Romney campaign launches powerful YouTube ad
Romney’s ad people earned their paychecks with this one.
Still — it’s going to be tough to defuse “Obamneycare.”
Advertisement
Posted at 7:10 am on June 13th, 2011 by 
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
I disagree with just about all my friends in the blogosphere and on twitter on this: Too long, too solemn, and image of litter at the end is SO wrong. That’s what democrats do!
Agree re “Obamneycare,” though, big time.
Romney could go a long way to resurrecting himself by simply saying “I made a big mistake and I intend to learn from it.” End of story. But he can’t seem to get himself to do something that simple. Ego, ego, ego (in other words – politician). But if it comes to down Romney vs. Obama – no brainer. Indeed if it comes down to dead cat vs. Obama – no brainer.
["Romney could go a long way to resurrecting himself by simply saying “I made a big mistake and I intend to learn from it.” End of story."]
A point of sound wisdom!
Ego? Or is he a True Believer in central planning and socialism?
Look for the Harvard label. He was steeped in the same nonsense as Obama, and apparently learned the same things. He may go slightly more slowly, and might favor a different set of cronies, but Romney’s no different.
Dead cat vs. Obama? Easy choice! I heard someone else say they’d vote for a can of Dinty Moore stew vs. Obama. That’s where I am. Maybe even a can of cat stew…
As long as Dinty Moore is a fiscal conservative, I’ll vote for him (it?).
Otherwise, I’ll just eat the contents. No point supporting yet another technocrat.
Obamneycare make Romney unacceptable to too many people who would otherwise work their asses off for a Republican. Many of us might just hold our noses and vote for Romney, but many might also stay home. I’ve worked for every Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower in ’56, but I will not work for Romney. Between Obamneycare and global warming, he’s a bridge too far towards the worst aspects of the two Bush administrations: too willing to increase the size and (more importantly) the reach of government, and too willing to let the Democrats set the agenda. No thank you.
The only way that Romney would be better than Obama would be judicial appointments. Other than that, I suspect you could not find a whisker’s worth of difference on major issues. Romney is a Big Government top-down technocrat, and will in no way push a major change in the size and scope of government. Not what we need.
The Romney campaign will be a gut check for Tea Partiers. Are they just Republicans uber alles? Or are they serious with their small government rhetoric?
["Are they just Republicans uber alles? Or are they serious with their small government rhetoric?"]
They lacked the ‘brass’ to identify themselves as a party and early on branded themsleves as trying to found a ‘new or reformed’ GOP. Their rhetoric, however apppropriate, to their audience is void of the reality of the constitutional two-party adversarial process system in congress. As best I can tell, they have some illusions that they can effect some new long living system of a super majority inside the governments constitutional processes. Didn’t the nation just recently experience one of those rare instances? Last I checked, the GOP folks didn’t find that kind of ‘representative government’ very appealing.
All of their superficial rhetoric is void of any comprehensive plans or how they would deal with the realities of severe consequences to the nations people, should they have success in implementing the still illusive plans around their rhetoric….downsize the government and end government social entitlements without ever a mention of the conclusive 1,700 or more government subsidies the nations people benefit from.
The Tea party folks are far to shallow and irrational for me…but good concerned humans, I’m certain!
And your ignorance is supposed to mean what, exactly?
With all my ignorance I can at least, stay on topic and not be reduced to off-topic personalized character assassination.
“Their rhetoric … is void of the reality of the constitutional two-party adversarial process system …”
The “reality” that you don’t recognize is that the Tea Party has already, and will continue to, change the “system”.
“…severe consequences to the nations people…” Yep, the Ryan plan will have “severe consequences”, mostly on the sponging parasites that consume, but not produce. Which is a lot better than the unimaginable consequences of following the Obama “plan” (not), right off an economic cliff.
["Yep, the Ryan plan will have “severe consequences”, mostly on the sponging parasites that consume, but not produce."]
I see now! Will you be one who digs the ditches across the nation or…. one pushing the bodies in the ditches or….one who covers in those ditches with the bodies? If you don’t ‘produce’ jump in and die!
Sounds like you’ve been indocrinated and believe that humanity is created equal but for the ‘scammers’ of a system. I hope I never have a vision of humanity like yours!
This is called a “Straw Man” – when a debater takes an aspect of his opponent’s argument, elevates that aspect to an ugly extreme and then wails, Ooooh The Humanity!!!!
As the welfare reform of the Clinton administration demonstrated, stopping lazy people from gaming the system is good for everyone, even the lazy people.
Unless you’re going to argue that it wasn’t reform, but secret graves for the poor.
Oops – that “Anonymous” was me. And I’m also certain, despite your “shallow and irrational” arguments, that you are a good concerned human as well…;)
I have similar problems posting….probably just me though.
["Tea Party has already, and will continue to, change the “system”.]
Care to elaborate?
Apparently you missed the last election.
T. T. Thomas opines:
Surely a Constitutional scholar of such note as T. T. Thomas is aware that the Constitution is silent as to the number of political parties which may or should operate within its bounds. Surely a sage of such note is aware that there are Representatives in Congress from three distinct parties and two independents (though two of the three caucus together while the independents split between the two larger parties).
My, my Rodney……last I checked, the “Constitution” is NOT silent in how many “parties” shall govern. I believe if you take the time to read it thoroughly you will find that the ["Constitution"] addresses just that issue by leaving it to the people and the electoral college how many parties shall govern. Seems to me rather obviously, that the majority rather consistently, have spoken in favor of a two-party system with few exceptions.
Would you have any suggestions as to why the Communists and socialist-progressives strategically operate within the Democrat Party and the Religious Right and anarchists operate within the GOP? They all have their duly registered parties….do they not?
Bottomline! The two-party system is “Constitutionally” seated by majority choice (by vote) of the people and the Constitutional electoral college. Could the will of the people ever change? Of course it could but that is not the reality of the moment….is it? And if it does, its because the Constitution spoke to that very issue.
Correction: The Religious Right like the Tea Party are not duly registered parties.
Iceman….by your definition most everything in the mpolitical media realm to include PJM is a ‘straw man’ marque.
And no, I didn’t “miss the last election”. Was that all you could define and contribute?
Read again what the responder (you) wrote: […” Yep, the Ryan plan will have “severe consequences”, mostly on the sponging parasites that consume, but not produce."]. Is that not an acurate copy and paste on my part? See anything about “lazy” in there? See anything that defines “…consume, but not produce” in there?
All I did was, respond to what (you) wrote!