Mitt Romney's Lack Of Character Revealed Out Of Desperation

Mitt Romney already had a reputation for piously standing at the podium, while his political henchmen engaged in a very nasty form of politics back in 2008. With Romney, one comes away with the impression that, as long as he can use personal, or political wealth to distance himself from the dirty work, it somehow doesn't reflect upon him. Unfortunately, he is deluding himself.

One can add to that the ease with which he repeatedly lies in debates when pressed, or on the stump. Most recently that was the case when he was called out on RomneyCare by Rick Santorum. The picture he paints on that and other issues for debate audiences and on the stump does not jibe with reality. True, politicians often mangle truth for the sake of politics. But the good ones do not do it at a level easily characterized as lying. Mitt Romney is, in fact, a liar, almost serially so, as many have observed in recent weeks. He appears to be a man who will say and do just about anything to get what he wants in the political world.

No doubt his friends and family know a different man, at least I would hope that's the case. But that is not my concern. He is not seeking to govern his friends and family, but an entire nation of strangers.

What appears to have happened, particularly in the last week, is that Mitt Romney became desperate in his determination to win the nomination given his sound thrashing in South Carolina. Under pressure of losing a nomination he has at times given the impression of somehow being entitled to, we have seen Mitt Romney's true nature on display. It is, in a word, ugly. His arrogance and willingness to deceive, as well as the arrogance of those around him, has become too much for many a conservative to stomach. It reveals a man ill-suited to occupy the highest office in the land.

"It not about winning here anymore," one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. "It's about destroying Gingrich — and it's working."

Bill Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, a far more rhetorically prudent man than I, highlighted the issue earlier. I weighed in then, as well.

Jacobson: If you asked me even a couple of weeks ago whether the Republican Party could heal from the wounds of this election cycle in time to unite against Obama, I would have said ”Yes.” I’m not so sure anymore. That the Romney campaign embraces such people is one of the reasons a large segment of the Republican electorate is moving to a position they never thought possible:

Now, Mark Levin has weighed in on his Facebook page - as did, in a related sense, Sarah Palin last evening. I seriously doubt the Mitt Romney we are now seeing more than enough of will ever make it to the White House. Conservatives would do well to focus on the House and Senate, as Mark Levin also points out in his posting.

Levin: CHARACTER MATTERS AND ROMNEY'S WORRIES ME

My great fear is, however, that he is the weakest candidate who can face Obama and will go into the general election with a fractured base, thanks to his own character flaws, which are now on display, and his tactics of personal destruction. Moreover, while Romney can swamp his Republican opponents by 3 to 1 or more in every state with his spending advantage, Barack Obama will be raising more and spending more to beat him in the general election, meaning Romney's financial advantage will be non-existent.

Comments

[Jackie]

Thanks for another great post Dan. I had said that I would vote the nominee and agreed with the Great One, Levin, that I would vote for an orange juice can over Obama. I'm not so sure after what has happened this past week. I can't stand Romney, he is a dirty skunk and having read that his Fla. peeps are drawing Allen West's district in to the Dem's hands, I won't vote for Mitt. Keep up the good work.

[Ragspierre]

So long as Mittens is all RAH-RAH about RomneyCare, I don't give a fig if he is a pillar of rectitude.

A Collectivist with character would still be a Collectivist (well...and an oxymoron...).

[Ragspierre]

Buchanan put himself in the Mitten’s Myrmidons ranks…and I DO mean ranks…today.

That makes the roster of GOP losers from recent presidential elections pretty much in lock-step with Mittens.

Impressive…

[EBL]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/fred-thompson-mitt-romney-has-matt.html I am not buying Drudge is the force behind the wave, Drudge is riding the wave. But Mark Levin is right in his concerns. I do not trust Newt (for good reason) but if you want to know how Mitt Romney will be if he does win: It will be like he was in Massachusetts. I am sure of that.

[Trista]

NOW character matters? Where was Levin when the media ran repeated footage of Newt's multiple affairs and hypocritical charges against Clinton?

If Newt continues to make character an issue, he will lose in a landslide.

And citing one anonymous "Romney staffer" from BuzzFeed to prove the point of Romney's lack of character is hardly good journalism. How easily we trust what we want to believe.

[Polarbearpapa]

Hey Jackie...Please don't disparage the lowly skunk by using this mans name in the same sentence.....a skunk just uses his natural stench to protect himself..this lowlife baastaad is stinking up the whole primary to gain some thing he does not deserve to have.... the nomination...

I was not a Newt guy...but the Palinization of Newt is has changed my mind....

[KRedding]

I'm thoroughly disgusted with the "TEA Party" support for Newt. Newt Gingrich is the exact opposite of everything the TEA Party initially stood for. Santorum is the only one left that has any Conservative credentials at all, and everyone has completely dismissed him. Palin's support for Newt has thrown everything I thought about her right into the toilet. I'll never give another dime to these turncoats. Here's a picture of Newt in his natural habitat:

http://tinyurl.com/742j5ta

[Ragspierre]

"Waiter, table for a Party of one for KRedding..."

[EBL]

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/he-who-must-be-destroyed-palinization.html He who must be destroyed, the Palinization of Newt Gingrich is an ugly thing...

[astonerii]

Trista, no one really needed any one to admit anything to come to this conclusion. It was obvious about 20 attack ads ago.

[Dustin]

"And citing one anonymous "Romney staffer" from BuzzFeed to prove "

You mean to prove what we've seen for many years? Romney went negative relentlessly in 2008 and he did it again this round. If you're seriously pretending Romney doesn't engage in character assassination to win, you're either amazingly ignorant or you're in the tank for Romney.

Unfortunately, those few Romney fans who remain, after all this disgusting attacking, are often fanatical about it. They just won't be reasoned with.

Newt didn't beat Perry and others by destroying him. He beat him in other ways. He managed to endear himself to conservatives, while Romney isn't skilled enough to beat someone while endearing himself to that person's supporters.

I don't think Romney can beat Obama, but his plan now is to prove that no one else can. Indeed, his plan is to make sure Newt can't beat Obama and then say we should elect the electable. It's hard not to resent it.

[EBL]

As you might have seen, yesterday Mitt Romney's Super PAC began blasting out an ad attacking Newt Gingrich for only having been mentioned once—and not in a flattering light—in Ronald Reagan's diaries. Today, National Review stepped it up a notch and actually claimsNewt Gingrich "repeatedly insulted" Ronald Reagan.The thing that makes these attacks so absurd is that they are being made on behalf of Mitt Romney, who wasn't a Republican when Ronald Reagan was president and specifically said in his 1994 U.S. Senate campaign that he was not seeking public office to support either Reagan or George H.W. Bush. Romney ended up getting trounced by 17 points.
Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, was busy leading Republicans to their first victory in forty years in the House. And the following year, Nancy Reagan credited him with taking up the mantle of conservatism, saying Barry Goldwater had passed it to Ronald Reagan, and that Ronald Reagan had passed it to Newt Gingrich.
I don't say any of this to defend Newt. Rather, I'm pointing it out as an illustration of the pathetic absurdity of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Do you like that comment? It is from the Daily Kos. http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/he-who-must-be-destroyed-palinization.html

[EBL]

h/t to Neo at Sister Toldjah for spotting that one.

[skeptical]

Conservatives capitulate to superior strength.

[the hermit]

Yes, and I see his henchmen are going to re-district Col. West out of his district. Nice work.

[koev73]

if it is all about vetoing process - then romney didn't pass it - and made it absolutely clear why he can't and won't beat obama

[Trista]

Gingrich only wanted to stay positive because he didn't have the money to go negative and his affairs would make it difficult for him to do so. Anyone who has ever worked with Newt knows he's not afraid to go negative.

Plus, Newt is running plenty of negative ads, including one that attacks Romney's character. It's politics. I wish it were different, but it's not, and there is something helpful about vetting a candidate. Don't think for a second that Obama is going to play nice.

Are any of these candidates perfect? No, but I'll tell you what. I'd vote for Romney as my preferred choice. I'd vote for Santorum in a heartbeat. He has a strong moral conviction and character. I'd vote for crazy Paul, too. I will throw up (repeatedly) and vote for Newt if I have to.

The economy is the issue. If we gift Obama another term, our children and our children's children will be paying for it for years to come. Literally.

[ray ban uk]

x ray dog de zuo ping heng shao neng zhao de dao

[Done That]

Newt is starting to surge in FL!
Newsmax has posted the info on an Insider Advantage Poll: http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/gingrich-romney-insideradvantage-poll/2012/01/29/id/425901

[Greg]

George Soros says he wants Romney to be the Republican Candidate because there isn’t much difference between Romney and Obama. Jan 25, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyftC27vNp0

[creeper]

We Iowans are still washing off the slime of Romney's campaign. The man is a jackal who he doesn't even bother to make his own kills. He lets his surrogates do it and then feeds off the carcasses.

[Totally Domestic]

The comparisons between Romney and Obama are frightening.

The campaign of personal destruction rather than proposing an agenda or standing on his record and
defending it.

What is really the difference between Obama's Uah Uah Uah
And Romney's I I I I in their speaches? I feel like I am listening
to the same person.

I can't stand to look at Romney sense he has gotten on the low road of personal
destruction of Newt. And didn't George Soros say that there is almost no
difference between the two? I heard the recording of that statement.

If there is no difference, why bother to even go to the poles?