PDA

View Full Version : Murdoch: 'Doubtful' Romney can win



Janice
07-01-2012, 01:07 PM
http://i49.tinypic.com/2rrxdds.jpghttp://i45.tinypic.com/atnrzt.jpg

Murdoch: 'Doubtful' Romney can win ...

Met Romney last week. Tough O Chicago pros will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros. Doubtful.

Twitter (https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/219393140245807104)

-----------------------------------------

I dont see Romney losing ... except to fraud. Anybody But 0bama is gaining traction, esp after the Roberts ego driven ACA decision.

But to Murdochs point.... I seriously doubt that Romney will switch from his Bush and McCain advisers. When have Nor Eastern RINO's ever considered conservatives seriously to win? Anything?? It just aint gonna happen. If he ever did take on a conservative adviser or two it would only be for appearances for political advantage. Otherwise they'd be kept as far away from the levers of actual power, policy and decisions as possible. Like maybe a Vice President or somebody who walks the dog.

Of course I could be wrong... but, Romney should win by default. Theres just no compelling reason to give Zippo a second term. Unless of course you like the direction the country is going... in which case your definitely in the minority. Except, again, for the fraud, the ignorance and the apathetic.

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 02:55 PM
I can't see Romney losing, which is an improvement over a couple of months ago when I didn't think we had a chance of winning.

On the other hand, I can see Romney making this a tougher race than it needs to be just for the reasons mentioned in the post. Romney is a northeast 'conservative' and to most of us out here in the big flyover area, that isn't conservative. We'll vote for him because the alternative is just freakin' frightening.

Where I worry is the big swing states. If Romney goes right to placate the southern and western states, it might not play well there. If he goes more middle of the road, it won't help him out here. It's got to be a fine balance. Once upon a time, that could be done, and was done. It isn't as possible any more.

I think his campaign has been playing well by hammering obama's every word. As it gets serious in a couple of months, I'd much rather not see any mccain people within shouting distance of Romney. McCain's campaign was notably unimpressive.

Janice
07-01-2012, 06:19 PM
Yes. And look at all the back stabbing McCains people did to Palin. Undermining her during the campaign, then back stabbing her after the campaign ... to cover for their own idiotic inadequacies. And how they have undermined and/ or denigraded anything "conservative" since then. They make perfect company for Bushs old advisers I suppose.

This unfortunately is who Romney is "comfortable with".

Still, it seems this election is Romneys to lose. If he can just keep from dissing the base too much (keep his leftist (rino) advisers on a leash) ... he should win by a fairly large margin (as far as the popular vote goes).

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 06:27 PM
Yes. And look at all the back stabbing McCains people did to Palin. Undermining her during the campaign, then back stabbing her after the campaign ... to cover for their own idiotic inadequacies. And how they have undermined and/ or denigraded anything "conservative" since then. They make perfect company for Bushs old advisers I suppose.

This unfortunately is who Romney is "comfortable with".

Still, it seems this election is Romneys to lose. If he can just keep from dissing the base too much (keep his leftist (rino) advisers on a leash) ... he should win by a fairly large margin (as far as the popular vote goes).

I think what he's got to do is start explaining to those big swing states about outsourcing jobs. The obamaites have been hammering him on it, and he's been silent. Retaliate with an explanation and then follow up with obama's jobs record.

Maybe that's in the plans. It's early yet, but the sooner they get obama back on the defensive, the better. They don't do well when they're being defensive.

TVDOC
07-01-2012, 06:28 PM
Let us not forget that Fox News and other holdings notwithstanding....old Rupert is a liberal, and supported Obama in 2008......

doc

SaintLouieWoman
07-01-2012, 06:40 PM
I can't believe that the Republicans are letting O's rotten ads with a little old lady or man saying that they lost their jobs because of Bain. I believe that the instances where their former places of employment were closed occured AFTER Romney left Bain.

For the life of me can't understand why they're not pounding on those lies. The longer those adds fo unanswered, the more the more uninformed will believe it's true.

In the words of Bubba Clinton, use the "big lie". That's always been the mantra of the Clintons and the Annointed One has been following their lead.

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 06:50 PM
I can't believe that the Republicans are letting O's rotten ads with a little old lady or man saying that they lost their jobs because of Bain. I believe that the instances where their former places of employment were closed occured AFTER Romney left Bain.

For the life of me can't understand why they're not pounding on those lies. The longer those adds fo unanswered, the more the more uninformed will believe it's true.

In the words of Bubba Clinton, use the "big lie". That's always been the mantra of the Clintons and the Annointed One has been following their lead.

That's one of the things that makes me nervous. It reminds me of McCain in 2008. Romney needs to start fighting back. Whether he or his people realize it, the campaign has begun. I think he can wait a short time longer, but he must answer those accusations and the sooner the better.

That's why I agree with the original post that Romney needs to dump the mccain people. This isn't going to be a 'sweetness and light' campaign. It's going to be down and dirty and whoever ran the mccain campaign showed they aren't up to the challenge.

Janice
07-01-2012, 06:51 PM
I can't believe that the Republicans are letting O's rotten ads with a little old lady or man saying that they lost their jobs because of Bain. I believe that the instances where their former places of employment were closed occured AFTER Romney left Bain.

For the life of me can't understand why they're not pounding on those lies. The longer those adds fo unanswered, the more the more uninformed will believe it's true.

In the words of Bubba Clinton, use the "big lie". That's always been the mantra of the Clintons and the Annointed One has been following their lead.

Well, Romney is using Bush advisors as well as the McCain lot. And for 8 long years we had to defend Bush against all kinds of lies... because he refused to fend for himself.

Déjà vu anybody?

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 07:11 PM
Well, Romney is using Bush advisors as well as the McCain lot. And for 8 long years we had to defend Bush against all kinds of lies... because he refused to fend for himself.

Déjà vu anybody?

He's surrounded himself with people he's comfortable with. Unfortunately that isn't going to work. He needs somebody who will get him in fighting mode. I read somewhere that he doesn't want to go negative.

That's fine, unless the opponent is going negative, or dirty. He can reply to those ads without going negative, and by remaining truthful.

The truth is, Bain has created tens upon tens of thousands of American jobs. How many jobs did you create in private industry, Mr. President? How many businesses have you run, Mr President? That's all the ad needs to say.

SaintLouieWoman
07-01-2012, 07:31 PM
He's surrounded himself with people he's comfortable with. Unfortunately that isn't going to work. He needs somebody who will get him in fighting mode. I read somewhere that he doesn't want to go negative.

That's fine, unless the opponent is going negative, or dirty. He can reply to those ads without going negative, and by remaining truthful.

The truth is, Bain has created tens upon tens of thousands of American jobs. How many jobs did you create in private industry, Mr. President? How many businesses have you run, Mr President? That's all the ad needs to say.

What bothers me most is Romney's group sure didn't hold back against the other Republican candidates. They were savaged. He needs to bring those folks on board to defend his record and go on the attack.

It's weird that they're playing so nice with the Dems. That's really not a good idea. It's almost the equivalent of McCain's folks taking aim at Sarah Palin and playing nice with Obama. It's really, really stupid.

Starbuck
07-01-2012, 07:41 PM
There is no reason to get savagely negative at this point. He can do it later and be more effective. Winning the polls at the first of July is nice. Winning the vote in November is better.
Besides, it is the VP candidate's job to be the attack dog. We don't know who that is yet.

Madisonian
07-01-2012, 07:44 PM
I am hoping that Romney is aware of what he needs to do to combat Obama and I think he is aware that the majority of the electorate that he will need to beat Obama has the attention span of a gnat.

Playing his cards too early gives Obama too much time to defend and attack and then that capital, financial and political, is spent.

Think back to the last election and remember Hannity going on about Ayers and Wright. He was playing that "God damn America, chickens come home to roost" clip a dozen times every show for weeks. I got so tired of hearing it, I stopped listening all together and haven't really listened since.

I think Romney has a few of his own September and October surprises lined up and will wait until the right time to let them out.

At least I hope he does.

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 08:04 PM
He doesn't need to get tough, or negative now. But he does need to hold what he's got. He's behind in the major swing states and falling further behind. All he has to do is run ads explaining the falsehoods and showing the people that his company created many in country jobs. Then, ask the simple question "How many jobs did obama create in private industry?"

It can be a very low key ad, with some serious, deep voiced guy narrating. Think of the old VW bug ads from the 60's. Very low key, very effective. They can be very non confrontational and just present the facts. Save the hard hitting stuff for later.

SaintLouieWoman
07-01-2012, 10:05 PM
He doesn't need to get tough, or negative now. But he does need to hold what he's got. He's behind in the major swing states and falling further behind. All he has to do is run ads explaining the falsehoods and showing the people that his company created many in country jobs. Then, ask the simple question "How many jobs did obama create in private industry?"

It can be a very low key ad, with some serious, deep voiced guy narrating. Think of the old VW bug ads from the 60's. Very low key, very effective. They can be very non confrontational and just present the facts. Save the hard hitting stuff for later.

He doesn't need to get vicious, but can't allow the dems to keep defining him as the rich guy who eliminated so many jobs. There needs to be an ad that exposes the lies.

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 11:11 PM
Looks like he has started an ad in 6 states, including Ohio.

Mitt Romney's campaign has quietly begun airing a TV ad in six states that uses an old clip of Hillary Clinton to blast President Barack Obama.

The ad pulls footage of the 2008 primary campaign, when Clinton -- at a campaign stop in Ohio, then-Gov. Ted Strickland at her side -- denounced the Obama team for "perpetuating falsehoods." It's airing in Ohio, Nevada, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa and Virginia.

Here's the script, via a source (video above):

NARRATOR: Barack Obama’s attacks against Mitt Romney: they’re just not true. The Washington Post says, ‘On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue.’ But that’s Barack Obama. He also attacked Hillary Clinton with vicious lies.

CLINTON (file footage): He continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods.

NARRATOR: Mitt Romney has a plan to get America working. Barack Obama? Worst job record since the Depression.

CLINTON (file footage): So shame on you, Barack Obama.

ROMNEY (voice-over): I’m Mitt Romney and I approved this message.

It's a provocative ad for Romney to run, and one almost guaranteed to draw a response from Clinton-world as well as the White House. The commercial doesn't explicitly say which Obama attacks it's responding to, but the Post "Fact Checker" column it cites was focused on Obama's first spot branding Romney as an outsourcer.

UPDATE: In a statement, the Obama campaign stood by the substance of its attacks on Romney -- and ignored Romney's Clinton-themed jab.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/romney-ad-features-hillary-clinton-shame-on-you-barack-127713.html

Odysseus
07-01-2012, 11:46 PM
What bothers me most is Romney's group sure didn't hold back against the other Republican candidates. They were savaged. He needs to bring those folks on board to defend his record and go on the attack.

It's weird that they're playing so nice with the Dems. That's really not a good idea. It's almost the equivalent of McCain's folks taking aim at Sarah Palin and playing nice with Obama. It's really, really stupid.

Romney's team has been pretty effective against Obama. You saw the rapid responses to the dog-on-top-of-the-car story and the various other attacks in the last few weeks. The problem here is that the answer isn't a simple soundbite. Romeny's people have to put an ad together to debunk it, and I'm sure that they are in the process of doing so. It won't be hard, given the fact that even the Washington Post cited the downsizing ad for its mendacity.

Remember that at this point in 1988, Dukakis had a solid lead over Bush, and in 1976, Carter led Reagan. The campaign has barely begun. There hasn't been a single debate (and if Obama is smart, there won't be, as he's a rotten debater, while Romney has honed his skills pretty well against a much tougher group of opponents). To paraphrase John Paul Jones, he has not yet begun to fight.

There are several factors that will work in Romney's favor.
First, the more time that Obama spends in the public eye, the worse he does with the public. Remember his joint session speech to sell Obamacare? He actually shored up opposition to it.
Second, Obama's record is what it is. By every objective measure, things are worse now than they were four years ago, and the public knows it. Look at 1980, when Carter ran against Reagan. Carter had inherited a weak economy, but his policies made it far worse than it had been under Ford. Carter owned that economy, and Reagan hung it on him relentlessly. Obama owns this economy (in the case of the auto-industry, literally), and his failures are legion. He can't run against George W. Bush again.
Third, people really do detest Obamacare. The Supreme Court decision has galvanized support for repeal, while the libs are, at best, ambivalent. Even the ones who are planning to vote for Obama were turned off by the games that were played to get the bill passed, from the parliamentary tricks to the blatant bribes.
Fourth, Obama and the Democrats own the Occupy movement. Any campaign that doesn't intercut scenes of Democrats waxing rhapsodic about the Occupiers with actual images of them doing what they did best, i.e., being filthy, degenerate, lowlife hippies, doesn't deserve to win.
Fifth, the media has been in the tank for Obama since the get go, but people are catching on. There isn't a single major media outlet on the left that hasn't embarrassed itself with at least one major scandal in the last few years, which is why their ratings and sales are in the toilet. Four years ago, we didn't have Breitbart. Finally, and this goes back to my first point about Obama's public persona, he's starting to lose it. His public appearances have been lackluster and incoherent. His last major speech was a disaster, and his fundraising is far below what it was last time around. He's losing, and he knows it. The DNC knows it, too, which is why so many Democrats have announced that they are not going to the convention this year. Obama has never lost a contest of any kind, and he doesn't have the character or strength of will to come from behind. What he does have is a very thin skin and an aversion to criticism. Give it a few weeks, and we'll see him start to have some very public reactions to this, and they will not be pretty, at least, not for the Dems. For us, it's going to be a hoot.

Chuck58
07-01-2012, 11:53 PM
Romney's team has been pretty effective against Obama. You saw the rapid responses to the dog-on-top-of-the-car story and the various other attacks in the last few weeks. The problem here is that the answer isn't a simple soundbite. Romeny's people have to put an ad together to debunk it, and I'm sure that they are in the process of doing so. It won't be hard, given the fact that even the Washington Post cited the downsizing ad for its mendacity.

Remember that at this point in 1988, Dukakis had a solid lead over Bush, and in 1976, Carter led Reagan. The campaign has barely begun. There hasn't been a single debate (and if Obama is smart, there won't be, as he's a rotten debater, while Romney has honed his skills pretty well against a much tougher group of opponents). To paraphrase John Paul Jones, he has not yet begun to fight.

There are several factors that will work in Romney's favor.
First, the more time that Obama spends in the public eye, the worse he does with the public. Remember his joint session speech to sell Obamacare? He actually shored up opposition to it.
Second, Obama's record is what it is. By every objective measure, things are worse now than they were four years ago, and the public knows it. Look at 1980, when Carter ran against Reagan. Carter had inherited a weak economy, but his policies made it far worse than it had been under Ford. Carter owned that economy, and Reagan hung it on him relentlessly. Obama owns this economy (in the case of the auto-industry, literally), and his failures are legion. He can't run against George W. Bush again.
Third, people really do detest Obamacare. The Supreme Court decision has galvanized support for repeal, while the libs are, at best, ambivalent. Even the ones who are planning to vote for Obama were turned off by the games that were played to get the bill passed, from the parliamentary tricks to the blatant bribes.
Fourth, Obama and the Democrats own the Occupy movement. Any campaign that doesn't intercut scenes of Democrats waxing rhapsodic about the Occupiers with actual images of them doing what they did best, i.e., being filthy, degenerate, lowlife hippies, doesn't deserve to win.
Fifth, the media has been in the tank for Obama since the get go, but people are catching on. There isn't a single major media outlet on the left that hasn't embarrassed itself with at least one major scandal in the last few years, which is why their ratings and sales are in the toilet. Four years ago, we didn't have Breitbart. Finally, and this goes back to my first point about Obama's public persona, he's starting to lose it. His public appearances have been lackluster and incoherent. His last major speech was a disaster, and his fundraising is far below what it was last time around. He's losing, and he knows it. The DNC knows it, too, which is why so many Democrats have announced that they are not going to the convention this year. Obama has never lost a contest of any kind, and he doesn't have the character or strength of will to come from behind. What he does have is a very thin skin and an aversion to criticism. Give it a few weeks, and we'll see him start to have some very public reactions to this, and they will not be pretty, at least, not for the Dems. For us, it's going to be a hoot.

Those highlighted say it all. My wife has said almost the same thing. obammy (as she calls him) has a personality quirk that cannot handle criticism or especially dissent. I've read somewhere that he does have a temper and I can foresee him blowing his top at an inappropriate moment. He'll let go and that will seal the deal.

Hey, Barack, it ain't 2008 any more.

Janice
07-02-2012, 01:02 AM
It really shoudnt be too tough for Romney to squash this bug come november ...

http://i50.tinypic.com/6qkzv5.jpg

When a nation regresses to the 'rule of men from the rule of Law,' you have tyranny. If it wasnt for an ignorant and selfish electorate, easily swayed by false promises of personal gain at the expense of others and unwilling to assume responsibility for its own future, which allows ambitious men of low character, e.g., 0bama, to seize and maintain power we wouldnt be where we are today. Had the Germans of the 1920s and 30s not elected Hitler as Chancellor, he would never have been able to establish himself as Furher. Likewise, had the American voters not handed power first to the Democrats in 2006 and then to Obama in 2008, we would not now be at the mercy of their totalitarian ambitions. The people gave them power, and only the people can take it away from them. Unfortunately, people who thirst for power and have achieved it, do not often relinquish it without a fight.

So come on team Romney, come september, october ... take the gloves off. In the mean time give us more reasons to vote for FOR Romney as opposed to just voting AGAINST 0bama. We prayerfully await your response.