The Bill Kristol road map to a Romney victory

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 6:02 AM GMT
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/president-romney_640520.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 6:05 AM GMT
    President Romney

    by
    William Kristol

    April 30, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 31


    Here’s how Reuters recently summed up the race for the White House: “The 2012 presidential election is more than six months away, but here is what we know so far: It is going to be close, it is going to be nasty, and the outcome could turn on a series of unpredictable events.” The argument that followed was balanced and intelligent, and nicely captured today’s conventional wisdom.

    But the conventional wisdom may well be wrong. We don’t in fact “know” that the election will be close. Nor do we know that it will be nasty, or that it will turn on unpredictable events. To the contrary, if I had to put money down now, I’d bet that Mitt Romney will win an easy victory after a relatively predictable, issue-focused, and not-too-nasty campaign. Indeed, I’d bet Romney will win precisely if he runs such a campaign. But if he allows the race to degenerate into name-calling and gotcha gimmicks, he could lose. Democrats are better than Republicans at the small and nasty stuff.

    If Romney can speak to Americans’ sense that it’s a big moment, with big challenges, and if he can make this a big election rather than a petty one, then he can win—perhaps big. Consider the polling data. For the first quarter of the year, Romney had a relatively tough primary battle. Obama had clear sailing, with little in the way of challenges from congressional Republicans or anyone else. The economic recovery was a bit better than it had been, and there were no obvious foreign policy disasters. These should have been very good months for Obama.

    But he barely improved his status at all. On January 1, 2012, the RealClearPolitics average had Obama ahead of Romney 46.6 to 45 percent. Today, he’s up 47.5 to 44.6 percent—but the momentum is now in Romney’s direction. More important, Obama’s job approval hasn’t benefited much over the last few months. At the beginning of the year, he was at 46.8 percent approve, 47.8 disapprove; he’s now at 47.5 to 47.0, but beginning to slide back toward negative territory.

    It seems more likely than not that this will be Obama’s high water mark for the rest of 2012. Put another way, it seems unlikely that more than 47 or 48 percent of the voters are going to want to reelect Barack Obama president on Election Day. This means it’s really Mitt Romney’s race to win.

    Romney needs, over the next six months, to convince some number of swing voters he can and should be the next president. The easiest way to do this is by .  .  . behaving like a president. If you want to seem presidential, be presidential. It shouldn’t be hard. Romney already looks presidential, after all.

    But looks aren’t enough. Romney has to behave presidentially—more like a leader than a campaigner. Let Obama lower himself by acting as campaigner in chief rather than commander in chief. Let Obama be shrill. Let his campaign be petty. Meanwhile, Romney can lay out his governing agenda to restore our solvency, put us on a path to prosperity, attend to our security, and safeguard our liberty. Romney can visit the troops in Afghanistan and our ally Israel. Instead of giving rebuttals and prebuttals to Obama’s speeches, Romney can give serious speeches about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, the case for limited government and the threat of bankruptcy and penury, about undoing Obamacare and what will replace it. President Obama has failed to pass a big tax reform, failed to master the federal budget, failed to reform our out-of-control entitlements. The next president, Mitt Romney, can explain that he will step forward to do all of these things.

    And he can do so in a presidential way. He can comment thoughtfully and soberly on the news of the day, rather than simply using news events to snipe at Obama’s handling of various issues. That’s what surrogates are for. He can make clear he is ready to deal with the full spectrum of topics a president has to handle, rather than acting as a candidate who says he’s going to focus on just one issue (e.g., jobs) because “that’s what the voters care about.” Let his super-PACs focus on single issues. Romney should speak to his fellow citizens, whose concerns are broader. When Democrats engage in farcical claims of a Republican “war on women,” he can let surrogates respond by accusing Democrats of a “war on moms.” But he should make clear that he doesn’t intend to divide Americans by gender, race, or ethnicity.

    Romney might even consider offloading his entire opposition research and instant response operation to the Republican National Committee. Let the RNC and the super-PACs put out the statements denigrating the Democratic candidate. Romney should treat his opponent with respect not contempt, sobriety not snark, and good humor not sarcasm. Romney should run for president rather than run against Obama. Others can take care of making the anti-Obama case, focused on the past. He needs to make the case for his future presidency.

    Part of making that case is winning over some citizens who voted for Obama in 2008. People don’t like being told they are, or were, stupid. If some previous Obama supporters are now disappointed—and they are—Romney should empathize with them, not condescend to them. In 2004 John Kerry unfailingly gave the impression that he thought if you had voted for Bush, or approved of anything he’d done, or found him in certain ways likable or admirable, then you were an idiot. That’s no way to beat an incumbent. His former supporters need to be won over rather than bludgeoned into submission. Reagan provided a strong contrast on the issues to Jimmy Carter in 1980. But his tone wasn’t snide or contemptuous. Romney—and especially his campaign, which has had a taste for the snide and the contemptuous—might profitably study Reagan’s 1980 effort.

    The Reuters piece quoted above points out, sensibly enough, that “a tepid economic recovery, voter pessimism about the future and a job approval rating largely stuck in the danger zone below 50 percent mean Obama could have a hard time matching his performance in 2008, when enthusiasm for his promise of change propelled him to victory over Republican senator John McCain with 53 percent of the vote.” Even in 2008, this reminds us, Barack Obama was able to get only 53 percent of the vote, winning by about 7 points. And we’re not in 2008 anymore. Candidate Obama is now President Obama. His approval/disapproval numbers today are just about where they were in April 2010. And in November 2010, Republicans defeated Democrats by almost exactly the same 7-point margin in total votes cast in races for the House of Representatives. Romney needs to hold the swing voters who defected from Obama in 2010. They know the case against Obama. They need to hear the case for Romney.

    If Romney can make that case, he has a very good chance to win. So when Romney-Ryan defeats Obama-Biden (or will it be Obama-Clinton?) by 53 to 46 percent on Election Day 2012—remember that you read it here first.
    "
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 24, 2012 6:35 AM GMT
    Didn't he also have a McCain/Palin road map to victory ?
    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 6:38 AM GMT
    Webster666 saidDidn't he also have a McCain/Palin road map to victory ?
    LOL


    Not that I recall.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 6:42 AM GMT
    LOL


    By William Kristol
    Published: September 29, 2008

    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

    The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to come back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, "you've got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign." Wrong.

    McCain's impetuous decision to go to Washington last week was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury secretary Henry Paulson's original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

    But the goal shouldn't be to return to "a normal campaign." For these aren't normal times.

    We Americans face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent's party minimizes the severity of
    the nation's problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he's shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we're almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they
    get better.


    McCain can note that the financial crisis isn't going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the FDIC to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we'll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

    With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her - aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

    I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

    That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

    In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she's qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, "Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted."

    The core case against Obama is pretty simple: He's too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain's aides what aspect of Obama's liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about "conservatism" and "liberalism" was so old-fashioned.

    Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

    The most famous of these is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words "middle class." The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain's omission.

    The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama's eloquent memoir, "Dreams From My Father." There Obama quotes from the brochure of Wright's church - a passage entitled, "A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness."

    So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 24, 2012 2:39 PM GMT
    I hope that Romney, even if he ends up losing, will run a solid, positive, and classy campaign, much like Ronald Reagan did. These negative campaigns really hurt our country and divide us. We really need a leader who will work very hard toward bringing the country together.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI hope that Romney, even if he ends up losing, will run a solid, positive, and classy campaign, much like Ronald Reagan did. These negative campaigns really hurt our country and divide us. We really need a leader who will work very hard toward bringing the country together.


    This is the guy I voted for in the California primary in 2008 so of course I wish him well. I partially turned against him for a couple of months during this primary season because of the excessively negative campaign that he ran against Santorum and Gingrich. I don’t like that and I don’t care who is doing it to whom. I hope he runs a much more positive campaign in the fall.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 24, 2012 7:11 PM GMT
    Following Bill Kristol's words of wisdom doesn't guarantee success.

    As Jim Newell writes in Salon:

    Bill Kristol, the publisher of the neoconservative Weekly Standard, is the most notoriously wrong-all-the-time political commentator in America.

    The vocal advocate behind such hits as "the Iraq war will go swimmingly" and "Sarah Palin would be a great vice presidential candidate" typically spent most of this campaign season incorrectly speculating, or "reporting," on which candidates would join the race. In a way, this made Kristol useful. We knew, for example, that a Rudy Giuliani for President 2012 campaign — however unlikely that ever was — would definitely never materialize after Bill Kristol wrote this on June 8, 2011: "I’m told by two reliable sources that Rudy Giuliani intends to run for the GOP nomination for president in 2012. He may throw his hat in the ring soon."
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Apr 25, 2012 1:39 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidLOL


    By William Kristol
    Published: September 29, 2008

    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

    The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to come back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, "you've got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign." Wrong.

    McCain's impetuous decision to go to Washington last week was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury secretary Henry Paulson's original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

    But the goal shouldn't be to return to "a normal campaign." For these aren't normal times.

    We Americans face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent's party minimizes the severity of
    the nation's problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he's shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we're almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they
    get better.


    McCain can note that the financial crisis isn't going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the FDIC to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we'll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

    With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her - aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

    I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

    That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

    In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she's qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, "Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted."

    The core case against Obama is pretty simple: He's too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain's aides what aspect of Obama's liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about "conservatism" and "liberalism" was so old-fashioned.

    Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

    The most famous of these is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words "middle class." The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain's omission.

    The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama's eloquent memoir, "Dreams From My Father." There Obama quotes from the brochure of Wright's church - a passage entitled, "A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness."

    So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.






    _______________________________________________

    "By William Kristol
    Published: September 29, 2008

    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity."

    And, THERE'S his road map.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2012 2:42 AM GMT
    JPtheBITCH saidPolitfcal orientation aside----I mean, I know he's one of your guys, and you people never criticize each other----but let's face it, Kristol's track record is abysmal. Why is anyone listening to him anymore? The man worked for Dan Quayle, for Pete's sake. Can there be a better indicator of bad choices than that?






    Your leaving out one of the absolute worst most damnable facts about this Godamned idiot William Kristol, He was one of the ring leaders, perhaps the loudest and most outspoken in the disgraced, "PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY", (PNAC) which led the way and pushed for war with Iraq and all the bullshit they used to back it such as the lies about WMD's. Many from this group numbered among bush's 41 Israeli Lobby influenced war administration.

    With all his failed ventures and especially his failed Iraq war promotion against US interests, what in hell does this damn idiot get the spotlight for even another minute to advise anyone on anything.




    Project for the New American Century - SourceWatch -search from "WIKIPEDIA"





    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New...


    In 2009 two of PNAC's founders, William Kristol and Robert Kagan, began what some termed "PNAC ... has been agitating since its inception for a war with Iraq.



    William Kristol - SourceWatch





    www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=William_Kristol


    Mar 16, 2012 – Kristol is co-author with Lawrence F. Kaplan of The War Over Iraq: Saddam's Tyranny and America's Mission. ... Letter to President William Jefferson Clinton from PNAC, January 26, 1998. ... William Kristol in the Wikipedia.





    Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free ...





    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century


    It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and ..... In 2003, during the period leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the PNAC ...



    William Kristol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol


    In 1997, he co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with Robert ... In 2003, Kristol and Lawrence F. Kaplan wrote, "The War Over Iraq: ...





    The Clique that Sold Us the Iraq War





    zfacts.com/node/297


    ... invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William Kristol & Robert Kagan. ... 1998 Signed PNAC Letters to Clinton, Gringrich, Lott advocating Iraq War. 2002 December ...



    War





    www.end2partygovernment.com/War.html


    The three reasons Bush gave for the invasion of Iraq (9/11 related, yellow cake uranium & Weapons of Mass ... Ans: Project for the New American Century (PNAC) ... William J. Bennett, Wiki, Sec of Education Reagan supported by Irving Kristol ...



    William Kristol - WikiSpooks





    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/William_Kristol


    Jun 12, 2010 – He was a prominent supporter of the war against Iraq. He also ... Kristol was one of the signatories to the January 26, 1998, PNAC letter sent to President Bill Clinton urging him "to seize that .... William Kristol in the Wikipedia.



    PNAC - WikiSpooks





    https://wikispooks.com/wiki/PNAC


    Jul 12, 2010 – The New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt. ... See main article: Project for the New American Century and the Iraq War. ..... Retrieved from "https://wikispooks.com/wiki/PNAC" ...





    Who Did It? - Conspirators





    www.whodidit.org/cocon.html


    Donald Rumsfeld — former Secretary of War and PNAC member; close ... former PNAC member; chief architect of Iraq war; forced to resign in World Bank scandal ..... William Kristol — PNAC co-founder; adherent of Leo Strauss; editor of The ...



    The Jewish Wars: Jewish War Pig William Kristol up to his old tricks ...





    thejewishwars.blogspot.com/.../jewish-war-pig-william-kristol-up-to....


    Oct 17, 2011 – The gall of William Kristol knows no bounds - the warmongering pimp who co-chaired the .... bonus: Wikipedia's entry for PNAC seconds our contention that PNAC is widely regarded ...PNAC role in promoting invasion of Iraq ...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    PEOPLE DO SOME READING FOR CHRISTS SAKE !! do some reading of the facts about this godam idiot, we need this fuckers advise about like we all need a hole in our heads


    And no bygod it isn't antisemitic to point these facts out about the pain in the US's collective ass William Kristol, he comes well connected from a line up of people pushing the US into wars for Israels interests not ours.


    Now of course we'll hear from the OLD GEEZER calling these facts a "CONSPIRACY THEORY" such christian fundi fanatics couldn't see reality if it was staring them in the face.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    Webster666 said
    freedomisntfree saidLOL


    By William Kristol
    Published: September 29, 2008

    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity.

    The conventional wisdom is that it was a mistake for McCain to come back to Washington last week to engage in the attempt to craft the financial rescue legislation, and that McCain has to move on to a new topic as quickly as possible. As one McCain adviser told The Washington Post, "you've got to get it [the financial crisis] over with and start having a normal campaign." Wrong.

    McCain's impetuous decision to go to Washington last week was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury secretary Henry Paulson's original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.

    But the goal shouldn't be to return to "a normal campaign." For these aren't normal times.

    We Americans face a real financial crisis. Usually the candidate of the incumbent's party minimizes the severity of
    the nation's problems. McCain should break the mold and acknowledge, even emphasize the crisis. He can explain that dealing with it requires candor and leadership of the sort he's shown in his career. McCain can tell voters we're almost certainly in a recession, and things will likely get worse before they
    get better.


    McCain can note that the financial crisis isn't going to be solved by any one piece of legislation. There are serious economists, for example, who think we could be on the verge of a huge bank run. Congress may have to act to authorize the FDIC to provide far greater deposit insurance, and the secretary of the Treasury to protect money market funds. McCain can call for Congress to stand ready to pass such legislation. He can say more generally that in the tough times ahead, we'll need a tough president willing to make tough decisions.

    With respect to his campaign, McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her - aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she's a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.

    I'm told McCain recently expressed unhappiness with his staff's handling of Palin. On Sunday he dispatched his top aides Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis to join Palin in Philadelphia. They're supposed to liberate Palin to go on the offensive as a combative conservative in the vice-presidential debate on Thursday.

    That debate is important. McCain took a risk in choosing Palin. If she does poorly, it will reflect badly on his judgment. If she does well, it will be a shot in the arm for his campaign.

    In the debate, Palin has to dispatch quickly any queries about herself, and confidently assert that of course she's qualified to be vice president. She should spend her time making the case for McCain and, more important, the case against Obama. As one shrewd McCain supporter told me, "Every minute she spends not telling the American people something that makes them less well disposed to Obama is a minute wasted."

    The core case against Obama is pretty simple: He's too liberal. A few months ago I asked one of McCain's aides what aspect of Obama's liberalism they thought they could most effectively exploit. He looked at me as if I were a simpleton, and patiently explained that talking about "conservatism" and "liberalism" was so old-fashioned.

    Maybe. But the fact is the only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - distanced themselves from liberal orthodoxy. Obama is, by contrast, a garden-variety liberal. He also has radical associates in his past.

    The most famous of these is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and I wonder if Obama may have inadvertently set the stage for the McCain team to reintroduce him to the American public. On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words "middle class." The Obama campaign even released an advertisement trumpeting McCain's omission.

    The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama's eloquent memoir, "Dreams From My Father." There Obama quotes from the brochure of Wright's church - a passage entitled, "A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness."

    So when Biden goes on about the middle class on Thursday, Palin might ask Biden when Obama flip-flopped on Middleclassness.






    _______________________________________________

    "By William Kristol
    Published: September 29, 2008

    John McCain is on course to lose the presidential election to Barack Obama. Can he turn it around, and surge to victory?

    He has a chance. But only if he overrules those of his aides who are trapped by conventional wisdom, huddled in a defensive crouch and overcome by ideological timidity."

    And, THERE'S his road map.


    I guess I don't understand your point. What you quoted above is why I posted that. Is there something additional that I'm missing?
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Apr 25, 2012 3:27 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI hope that Romney, even if he ends up losing, will run a solid, positive, and classy campaign, much like Ronald Reagan did. These negative campaigns really hurt our country and divide us. We really need a leader who will work very hard toward bringing the country together.


    It's too late for that. I believe his first, or one of his first ads attacking President Obama took something Obama said out of context. Obama was recalling what someone on McCain's team had said, and Romney's ad gave the allusion as if the remark originated with President Obama.

    Nothing classy about Romney.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2012 3:28 AM GMT
    OLD GEEZER !!! Did you read anything from all the articles spelling out fact after fact against relying on anything Kristol has to say ? Bet your afraid to read the truth aren't you ? Go ahead, you'll find it enlightening.


    Kristol should be run out of this country for treason and if we had any sense it would have been done when his lies were exposed re: the Iraq war.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 25, 2012 4:59 PM GMT
    Does Boll Krystal have his own Romney commemorated Etch-A-Sketch ?

    icon_biggrin.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 25, 2012 5:42 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    There you have it right off the bat: Romney will lose in November, and will have only a bitter campaign to show for it.

    I honestly believe (in fact, virtually know) that. Anyone care to prove me wrong?



    You don't KNOW shit, but keep telling yourself that you can see the future icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 25, 2012 7:21 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said
    There you have it right off the bat: Romney will lose in November, and will have only a bitter campaign to show for it.

    I honestly believe (in fact, virtually know) that. Anyone care to prove me wrong?



    You don't KNOW shit, but keep telling yourself that you can see the future icon_rolleyes.gif


    Pathetic. Technically, you don't "KNOW" that the sun will rise tomorrow.





    Curious' comments here on RJ consist of knee jerk defenses of the Repubs and Pollyannish predictions that always turn out to be dead wrong.

    He's a Repubot - and hopelessly out of touch with reality.

    JUST LIKE BILL KRISTOL
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Apr 25, 2012 8:36 PM GMT
    LOL.... The LAST Riad Map that Bill Kristol had ... Had something to do with Jeffersonian democracy sprouting up in Iraq

    Hoy Crap ..... Watch out Willard .... DUCK!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Apr 25, 2012 9:29 PM GMT
    Pouncer said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Pouncer said
    There you have it right off the bat: Romney will lose in November, and will have only a bitter campaign to show for it.

    I honestly believe (in fact, virtually know) that. Anyone care to prove me wrong?



    You don't KNOW shit, but keep telling yourself that you can see the future icon_rolleyes.gif


    Pathetic. Technically, you don't "KNOW" that the sun will rise tomorrow.


    True