holds narrow leads over Romney (45 to 42 percent) and Gingrich (46 to 42 percent).

http://www.tenerifepropertyshop.ru/upload/images/news/march%20news/white%20knight.jpg

I would think the Republican could sidestep that fairly easily: if you don't have a job, how relevant is that to your life?

I think for guys running against gay marriage, etc., "how is this relative to your life with respect to employment" isn't really gonna wash

at least two magnificent reasons this should happen

― by (mennen), Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:48 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Permalink

lol lol

What I meant in terms of Obama was that I can't see "But I killed Osama bin Laden" getting him very far in the face of whatever Republican it is attacking him on the economy...I know there's a parallel universe in which Republican debates take place, but I imagine the debates in the general will be a little more grounded, and that the economy will be front and center. If Obama's lucky enough that it somehow isn't, that would be very lucky indeed.

it's time for a Dennis Perrin tweet!

"To paraphrase Gore Vidal, American politics is for energetic mediocrities, of which we have a limitless supply."

It's always time for a dennis perrin tweet.

If O drank Bin Laden's blood, would that prove he's not a Muslim? I don't know my sharia well enough.

might prove he's not a jehova's witness

prob not kosher either, so AIPAC would be pissed

lolwat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieqS4p-jUQ4&feature=youtu.be

lol

such a dumb -- and, shockingly, scripted -- move by romney. first, he's going to endure a firestorm for looking so smug and out of touch (something that didn't immediately occur to me when i heard about this wager-offer). and when that begins to subside, people are going to start looking at the substance of his proposed "bet," which shines an uncomfortable light on romney's fondness for an individual mandate(and yes, romney did remove an incriminating line from his book). finally, it will shine an uncomfortable light on the fact that romney made this change in his book when it became expedient to do so (once the debate shifted to where obama himself was proposing an individual mandate), exposing him -- once again -- as a flip-flopper.

H.W. checks his watch, discovers grocery-store scanners.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0fIhnboptk

i think the bet thing is overblown. it seemed facetious, and designed to prove a point (romney strongly believes in his point-of-view). but it also made him look like an ass when he didn't need to, and it's going to draw tons of attention to an issue where he really is very vulnerable with GOP voters,(n.1) but somehow has (until now) sidestepped the issue.

____________________________
(n.1) romney's got a defensible position on this, but its a procedural position, i.e., that the fed gov't doesn't have the power, under the reverse commerce-clause, to force americans to buy a private insurance product, but individual states do. but that misses the base's fury over obamacare, which is that no gov't should have the power to force you to buy a private insurance product, whether it be a state or federal gov't. romney has been very skilled at playing slight-of-hand with this, and it even appeared that the GOP base would overlook the deception, even if exposed, but that free-pass might be over now.

I can't quite tell if you think the bet was a big deal or not a big deal...your last two posts seem to contradict each other. (I think it's a big deal in the short term, regardless of whether it should be or not, and the short term is important when you're inside a three-week window before the first votes are cast.)

it's a big deal in terms of hurting romney's image. but it shouldn't have been a big deal (tr: media has overblown a minor moment).

but romney's also gotten a pass on so many issues for so long in this primary season that he would have no real right to complain.

Most presidential campaigns include a whole series of tempests in teapots like this one. What's amazing is that, eventually they add up to most of what the campaign was "about". So, on the face of it, our campaigns appear to be "about" nothing (which isn't strictly true).

Most presidential campaigns include a whole series of tempests in teapots like this one.

yeah, that's true. detailed policy discussions are complicated and boring. "gotcha" moments are easily-understood and exciting.

i wish we could develop an exciting game-show that's based on a real, deep understanding of policy issues, that people would love like america's got talent, or whatever those shows are.

Think about how big a deal Obama's "guns and religion" comment became in 2008, and how it supposedly revealed all sorts of sinister behind-closed-doors stuff about him. (I imagine Republicans--maybe even some Democrats--believe more adamantly than ever that that comment defined him perfectly.)

Don Gonyea @DonGonyea -- At diner in Ames, Perry was autographing photocopies of $10,000 bills.

lol

<i>detailed policy discussions are complicated and boring</i>

I think that's mostly true as an explanation, but it's not quite that straightforward. Policy discussions also involve a lot of things that I think most people believe will not change more than incrementally no matter who wins. So the sideshow's more tangible, and more directly indicative of the living-room test that presidents have to pass. And yes, I do realize that appalls many people.

I'm a little surprised that the big story out of last night wasn't that we now know Rick Perry's read two books (and that if he proceeds to read a third one, he's venturing into dangerous territory should anyone ever ask him to name them).

Don Gonyea @DonGonyea -- At diner in Ames, Perry was autographing photocopies of $10,000 bills.

lol

― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:02 PM (1 hour ago)

"Printed reproductions, including photographs of paper currency, checks, bonds, postage stamps, revenue stamps, and securities of the United States and foreign governments (except under the conditions previously listed) are violations of Title 18, Section 474 of the United States Code. Violations are punishable by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years, or both."
http://www.secretservice.gov/money_law.shtml

<koff>

hm. maybe mitt will post perry's bail.

andrew sullivan

The new polls today are striking in two respects. First, Newt is headed toward a landslide victory in the early states, apart from New Hampshire. He beats Romney in Florida and South Carolina by 15 and 19 points respectively. But in the same poll, Obama beats Gingrich in the general election in both Florida and South Carolina! I know it's way too soon, and I will bet, I dunno, $10,000, that the Republican candidate will win South Carolina next November. But still: Obama beats Gingrich by 12 points in Florida. Nationally, Obama beats Newt by around the same margin he beat John McCain - 6.9 percent - during a brutal recession.

Romney is far more competitive with Obama (behind by only 1.5 percent) but still underperforms the generic Republican by 2.5 points. So now you know why the Establishment is beginning to panic.

romney 42.2, gingrich 38.8 on intrade

lol. "i'm not a betting man," but at those odds, i'd say put 10K on romney.

obama elected pres - 50.4
romney elected pres - 20.9
gingrich elected pres - 17.5

obama+romney would be a pretty good bet. ~70% one of those two people becomes president?

I'd be too nervous to put a sizable amount of real money on either Romney or Gingrich right now. If I had go, I'd go with Gingrich.

lol, and just wait till newt secures the crucial sarah palin endorsement!

and we can build this dream together
standing strong forever
nothing gonna stop newt now.

I forget that Palin's still out there, guaranteed to swoop down at some point. I don't think her endorsement would do much for Gingrich; presumably he has 95% of her true believers in the bag. If she could come up with some kind of plausible rationale for endorsing Romney (presumably getting much in return), I could see where that would hurt Gingrich.

Depending upon your tolerance for Matthew Dowd and/or Charlie Rose, and how hopeless a junkie you are in general for this stuff (I got it bad!), here's a half-hour of Dowd on Gingrich:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12028

you guys appetite for that kinda thing is still blowing my mind; i know there's a stage at which elections become intravenously fascinating but at this stage it still seems like a half hour of thinking about gingrich (/re-streaming a debate/w/e) you could avoid

It's semiotics. I listen to these talking heads earnestly mention how The [insert noun] Issue will "slow him down" with certain voters and it's all crap. Pundits only care about these "issues" insofar as they affect a candidate's performance.

I wouldn't mind this folderol if our press didn't already spend too much time reducing endemic problems into "issues" suitable for Politico types.

it is for this ^^^^^^ reason that i only listen to dennis perrin.

Weird coincidence: Perry briefly made reference to semiotics in last night's debate.

The political-junkie mindset has been a fact of life forever. You either find this stuff fascinating or you don't. I wouldn't be as interested right now if Romney were sleepwalking to the nomination as was expected, but what's going on right now is amazing--and, with Romney's campaign seriously teetering, I don't think negligible in terms of who ultimately faces Obama.

I'd argue nothing has changed except for the media, looking to increase hit counts, starting the vetting earlier. The limelight shifting from Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich isn't much different than we've seen in other primary cycles, except now we're inundated with debates months before the first caucus.

I mean, of course we won't know who the frontrunner is. It's December 2011!