Posts Tagged ‘endorsements’

“Senator John McCain who had previously been endorsed by the New Hampshire Manchester Union Leader was today endorsed by the Boston Globe and Des Moines Register,” writes FullosseousFlap in a FullosseousFlap Dental Blog post titled John McCain Watch: McCain Endorsed by Boston Globe and Des Moines Register

In a direct slap (or more like a knife in the back) at Mitt Romney – Romney was the Governor and is long time resident of Massachusetts, the Boston Globe played it safe with McCain and by its endorsement hopes to deny a New Hampshire victory to Romney.

The Des Moines Register disagrees with John McCain on a number of issues (including abortion rights) but denied the endorsement to Romney who has spent over $7 million in Iowa and who desperately needs a win in Iowa and New Hampshire to gather momentum to win later primary/caucus states.

Will these endorsements help John McCain?


But, McCain is short on campaign cash and organization. It is doubtful his campaign could parlay these endorsements into wins besides New Hamsphire and perhaps Michigan.

If anyone is a major beneficiary of these endorsements it is Rudy Giuliani. A muddled primary season with various winners in early states plays to his big state Super Duper Tuesday February 5th strategy … etc.

We concur. See:

Romney’s early-state von Schlieffen plan stalls and sputters—what does this mean for Mayor Giuliani?

yours &c.
dr. g.d.


“It isn’t surprising, really, that the NRO has decided to annoint Romney as the next Bush (and what a compliment!),” writes John Cole for Balloon Juice in a post titled Romney, The Establishment Candidate

yours &c.
dr. d.g.

“[Romney] still has some convincing to do with other conservatives,” write the buffoons at National Review in an “editorial” titled Romney for President

Well, duh.

We suppose Romney could convince the rest of us the way he “convinced” the goofball-sycophants at National Review. Only we would be far, far more expensive.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

You can read it about here: Romney Scores Major Endorsement

Typically Team Romney times the release of its endorsements to coordinate with other events, e.g. the value voters summit. See:

Hart: Romney campaign unmatched in its ability to execute

The timing of this release seems odd to us. What what could it possibly be coordinated?—it also seems out-of-synch with other themes the Romneys are currently developing etc. OTOH: It is at least consistent with Romney’s general project of accumulating endorsements etc. We just hope that Mr. Weyrich received consideration—e.g. funding for his research and education outreaches—commensurate with whatever his reputation for sound judgment may have been before he squandered it.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

“New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg will throw his support to Mitt Romney today, backers of the former Massachusetts governor confirm,” writes Jonathan Martin for in a post titled Gregg to endorse Romney

… Gregg — whose father was governor and whose last name retains considerable cache in the state — is the prize get in New Hampshire for any GOP presidential hopeful. But enthusiasm for his endorsement will be tempered by reminders that he also got behind then-Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 race, only to see Bush lose by 19 points to McCain … etc.

The emphasis is ours.

Perhaps Sen. Judd can work that same “lose by 19 points” magic for the befuddled Mr. Romney.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.

The video of Cramer damning Romney with faint praise even as he backpedals furiously from his earlier “endorsement” of the man is available at in a post titled More Cramer on Romney, courtesy of the estimable

MetroRepublican comments:

So, Cramer makes a special announcement to clarify he is NOT endorsing this man, and that he was an intimidating figure he didn’t want to be around.

Nobody doubts Mitt was a successful venture capitalist. Nobody doubts John Edwards was a successful plaintiff’s lawyer. They are essentially the same man: phony power lusters.

UA Razerback comments:

What is the deal with Romney and his “so-called” endorsements?? Does this make three now that say they are not supporting him?

The last Romney-endorsement-retraction that we detected was Dr. Don Wilton:

Dr. Don Wilton comes to his senses: retracts endorsement of Romney—this is the same Wilton that Justin Hart boasted of in his mymanmitt post titled The Ability to Execute

Aside: Cramer’s endorsement reversal is also available at the so-called Evangelicals for Mitt blog under the title Rigor, Acumen, Abilitydo these people hear only what they want to hear?

Question: Did the Romneys jump the shark at the value voters summit?—We mean, what with all of these defections?—We would argue no. Or: we would argue that even if they did jump the shark, it really doesn’t matter. Follow our speculations:

1. Romney’s vast resources confer upon the candidate neither strength nor standing. Romney’s negatives are historically-unprecedentedly high. Hence: other campaigns can afford to laugh off or ignore Romney’s negative attacks. And they do.

Romney has the most negative image at this point of any of the major candidates for president, claims Newport of USA Today’s GallupGuru; the Romney campaign’s death-by-internal-memo part (ii)

2. But: Romney’s resources do render him resilient. Almost daily Team Romney suffers blows—self-inflicted and otherwise—that would be fatal to a campaign organized on a more rational, and less personal, basis; i.e. a campaign more closely coupled with—more intimately dependent upon—its donors, supporters, interest groups, clients etc. The primitive and steeply vertical character of Romney’s oft-touted organization renders it almost immune to moral challenge or collapse: the consultants, the professionals, the armies of sub-contracters and other hirelings who attend upon Romney—they all know that they will get paid whatever comes.

3. Romney’s campaign therefore assumes the character of a terror cell or a militia—an organization optimized for long-term, low-intensity conflict—it can never concentrate enough force at the right moment to seriously threaten any other campaign, but it still reserves a limited power to harass, delay, provoke, and distract. The limit upon its power to harass etc. is precisely its powerlessness, i.e. its over-reliance on relatively expensive instruments of direct influence. See:

positioned to fail: Team Romney’s over-reliance on instruments of direct influence and its consequences

4. Hence: the Romney’s plot from their posh, waterfront headquarters the political equivalent of asymmetrical strikes, single, highly targeted, highly planned blows that they pray will radically alter the balance of forces that confront them in their favor, whether through targeted strikes like the value voters summit, or through the so-called Early States Strategy, the notion that if they can win one or more of the early state primaries then many of the undecideds in later state primaries will decide for Romney.

The problem is this: asymmetrical strikes produce unintended consequences—the more successful the strike, the more difficult it is to contain or control. See:

out-of-touch Evangelical “leaders” stunned by Huckabee upset at the value voters summit—prepared to sigh, shrug, and coronate Romney as their Lord, G_d, and King—oh, the irony!

So, we would conclude that despite the insults and humiliations that the Romneys have endured and continue to endure, and despite even a thousand more defections, the Romneys will press their claims right up to the GOP convention. It is the same species of hope-against-the-despair that illuminates the fevered dreams of the fugitive Bin Laden—not Sen. Barack Obama, Mr. Romney—but Osama Bin Laden—please try to keep them straight.

yours &c.
dr. g.d.