I'm starting to think Romney's campaign managers are sinking the ship intentionally

[berni_mccoy]

There are just too many major errors.

Most recently the b.s. complaint about changes to Welfare. As Joe Klein pointed out, this was a critical mistake akin to political noobs.

Then there was Mittzkrieg, attacking Wind Energy spending (critical to several swing states), not releasing tax returns, denying his main achievement as governor (RomneyCare), etc, etc, etc.

I know he is not well liked in the Tea Party and was the last choice among many conservative caucuses. He was reluctantly endorsed by many in his own party (i.e. Nugent's conditional endorsement).

As others have pointed out here before, it could be that the powers that be in the Republican establishment don't really want Romney to win. And I'm starting to think this way too.

If we are picking up on this, I'm certain some near Romney must too. I wonder if there will be a "reorganization" soon in the Romney campaign?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

1. How much is attributable to malice and how much to incompetence?

I attribute happenings to malice, when they are explained by incompetence.

[berni_mccoy]

2. If it's incompetence, Romney should have corrected it by now.

So the fact that he hasn't means either
1. He believes his team is competent despite the mistakes
2. He isn't a strong leader
3. All of the above

Either way you slice it, intentional sinking or not, it is bad.

However, this isn't his first run at office and he successfully was elected as Governor of one of the most liberal states. That tells me there is a good likelihood of malice here.

[hifiguy]

13. Never attribute to malevolence that which is more easily

explained by stupidity. Which is not to say that there isn't a lot of malevolence in the Repig party, but there's even more stupidity.

[HiPointDem]

37. nah. the campaign & the gop have the $$ to hire the sharpest, most highly-paid professionals.

not stupidity. something else going on.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. I had exactly the same presentiment about Kerry in 2004, when

he said blithely in Colorado Springs that, even had he known there were no WMD in Iraq, he still would have voted for the AUMF.

Right then, I figured the fix was in and Kerry was deliberately trying to throw the election.

[blm]

5. Nope. In fact, Kerry was operating strongly and against both Bush and Clinton machines.

The only reason Kerry ended up losing was because Terry McAuliffe's (Hillary2008) stewardship of the DNC where he made it DC centric during his tenure and oversaw the collapse of party infrastructure in states crucial to elections, especially in Ohio and Florida where the state party was at its weakest point. Dean had to rebuild party infrastructure in those states and others as a main focus of his leadership of the DNC.

[coalition_unwilling]

11. I was an early-on Deaniac and remain so today. I lost all enthusiasm

for Kerry when he blithely enabled the murder, wounding and displacement of more than 1,000,000 Iraqis ALL FOR A LIE. I voted for Kerry with my thumb and finger firmly pinching my nose.

[karynnj]

25. There was very little difference in 2002 between Dean's and Kerry's positions

Dean's own preference, for a resolution would have been even easier for Bush to have violated.

Here is what he said on Face the Nation on September 29, 2002, shortly before the IWR vote.

[div class ="excerpt"]
HOWARD DEAN: It’s very simple. Here’s what we ought to have done. We should have gone to the UN Security Council. We should have asked for a resolution to allow the inspectors back in with no pre-conditions. And then we should have given them a deadline, saying, ‘If you don’t do this, say, within 60 days, we will reserve our right as Americans to defend ourselves and we will go into Iraq.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/1879

I can't find the FTN interview as it appears to no longer be on line. This is a link to David Swanson's post of many Dean statements. Swanson was a co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org - so this should be an acceptable source for a quote that was in the mainstream media back in 2002.

Dean said he would support Biden/Lugar, Kerry's preferred resolution and there was no quote I could find in 2004 where Dean said before or even shortly after the IWR that he would vote against it. Both Kerry and Dean ruled out invasion for regime change. The biggest difference was that Kerry had to vote. All candidates use whatever is to their advantage, but Trippi often went too far in trying to lump Kerry with Gephardt, Lieberman and Edwards - who all supported going to war.

In early 2003, both Kerry and Dean spoke out - and both were labeled as against the war. Kerry did not go to the DNC conference in February or March 2003 where Dean gave a fiery speech against the war - he was recuperating from cancer surgery. Both Kerry and Dean called for Rumsfeld to resign over Abu Ghraib. Then in mid 2003, the Dean campaign very successfully made him the only viable anti-war candidate - pointing to Kerry's vote.

From my perspective, I think that the greatest damage Kerry's vote did was that it lost him the people who would have been his strongest supports given his person history. It did not lead to his loss - even though many like you voted unenthusiastically.

[coalition_unwilling]

36. In your next-to-last paragraph, your sentences are out of sequence chronologically

when you write "Both Kerry and Dean called for Rumsfeld to resign over Abu Ghraib. Then in mid 2003, the Dean campaign very successfully . . . " (emphasis added). The Abu Ghraib scandal happened long after mid 2003 and the Democratic nominating process ( 2006), but your sentences make it sound as if Abu Ghraib happened first chronologically. Unless you meant 'then' as 'Furthermore'. In which case, your meaning is a bit unclear.

Kerry may have been labeled as against the war, but the time to man up and show his anti-war credentials was the vote. EPIC FAIL. Ancient history now, though, I suppose.

Here's a little graphic I'm fond of sharing:

[blm]

43. Dean was for Biden-Lugar version of IWR, that doesn't make him a blithe enabler any more

than IWR made Kerry a blithe enabler.

And it was Kerry who consistently and publicly attacked before, during, and after what would be the DECISION to invade, siding with weapon inspectors who said force was not necessary since no WMD were found. Many of you conveniently forget that fact.

[HiPointDem]

38. and why was that, do you think?

[karynnj]

15. That was actually Republican spin - and it was at the Grand Canyon

NO ONE recorded the question and Kerry's answer was the identical answer he had given WITHOUT THAT CONDITION. You also ignore the excellent speech on Iraq and his repeated comments that had he been President, he would not have gone to war.

Here is a good summary of how Candy Crowley and others, including Sanger of the NYT (which at that point had a number of neo con sympathizers) created this story out of essentially nothing - http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081204.shtml

It is interesting that Brit Hume of FOX actually called them on it at first:
[div class ="excerpt"]
Yes, Sanger just happened to choose an expert who thought Kerry looked "floppy" and Bush looked "shrewd." But over at Fox, in striking contrast, a Big Scribe was honest about Bush's latest clowning. On Tuesday, Bush was out playing the rubes, pretending that Kerry had said things he didn't on Monday. Indeed, Brit Hume just flat-out said so, chatting last night with the all-stars:

BUSH (shown on videotape): now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. Knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up.

HUME (8/11/04): Well that line got a big cheer, as you saw yesterday when the president said it. But what Senator Kerry has said is not quite as the president has characterized it...Basically what Kerry has said, correct me if I'm wrong, is, Look, I would have wanted the authority if I'd been president. That's why I voted to grant this authority to go to war to the president...But he said he would have used it differently. He would have used it to as more of a lever for diplomacy. He would have used it to bring more allies aboard. He would have used it to as a threat behind inspections, to leave them going longer.

But the question is, the Bush camp knows what it's doing here. They know that they're stretching what the senator has said in trying to keep this the subject for the day. What about all this? "


What this really shows is that MSM, including parts thought of as liberal were definitely on Bush's side. (Thus the NYT had Elizabeth Brumiller writing nearly groupie like articles on Bush, while Jodi Wilgorgen was calling Kerry a social loner - and when challenger said she spoke to TWENTY LIFE LONG FRIENDS of his - because all social loners have 20 plus life long friends at 60! )

[coalition_unwilling]

16. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong when and if I am wrong, but I could

swear I saw Kerry on television asked the question and his unequivocal answer 'Yes' without any conditions whatsoever. IOW, unless I am completely mis-remembering, Kerry said he would have voted for the AUMF EVEN IF HE KNEW FOR A FACT THAT IRAQ HAD NO WMD. I mean, doesn't that go to the heart of Kerry's judgment?

Now whether that exchange occurred in Colorado Springs or at the Grand Canyon may be something on which I have mis-remembered.

My wife remembers my jaw hitting the floor when I saw the exchange between Kerry and the reporter on the television, so perhaps my wife and I both collectively hallucinated the exchange?

[karynnj]

24. What was on tv was not what you thought

The question actually asked was not there - other than through the people speaking of Kerry's recorded answer - which spoke of like invasive inspections and was the same answer he had given for at least a year.

What you and your wife both hear was that Kerry "in answer to Bush's question of what he would do if he knew there were no WMD" spoken in the lead in to question - then switching to the answer. I looked hard to find the actual question as it was reported with variations - and I think the Howler article written at that time has the story correct.

Kerry's full answer - part of which Hume related makes no sense if Kerry were asked and heard the condition. ( Oliphant of the Boston Globe speculated that Kerry who had a hearing loss may not have heard the condition if it were asked, but it actually is more likely that Candy Crowley conflated the Bush rhetoric question with the standard Kerry answer. )

I don't think you are misremembering - I think that parts of the media intentionally misreported - distorting what was said. It also became a bigger issue on the left after Kerry lost.

As to Kerry, Kerry spoke out in January 2003, before the invasion saying that Bush should not rush to war. He then spent about two years giving the same list of things Bush did not do that he said he would - such as letting the inspectors complete their job. He also said many times that it was not a war of last resort. That means a lot to anyone who grew up Catholic - it means he was saying it was not a just war.

[coalition_unwilling]

35. I'm going to take what you have written under advisement. I can tell you have spent some

serious time researching this matter - far more than I - and, while I cannot aver 100% that you are correct and that I am thus incorrect, I can tell you have put in the sweat equity on it.

Let me restate what you have written to see if I understand it: when my wife and I saw JK say that he would have authorized the use of force, we did not see the actual question he was asked and to which he was responding but instead a reporter's mangled version of the question,that made it sound as if JK was a dumbass when in actuality JK was answering a different question than the one the reporter implied that JK had been asked.

Sorry that restatement of your position is so convoluted. My wife and I are still trying to wrap our heads around the mind fuck we may have unwittingly been the victims of. (I hope you will consider publishing a longer article on this subject. It's very serious and goes to the heart of the democratic process in the U.S. and its shortcomings vis-a-vis the mass media.)

[blm]

4. Jeb2016 has been operating since 2000.

Much the way Hillary2008 was operating since 1998.

[2pooped2pop]

6. u may be right but I think Rmoney is just an arrogant

rich bastard that has never had to learn how to treat people, never had to learn a name, never had to deal with YOU people. His money has given him a free pass. I think his goofs are really just his normal behavior. He has never had to worry about how he said something or what he said.

He's a rich pompous ass and it shows.

He's just another rich frat boy trying desperately to show his father that he's not just another rich frat boy. Another Georgie boy.

[fleur-de-lisa]

19. My sentiments exactly . . .

Whenever he goes off script, his true self is revealed!

[HiPointDem]

39. bush 1&2, kerry etc weren't also rich and entitled? romney's family has been richer for a much

shorter period than either, & in fact mitt's dad wasn't particularly rich when mitt was young.

[2pooped2pop]

42. Bush was just as arrogant and stupid when left to go off script.

Remember the shrub wiping his glasses on the womans sweater?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. I don't know if it is intentional

I tend to doubt it because Republicans don't like to lose, they hated Obama for winning in 2008 and the tea party nuts will accept no less than his massive repudiation that they've fantasized about for the past 3-4 years. Romney just isn't good at politics, which is more or less reflected in his record. He lost in his bid for Senate in 1994, admittedly against a heavyweight but he still lost. He served one term as Massachusetts Governor but, for whatever reason, chose not to run for a second term. He started running for POTUS at the end of his Governorship but he lost the 2008 GOP Primary to McCain and wasn't tapped for his VP. He's running again this year and this time he "survived" the GOP primary against a pretty weak field to become the presumptive GOP nominee. For all of his time in the trenches, he has learned very little about how to run and win a national election.

[Raster]

8. I've said before: Rmoney is a throw-away candidate. If he makes it, great. If not...

....there's always 2016. Jeb, or his son, George P. Or maybe even the first father/son team to run for President/Vice President. I'm sure the concept probably makes ol' Poppy just froth at the mouth.

[magical thyme]

9. it is hard to believe the level of staff incompetence

I've been wondering about this for a while now.

Mittens mouth I believe. But the rest of it is hard to swallow. Unless they are in such a state of panic that they are totally flailing, too busy trying to set up somebody else as the fall guy.

Have a group of people in close quarters drowning, all trying to keep their own head above water by grabbing onto the nearest drowner and trying to shove that one under...

It must be a blast working for Romney right now....

[Junkdrawer]

10. A month ago Limbaugh said Romney Is "A Placeholder For People"...

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/07/10/limbaugh-there-is-a-lot-of-distrust-and-lukewar/187040

[Adrahil]

12. Maybe not, but....

New guy here.

I'm not convinced they're deliberately throwing the election, but I'm not at all surprised. Romney has a massive sense of entitlement, and like a lot of business types, he's used to being surrounded by yes-men. If he manages to get elected (which thankfully looks a bit less likely as the election approaches... fingers crossed), this is the kind of bumbling we can expect to see.

[berni_mccoy]

14. Good points. Welcome to DU!

[Johonny]

18. I think he has good people around him

My friend knows one of the top people work there. This person has won a lot of elections in the past. I think it is a mistake to think every politician-manager works like Rove-Bush. Romney is a lot like Palin and McCain. You can give the man good advice and he will still do what he thinks works best for him. Great campaign people can push relatively loser candidates on the people if they are like say George Bush and they listen and do what they are told. Terrible politicians can destroy even great campaign strategy. So I am willing to give a pass on this. I've asked my friend and he says these are ok political people. So that probably points the problem at the candidate which since we've seen Romney run terrible campaigns before, is not a surprise. Mitt Romney is terrible at politics, why is he so close to becoming president other than $$$$?

[Adrahil]

44. That may be true.

He may just refuse to listen to the good advice he's getting, ala McCain/Palin. But in experience, business types who constantly get advice they don't follow tend to replace those advisors with people who will tell them what they want to hear. That remains to be seen.

[JoePhilly]

17. He's being punked by the evangelicals.

They hate him, and this is the best way to screw him.

They know they can't beat Obama ... so destroying Mittens is the next best thing.

[HiPointDem]

20. I've said for some time, Romney's job is to lose. Why that should be I'll leave to others to

speculate on.

You just don't run this bad of a campaign without it being intentional.

[ellenfl]

21. then who voted for him in the primaries? eom

[nichomachus]

22. People who hate "the black guy" in the White House

[ellenfl]

34. if it's the case that they are trying to derail the campaign, couldn't they have done it

in the primaries? surely the teabaggers didn't get him where he is now.

ellen fl

[Junkdrawer]

33. The Urosevich Brothers?

[struggle4progress]

23. A Presidential campaign requires real political knowledge and real political skill: it's completely

different than a statewide campaign for state office or even for US Senator

A lot of people don't understand this

It may be harder for somebody like Romney. He grew up rich and he stayed rich. He's quite used to tootling about and having folk suck-up to him because he's rich. He never got the hard-knocks schooling. He never had to learn to put himself in anybody else's shoes, so he never did learn to put himself in anybody else's shoes. That's why he's never taken a courageous stand on the major issues of the day. Since everybody always nods and grins when he talks, he's convinced he really is a genius. And so the predictable bottom line is: he has a completely tin ear. He doesn't know what most people think or how they think -- and in fact it may not even cross his mind that ordinary people think

[HiPointDem]

40. i don't get why people keep calling romney "rich" as though he were unique among presidential

aspirants in that respect. let alone unique among politicians.

in fact, romney *doesn't* come from a long line of inherited wealth -- unlike the bushes, kerry, and others.

romney actually went to public school until his dad became associated with the auto industry.

[spin]

26. What I fear is ...

the people who actually run the Republican party don't care about this election or if Mitt wins.

If Obama wins they simply plan to be uncooperative in the next four years. Consequently the economy will still be in the dumpster.

In four years they will run a strong candidate and possibly win the Presidency and control of Congress against any candidate our party can pick. I can't image any Democrat who has the charisma or the oratory skills of Obama.

Democrats will be forced to compromise and consequently the economy will improve. The Republicans will gain control of the Presidency for at least 12 years.

I can only hope that their plan will fail.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. I can name several very strong potential Democratic candidates for '16

The Republicans, you claim, have some 'strong candidate who could win against anyone. Can you name such a Republican? Of course you can't.

[spin]

32. Perhaps Jeb Bush ...

who was actually a very popular governor of Florida.

Bush's impact on his political party

Bush's appeal to Florida's highly diverse group of voters, along with his success in expanding the "big tent" of the Florida Republican Party (GOP), appear to have propelled him into a commanding political position. Nationwide, American conservatives appear to be positive about Bush, seeing him as committed to upholding core conservative principles.[35]

Throughout his two administrations, Bush's office touted his record of non-discrimination and rewarding merit, claiming he employed highly qualified women, blacks and other minorities more often in top-level government positions than any previous Florida Governor.

Outside of Florida, fellow Republican leaders throughout the country have sought Bush's aid both on and off the campaign trail. Bush's out-of-state campaign visits include Kentucky, where Republican challenger Ernie Fletcher appeared with Bush and won that state's governorship in 2003,[36] ending a 32-year streak of Democratic governors. In California, after Democratic Governor Gray Davis was ousted in a recall vote, Bush dispatched Florida's budget director[37] to that state to lead an independent audit of California's budget, at the request of the state's newly elected Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Bush publicly critiqued the national Republican party for its adherence to ideology and partisanship on June 11, 2012. In provocative comments shared with Bloomberg View, Bush suggested that former Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush would "have had a hard time" finding support in the contemporary GOP.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush

A Profile of Florida Governor Jeb Bush
From Justin Quinn, former About.com Guide

Conservative Credentials:
The younger brother of former President George W. Bush and the son of former President George W. H. Bush, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush is one of the few Florida governors to leave office as popular as when he entered. As a pro-life neoconservative, Bush isn't afraid to take heat for standing up for his convictions. In 2003, he stepped in during the Terri Schiavo case and, against the wishes of her husband, ordered doctors to keep the vegetative woman on life support. Bush is rumored to be considering a Republican presidential bid for 2012, a path he has been encouraged by supporters to pursue since 2008.

***snip***

irst Term as Florida Governor:
Bush's popularity with Florida's large Hispanic community stems not only from his marriage to a Mexican woman, but also from his deep ties to Cuban and Latin-American businesses. These ties were bolstered during his first term by alliances with other minority communities in Florida, which were brought about by a deep and solemn commitment to improving the state's inner-city schools. He earned great respect from African Americans thanks to his emphasis on parental involvement in education, but his "One Florida" initiative effectively ended affirmative action at public universities and cost him an honorary degree.

Second Gubernatorial Victory:

As Bush prepared for re-election in 2002, many political observes -- both Republican and Democrat -- expressed doubts about his chances, not because of Bush's popularity (he remained extremely popular), but because no Republican had ever won re-election in Florida history. Former Attorney General Janet Reno ran for the Democratic nomination, but was narrowly defeated by lawyer Bill McBride. A controversy erupted regarding several late-opening polling places in Reno's home areas that defied state orders to remain open late to compensate for the their a.m. delays. In the chaos, Bush coasted to a 13-point victory.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/champions/p/A-Biography-Of-Florida-Governor-Jeb-Bush.htm

Please note that I am not saying that I would support Jeb Bush in a run for the Presidency.

You asked:

The Republicans, you claim, have some 'strong candidate who could win against anyone. Can you name such a Republican? Of course you can't.

I named one.

I live in Florida and many Democrats I know felt Jeb did a good job as governor.

The current Republican governor, Rick Scott, is very unpopular:

PPP: Scott's popularity keeps dropping, even within his own party

Public Policy Polling obviously took this survey before last night's legendary LeBron show, concluding that the polarizing LeBron James is more popular than the governor. Nonetheless their findings on Gov. Rick Scott are interesting as they find that the governor's popularity in the midst of the voter purge is dropping, even within his own party.

Key point: "Scott’s undoing begins with dwindling support in his own party. Just 53% of Republicans approve of his job performance, down from 60% in April. 17% of Republicans would rather take their chances with unknown Democrat Nan Rich in the gubernatorial election than vote for Scott."
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2012/06/scotts-popularity-keeps-dropping-even-within-his-own-party.html

Jeb Bush makes his brother look like an idiot (which he is). Don't underestimate him. Remember that Obama with all his charisma and campaigning ability will not be running. If the economy has not improved significantly by that time a Democratic candidate like Hillary will face an uphill battle. The Republicans will do everything that they can to sabotage Obama's plans in his second term. They might well succeed.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. I think what you are seeing is the GOP trying hard to do well and this is the best they can

muster. They are falling to bits.

[ailsagirl]

29. But don't the repugs have that moronic "anyone but Obama" mindset? nt

[yardwork]

30. I think that he's an incompetent who surrounds himself with incompetents.

Unfortunately, I think that we have a window into the "brilliant, genius" workings of corporate leadership and it really is this bad. This is the kind of incompetence combined with naked greed that destroyed the economy. This explains Wall Street. It explains a lot, actually.

I think that Mitt really is this stupid and so are his advisers. And so is the Republican Party. And so are the boards of all the major corporations.

[lunatica]

31. This can also be explained as the results of lying and covering up about everything

It's hard enough for one person to keep secrets or have so many lies memorized, much less for dozens of operatives looking for any angle that helps their man. Sooner or later the truth just spontaneously squirts out.

[greyl]

41. I think their being genuinely out-of-touch is a pleasingly simple explanation. nt