Could be, could be : The Racine County Sheriff’s Office is continuing to investigate possible fraudulent recall signatures collected by Mark Demet, a Racine man whose brother’s signature was found four times on petitions to recall Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine. His mother’s signature was also found twice. But both say they didn’t sign, said Capt. Thomas Lamke of the Racine County Sheriff’s Office. This is, by the way, a felony: and if this guy is convicted of it then I recommend the full fine and jail time. If that sounds overly harsh, well, nobody is out there forcing people to fraudulently sign other people’s name to official election documents. For that matter, it’s long since past time that somebody got it through Wisconsin progressives’ heads that their petulant collective refusal to accept that they lost an election doesn’t actually give them an excuse to do whatever damage that they like to civic structures in their home state. It’s a heck of a thing to have to use felony convictions to drive that point home, but then, if you want to train a jackass the first thing you have to do is to get its attention… Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Originally posted here:
First reports of Wisconsin recall petition fraud?
I like Rick Santorum. My former senator, whom I voted for three times and have written about here and here is conservative, a great family man, smart and passionate about his beliefs. So… I hate to say this, but at the moment: what a disappointment. What in the world is Rick Santorum thinking? Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates. In this corner, the instant reaction to that mercifully short epidemic of conservative Bain bashing was that if that’s where Newt and Perry were headed on such a major conservative principle that Reagan so exemplified — they should withdraw. Gingrich, typically, candidly admitted a mistake and stopped. His Super PAC ads vanished. Perry hung on to the idea, lost the support of a prominent South Carolina backer on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and withdrew. Now, for whatever reason, Rick Santorum is singing the same anti-conservative, anti-Reagan song — just a different verse. This is his strategy to be The Conservative Alternative to moderate Mitt Romney? By joining Romney in rejecting the Reagan space legacy? Just as everybody is reminded both of Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday and the late January 1986 Challenger tragedy? Oh my. Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker’s vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance — in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration’s deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich’s decision to carry forward with Reagan’s vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be “Authentic Conservative”? Bashing Ronald Reagan’s vision? Sadly, yes . Call me gobsmacked, but now running out there on radio airtime is this Santorum-sponsored anti-Reagan space legacy commercial being presented as an attack on Gingrich. Mocks the Santorum commercial as reported in the Hill : “Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt,” the voice-over in the ad says. “And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.” “Gingrich’s example is fiscal insanity,” the ad continues. The ad goes on to argue that Santorum is the most authentic conservative in the GOP presidential field. Santorum has focused his attacks on Gingrich recently in an effort to win over conservative Republicans who favor the former Speaker. Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to be the conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney. While campaigning in Florida before its primary on Jan. 31, Gingrich proposed putting a base on the moon. His suggestion was widely criticized by his opponents. Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he’d said : “I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise.” So let me see if I understand this. The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday — that would be February 6 — Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he’s the most “authentic conservative”? Well. As the former president might say. If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative — wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) — the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander. If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy — he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause. Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course. One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went. What did Michael Smith do? He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship. Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up. The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order: Greg Jarvis Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik Dick Scobee The name of their space ship — a shuttle captained by Smith’s fellow astronaut Dick Scobee? That’s right: Challenger. In the White House that morning of January 28, it was busy. I was there. That night the President would make the famous ride up to Capitol Hill to deliver the traditional State of the Union Address. Anyone with a job in the various precincts of the president had their individual tasks, and I had mine. And then… and then. President Reagan would write it in his daily diary as follows: A day we’ll remember for the rest of our lives. Started off with a staff meeting & then a session with the Cong. Leadership of both parties. Had a go around with Tip (then-Speaker of the House Thomas P. O’Neill, a Democrat) — think I came out pretty good…….. Then I was getting a briefing for the meeting I was to have with network anchors — an advance on the St. of the Union address scheduled for tonight. In came Poindexter (the national security advisor) & the V.P. with the news the shuttle Challenger had blown up on takeoff. We all headed for a TV & saw the explosion re-played. From then on there was only (one) subject — the death of the 6 crew & 1 passenger — Mrs. McAuliffe, the teacher who had won the right to make the flight. There is no way to describe our shock & horror. We cancelled — I should say postponed the St. of the Union address til next week. Abruptly, everything that was “normal” that day — in the White House and America — stopped in its tracks. The great American adventure that was space exploration was faced with a highly visible, globally televised tragedy. The images of the Challenger soaring into space, then literally exploding in a clear blue sky as the parents of school teacher-civilian astronaut Christa McAuliffe watched from nearby stands in dawning horror, were everywhere. Everywhere. What Americans who were alive that day remember is the President’s speech to the nation that night. But there is another story, much unremembered today and obviously not recalled by Rick Santorum. Three days after the tragedy that was the Challenger explosion there was a memorial service in Houston at the NASA Space Center. The President and Mrs. Reagan departed the White House at 8:45 to board Air Force One and be there with the families. Some 14,000 people were in attendance. All those Americans who worked directly for NASA, along with the families of the seven astronauts who died that terrible day.
I like Rick Santorum. My former senator, whom I voted for three times and have written about here and here is conservative, a great family man, smart and passionate about his beliefs. So… I hate to say this, but at the moment: what a disappointment. What in the world is Rick Santorum thinking? Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates. In this corner, the instant reaction to that mercifully short epidemic of conservative Bain bashing was that if that’s where Newt and Perry were headed on such a major conservative principle that Reagan so exemplified — they should withdraw. Gingrich, typically, candidly admitted a mistake and stopped. His Super PAC ads vanished. Perry hung on to the idea, lost the support of a prominent South Carolina backer on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and withdrew. Now, for whatever reason, Rick Santorum is singing the same anti-conservative, anti-Reagan song — just a different verse. This is his strategy to be The Conservative Alternative to moderate Mitt Romney? By joining Romney in rejecting the Reagan space legacy? Just as everybody is reminded both of Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday and the late January 1986 Challenger tragedy? Oh my. Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker’s vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance — in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration’s deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich’s decision to carry forward with Reagan’s vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be “Authentic Conservative”? Bashing Ronald Reagan’s vision? Sadly, yes . Call me gobsmacked, but now running out there on radio airtime is this Santorum-sponsored anti-Reagan space legacy commercial being presented as an attack on Gingrich. Mocks the Santorum commercial as reported in the Hill : “Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt,” the voice-over in the ad says. “And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.” “Gingrich’s example is fiscal insanity,” the ad continues. The ad goes on to argue that Santorum is the most authentic conservative in the GOP presidential field. Santorum has focused his attacks on Gingrich recently in an effort to win over conservative Republicans who favor the former Speaker. Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to be the conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney. While campaigning in Florida before its primary on Jan. 31, Gingrich proposed putting a base on the moon. His suggestion was widely criticized by his opponents. Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he’d said : “I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise.” So let me see if I understand this. The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday — that would be February 6 — Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he’s the most “authentic conservative”? Well. As the former president might say. If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative — wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) — the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander. If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy — he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause. Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course. One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went. What did Michael Smith do? He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship. Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up. The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order: Greg Jarvis Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik Dick Scobee The name of their space ship — a shuttle captained by Smith’s fellow astronaut Dick Scobee? That’s right: Challenger. In the White House that morning of January 28, it was busy. I was there. That night the President would make the famous ride up to Capitol Hill to deliver the traditional State of the Union Address. Anyone with a job in the various precincts of the president had their individual tasks, and I had mine. And then… and then. President Reagan would write it in his daily diary as follows: A day we’ll remember for the rest of our lives. Started off with a staff meeting & then a session with the Cong. Leadership of both parties. Had a go around with Tip (then-Speaker of the House Thomas P. O’Neill, a Democrat) — think I came out pretty good…….. Then I was getting a briefing for the meeting I was to have with network anchors — an advance on the St. of the Union address scheduled for tonight. In came Poindexter (the national security advisor) & the V.P. with the news the shuttle Challenger had blown up on takeoff. We all headed for a TV & saw the explosion re-played. From then on there was only (one) subject — the death of the 6 crew & 1 passenger — Mrs. McAuliffe, the teacher who had won the right to make the flight. There is no way to describe our shock & horror. We cancelled — I should say postponed the St. of the Union address til next week. Abruptly, everything that was “normal” that day — in the White House and America — stopped in its tracks. The great American adventure that was space exploration was faced with a highly visible, globally televised tragedy. The images of the Challenger soaring into space, then literally exploding in a clear blue sky as the parents of school teacher-civilian astronaut Christa McAuliffe watched from nearby stands in dawning horror, were everywhere. Everywhere. What Americans who were alive that day remember is the President’s speech to the nation that night. But there is another story, much unremembered today and obviously not recalled by Rick Santorum. Three days after the tragedy that was the Challenger explosion there was a memorial service in Houston at the NASA Space Center. The President and Mrs. Reagan departed the White House at 8:45 to board Air Force One and be there with the families. Some 14,000 people were in attendance. All those Americans who worked directly for NASA, along with the families of the seven astronauts who died that terrible day.
I like Rick Santorum. My former senator, whom I voted for three times and have written about here and here is conservative, a great family man, smart and passionate about his beliefs. So… I hate to say this, but at the moment: what a disappointment. What in the world is Rick Santorum thinking? Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates. In this corner, the instant reaction to that mercifully short epidemic of conservative Bain bashing was that if that’s where Newt and Perry were headed on such a major conservative principle that Reagan so exemplified — they should withdraw. Gingrich, typically, candidly admitted a mistake and stopped. His Super PAC ads vanished. Perry hung on to the idea, lost the support of a prominent South Carolina backer on the eve of the South Carolina primary, and withdrew. Now, for whatever reason, Rick Santorum is singing the same anti-conservative, anti-Reagan song — just a different verse. This is his strategy to be The Conservative Alternative to moderate Mitt Romney? By joining Romney in rejecting the Reagan space legacy? Just as everybody is reminded both of Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday and the late January 1986 Challenger tragedy? Oh my. Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker’s vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance — in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration’s deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich’s decision to carry forward with Reagan’s vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be “Authentic Conservative”? Bashing Ronald Reagan’s vision? Sadly, yes . Call me gobsmacked, but now running out there on radio airtime is this Santorum-sponsored anti-Reagan space legacy commercial being presented as an attack on Gingrich. Mocks the Santorum commercial as reported in the Hill : “Reckless spending has led to $15 trillion of national debt,” the voice-over in the ad says. “And what does Newt Gingrich suggest? Spending half a trillion dollars on a moon colony.” “Gingrich’s example is fiscal insanity,” the ad continues. The ad goes on to argue that Santorum is the most authentic conservative in the GOP presidential field. Santorum has focused his attacks on Gingrich recently in an effort to win over conservative Republicans who favor the former Speaker. Santorum and Gingrich are fighting to be the conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney. While campaigning in Florida before its primary on Jan. 31, Gingrich proposed putting a base on the moon. His suggestion was widely criticized by his opponents. Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he’d said : “I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise.” So let me see if I understand this. The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday — that would be February 6 — Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he’s the most “authentic conservative”? Well. As the former president might say. If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative — wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) — the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander. If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy — he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause. Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course. One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went. What did Michael Smith do? He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship. Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up. The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order: Greg Jarvis Christa McAuliffe Ronald McNair Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik Dick Scobee The name of their space ship — a shuttle captained by Smith’s fellow astronaut Dick Scobee? That’s right: Challenger. In the White House that morning of January 28, it was busy. I was there. That night the President would make the famous ride up to Capitol Hill to deliver the traditional State of the Union Address. Anyone with a job in the various precincts of the president had their individual tasks, and I had mine. And then… and then. President Reagan would write it in his daily diary as follows: A day we’ll remember for the rest of our lives. Started off with a staff meeting & then a session with the Cong. Leadership of both parties. Had a go around with Tip (then-Speaker of the House Thomas P. O’Neill, a Democrat) — think I came out pretty good…….. Then I was getting a briefing for the meeting I was to have with network anchors — an advance on the St. of the Union address scheduled for tonight. In came Poindexter (the national security advisor) & the V.P. with the news the shuttle Challenger had blown up on takeoff. We all headed for a TV & saw the explosion re-played. From then on there was only (one) subject — the death of the 6 crew & 1 passenger — Mrs. McAuliffe, the teacher who had won the right to make the flight. There is no way to describe our shock & horror. We cancelled — I should say postponed the St. of the Union address til next week. Abruptly, everything that was “normal” that day — in the White House and America — stopped in its tracks. The great American adventure that was space exploration was faced with a highly visible, globally televised tragedy. The images of the Challenger soaring into space, then literally exploding in a clear blue sky as the parents of school teacher-civilian astronaut Christa McAuliffe watched from nearby stands in dawning horror, were everywhere. Everywhere. What Americans who were alive that day remember is the President’s speech to the nation that night. But there is another story, much unremembered today and obviously not recalled by Rick Santorum. Three days after the tragedy that was the Challenger explosion there was a memorial service in Houston at the NASA Space Center. The President and Mrs. Reagan departed the White House at 8:45 to board Air Force One and be there with the families. Some 14,000 people were in attendance. All those Americans who worked directly for NASA, along with the families of the seven astronauts who died that terrible day.
I’m hoping Republicans will soon wake up, stop fighting among themselves, and realize that Mitt Romney has the best chance of becoming the nation’s next Ronald Reagan. Everybody remembers Reagan for his single-mindedness in cutting federal spending and taking the government out of the central position in everyone’s life. What they forget is that it was Reagan’s temperament that made all this possible. Think back to Reagan’s famous rejoinder to Jimmy Carter in their first and only debate, “There you go again!” What was the significance of that? Carter had just finish a long, beady-eyed recitation about national health insurance, which, he said, promised “not inpatient care but outpatient care” with “an emphasis on hospital cost containment,” and how Candidate Reagan, of course, was opposed to all this because he had opposed Medicare in 1964. Reagan stood shaking his head and laughing the whole time and when it finally came his turn, he sighed , “There you go again.” The audience laughed and why not? Carter’s expressionless, robot-like recitation typified his whole presidency. He was obsessed with details. Reagan’s genial response was that when he opposed Medicare in 1964 it was because he favored another piece of congressional legislation that relied less on government. But in a single moment, Reagan had also revealed Carter as a narrow-minded pedant while he was an affable, good-natured leader capable of keeping things in perspective. Voters liked what they saw and that ended Carter’s Presidency. Mitt Romney has a very similar temperament. In fact he had a “There-you-go-again” moment in the last debate when Rick Santorum launched into his inevitable fulmination about how Romney will never be able to debate President Obama on Obamacare because of Romneycare. Romney gave his usual rejoinder but then added, “It’s nothing to get angry about.” That’s the kind of perspective a President needs. Santorum, you must admit, is a pretty disagreeable individual. He spends the opening portion of every debate congratulating himself on having been at the center of everything good that’s happened in Washington for the last twenty years. Then halfway through he will turn on whoever happens to be the frontrunner and launch an eye-gouging attack, talking out of the side of his mouth and casting sidelong glances all the while to see how far he can bait his chosen target. There is an air of bitterness and grievance about Santorum that is hard to take. President Obama has a similar air of grievance and issue obsession that will make him equally vulnerable in debate. If there’s one candidate who can throw this into relief over the course of a campaign the way Reagan did with Carter, it’s Romney. Let’s face it, he’s an attractive guy. A natural leader, he’s been very successful and has a lovely and courageous (and only) wife, plus a big photogenic family. All this is bound to start growing on people. The New York Times ran some pictures of him with his wife and young family back at Harvard Business School and there was a definite Kennedyesque feel about them. People are going to start responding to him on a personal basis. Now of course there’s the Mormon thing and you can count on the Democrats to flail away at that. An early Politico report said Obama planned to characterize Romney as “weird,” with Mormonism as the implicit centerpiece. I doubt this is going to work. Americans are willing to try new things. That’s how we got Obama in the first place. Romney will be intriguing precisely because he represents another frontier — the first non-Protestant the Republicans have ever nominated for President. The Mormons were indeed a violent and divisive sect in the 19th century but since giving up polygamy in 1890 they have become just another fundamentalist group looking for a place in American history. It’s the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, remember, that gave us that stirring arrangement of “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” (the one we sang in high school). Mormons now lead exemplary moral, often highly prosperous lives. They are very big in the Boy Scouts. In my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, Mormon missionaries had started several Boy Scout troops in African-American neighborhoods and even adopted one young man after his original family fell apart. Romney definitely has that straight-arrow feeling about him, but even that may work as people realize it is still possible to lead moral lives in America. His most formative experience, however, has been as a CEO, where he apparently learned his executive style. Except for a few square-offs with Rick Perry, Romney’s demeanor during the debates has been collegial and inclusive. That’s why he shows that deer-in-the-headlights look when the others first started attacking him. “Why are you going after me?” he seems to say. “Aren’t we supposed to be going after President Obama?” He’s learned to fight back, which is good, but there is still a definite modesty about him. Watch him when he’s giving a speech and the crowd starts chanting “Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!” He falls back into an ingenuous smile and seems to say, “Is this really happening? Do they like me this much? ” All the other Republican candidates are the exact opposite. Santorum has a very narrow mind. He’d make a terrible leader, locking into doctrinaire stands and picking fights. He’s a Senator, not a President. Ron Paul is the same only at a different order of magnitude. Paul enjoys being outside the tent pissing in, if you don’t mind the expression. I doubt he could find twelve people in the whole country with whom he could agree enough to form a cabinet. Like so many libertarians, he takes pride in how much he can offend people. As President, he’s sit in the Oval Office disagreeing with everyone in Washington, as he’s done for the past 30 years. Newt is the same thing over again — the perpetual insider posing as a victim of the Washington elites. He would launch his administration with all the grandeur of Napoleon invading Russia but overlook some critical detail that would leave him in full retreat by the following winter. Probably he would decide that history dictates we put a colony on the moon and then spend the rest of his administration arguing about it with Congress. Now I know what people are going to say: “But that’s exactly what we want. Romney would just go down and get along with everyone in Washington and nothing would change. We need someone who’s going to shake things up from top to bottom.” But that’s not how Reagan did it. He didn’t pick fights. He did a few photo-ops with Tip O’Neill, the only Democrat with any authority. Reagan won with an agenda and a first-class temperament. I have no doubt Romney can do the same. Critics will argue Romney doesn ‘ t have Reagan ‘ s ideological commitment, but experience in the private sector brings you to the same place. Anyone who can do simple math knows this country is headed off a cliff and anyone who ‘ s tried to operate a business knows government regulation is strangling free enterprise. Mitt has the same Reaganesque ambitions as the other candidates. What he doesn ‘ t share is their sense of bitterness and exclusion. Much of this comes, no doubt, from his fortunate background. He did go to Cranbrook, the premier prep school of the Detroit area and started at Stanford. But there’s a great deal of Midwestern modesty in him as well, reminiscent of Dwight Eisenhower. Historians have pointed out that all the generals under Eisenhower in the European theater harbored huge egos. There was the imperial Lord Mountbatten, the flamboyant General Patton and the GI’s favorite, Omar Bradley. Had Eisenhower been another swashbuckler, the whole staff might have disintegrated into a boiling cauldron of competition. But as a modest Midwestern farm boy, he was able to hold the whole thing together. He didn’t make a bad President, either. Romney has the same qualities. Whereas Newt would make a great General Douglas MacArthur, ready to challenge everyone else’s authority, Romney obviously prefers to organize without putting himself out front. He lets others have their say. His one great weakness is that he doesn’t yet seem to have the common touch. He still looks uncomfortable in crowds and can’t seem to relate to people who don’t share his background. Maybe the trip from Cranbrook to Cranford NJ isn’t that easy. But I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get better during the campaign. As Jimmy Carter would ultimately discover, this election will not be decided by who can memorize the longest list of talking points. It’s going to be won by the candidate who voters feel most comfortable having in their living rooms. Obama passed the test in 2008. He was young and fresh and seemed to have a level head while McCain appeared old and tired. It was a fairly easy choice. But the President won’t have those advantages this time around. After four years of mismanaging the economy, he won’t be able to talk hope and change. His only option will be to go negative, portraying Romney as a rich boy who doesn’t care about anyone who doesn’t have money. That may work for a while but at some point people are going to want to hear something positive.
