Have you seen this?
With the Republican primary
contest over and the general election underway, Mitt Romney faces a voting public whose
disdain for him has reached levels that pollsters describe as "historic." From
his embittered opponents as well as from Romney and his campaign, Americans have
learned that the former Massachusetts governor simply won't uphold any political
position, issue or achievement he thinks might cost him votes. He doesn't seem
to understand that his inconstancy forfeits more respect than any disagreeable
opinion would.
No matter how carefully the former
Massachusetts governor parses and prevaricates, many voters, including more than
a few conservatives, evidently feel they've detected the inner Mitt: a man with
utmost regard for himself and people like him — and a profound disregard for
people like most of them. They've observed him straining to express concern for
the unemployed, the poor and the powerless, while sounding sincerely resentful
whenever the privileged are held accountable. They've perceived an attitude of
entitlement, whether he is withholding tax returns, defending tax breaks for
billionaires or spending vast amounts to defame opponents. And they don't like
it, no matter what they may feel about Barack Obama.
Although a new Gallup poll shows Romney
with a small lead matched against Obama — indicating how close this election may
ultimately become — voters consistently appear to disapprove of the presumptive
Republican nominee. As they have learned more about him over the past several
years, his negative ratings have soared. Over the past five years, since he
began to run for president, the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that
negative views of Romney have roughly doubled, from about 24 percent to 47
percent, while his positive ratings have lagged (only 12 percent express
"strongly" positive feelings about him).
More important, Romney polls 21 points
behind President Obama in public approval — the worst rating for a likely
presidential nominee in a Post/ABC poll since 1984. Indeed, he is the first to
be "underwater," with higher negative than positive ratings, in the last eight
presidential elections.
Vulnerable groups seem to find Romney
particularly unappealing and unsympathetic, as the Post/ABC cross-tabulations
suggest. Among voters with annual household incomes lower than $50,000, Obama
leads by 29 points. Among the young, who now tend to be in debt, without jobs or
both, Obama leads by 36 points. Among married women, Obama is ahead by 20
points. But among unmarried women, his lead grows to 45 points.
Obama's favorable score is 9 points higher
than Romney's among married adults — but this swells to a 37-point advantage
among those who are not married. Romney and Obama are seen favorably by about
equal numbers of married men, and Obama's unfavorable score is higher in this
group. But he jumps to a 20-point higher favorable rating than Romney among
married women, 25 points among unmarried men, and 45 points among unmarried
women. Overall, Obama is seen not only as more likeable and friendly but as more
understanding of the economic conditions faced by most Americans.
The latest CNN poll gives the president a
substantial lead over his likely challenger, reflecting the same advantage for
Obama among low-income, female and young voters. But all those surveyed felt
that Obama was far more likely to stand up for his beliefs than Romney and to
sympathize with those less fortunate and less powerful.
Evidently, Romney hopes to bury Obama
beneath a barrage of negative advertising, with at least $800 million that his
party expects to raise from wealthy conservatives like him. But that won't erase
the lasting impression created by a primary campaign that left Americans with a
bad impression of the Republican Party and a worse impression of the nominee
that process selected so grudgingly.
Joe Conason is the editor in chief of
NationalMemo.com. To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators
Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-seems-believe-wh...
What is a shame is, that for some inexplicable reason, people have bought into the GOP and LSM version of who Ron Paul is, and what his policies are, and have too big an ego or an assumingly low enough IQ, that they won't do what is actually best for this nation.
As usual, you and millions of others have the scenario back asswards. Thanks so much.
Ron Paul will never be president - simple as that.
"Do you have any idea how tiresome it is to hear that everyone who does not support Romney is a dumb ass?? There are many who think just the opposite.
Mitt Romney will never be president - simple as that.
PS No one thinks anyone is a dumb ass for not supporting Romney - We really stupid people who realize that Obama is very bad for the nation will support the GOP nominee; we dumb asses who actually care about the nation will support the GOP nominee, we who "have too big an ego or an assumingly low enough IQ" (quote from your friend above) know that support of a GOP nominee is important to the nation.
So congrats on your enormous brain, superior IQ - the rest of us are trying to save our country.
The problem with other conservatives is that they believe they MUST have a Republican in office, even if that Republican is an incompetent fool (witness W). It really doesn't matter to me if the POTUS is a Democrat or a Republican, it only matters that they do what is right for our country.
Since Ron Paul is the only candidate running that reflects my beliefs, I MUST vote for him, even if he doesn't--or can't--win. The reasoning here is that by holding true to those beliefs, they might become more visable to the populace and in time gain a wider acceptance. I cannot--and will not--vote contrary to my belief system.
Peace.
What they discover is the 'Likeability' factor is big. Mitt doesn't have it. No matter how much Team Romney tries to spiff him up to look like Regular Guy, it just doesn't fly.
My vote will go to Ron Paul. It has, and it will.
Yes, we'll survive 4 more years of the devil we know...
And thanks for contributing to four more years of one of the worst Administrations in history, all because the best you can muster is whining online. You can always get involved and do your best to make Romney accountable if he gets elected you know.
We said in reply: We support Ron Paul!
Then you said: "And thanks for contributing to four more years of one of the worst Administrations in history, all because the best you can muster is whining online. You can always get involved and do your best to make Romney accountable if he gets elected you know."
SO THIS IS WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY THE PROCESS IS SCREWED UP!
Grow up.
The process allows persons interested in running for office the chance to apply and run for office. And the way communication works today I have a hard time buying into the whining over money disparity. There are so many avenues to get your message out to the average voter and there are so many people who could care less about a 20 second ad on tv that its crazy. At the end of the day a candidates beliefs have to survive the nominating process in the party. If they don't, if a majority of the party doesn't support a candidate then oh well. Personally I was behind Romney in 2008 and had to conceed to McCain. But I didn't whine about it. Didn't complain about the "process" like a five year old. I supported the better candidate in the general.
Then again you said "The GOP botched this election last year when they trotted out these candidates."
These candidates would include Ron Paul. So I guess Paul himself is a botched candidate right? Or is your complaint that there were other options?
At the end of the day GOP voters had a choice among peo...
Grow up.
The process allows persons interested in running for office the chance to apply and run for office. And the way communication works today I have a hard time buying into the whining over money disparity. There are so many avenues to get your message out to the average voter and there are so many people who could care less about a 20 second ad on tv that its crazy. At the end of the day a candidates beliefs have to survive the nominating process in the party. If they don't, if a majority of the party doesn't support a candidate then oh well. Personally I was behind Romney in 2008 and had to conceed to McCain. But I didn't whine about it. Didn't complain about the "process" like a five year old. I supported the better candidate in the general.
Then again you said "The GOP botched this election last year when they trotted out these candidates."
These candidates would include Ron Paul. So I guess Paul himself is a botched candidate right? Or is your complaint that there were other options?
At the end of the day GOP voters had a choice among people at least willing to run and stand against Obama . . . I'll give them all credit for that even if I didn't support some of them in the slightest. But I let Democracy run its course and didn't need to whine about it like a 5 year old.
Oh my, Obama's a Muslim commie, Obama's a Muslim commie, the sky is falling... And yet all that the retreads can manage to throw out is another flip flopping crony loving big meatless RINO bone like OvoMitt... AGAIN! And if Obama is such a evil Muslim commie then pray tell how do the genius repunks plan to magically save us all when they are the incompetent progressive crony loving boobs and wolves in sheep's clothing that helped screw things up and get him elected in the first place. After a 100 years of their mob helping this country into deep chit did they all the sudden learn their lesson and do they really, really, really, really, really mean it this time, huh?
Yeah, it's all somehow someway all the fault of the Liberty Loving Ron Paul supporters because they refuse to keep playing this useless lesser evil con game of heads they win, tails the people lose... Again!
...that's a good one Hula, you run along now and be sure to vote straight repub this election, for all the good it will do you. LMAO!