I’ve been hearing plenty of frustration about how it always seems to be the “establishment” Republican that ends up getting the GOP nomination. As of this moment, Mitt Romney, the most “establishment” of the establishment candidates, leads Iowa and appears to have the inside track to the nomination.

Given that, you’d think Romney would be the one getting hammered, wouldn’t you? But that’s not the case:

Half the ads in Iowa had a Gingrich focus. And the vast majority were negative, per a new analysis from the private Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). It calculated that 45 percent of the political ads aired in Iowa were anti-Gingrich.

Only one in five negative ads was directed at Mitt Romney. One in 10 ads promoted Romney, according to Goldstein.

What gives? Gingrich has been sliding down for a couple of weeks and doesn’t appear to be recovering, so why still knock Newt instead of focusing on Romney?

It’s not like Romney’s opponents don’t have anything to hit him with. For just one example, I’d have put this on the air in Iowa: “My collaborator and friend, Ted Kennedy”:


*****

Even though Romney’s the most likely to be the GOP nominee, the other candidates are to a great degree leaving him alone. Why? The only reason I can think of is that the others have conceded Romney the nomination and are positioning for a VP nod or a cabinet appointment in a Romney administration. That’s how “establishment” candidates can end up on top. The fulfillment of Beltway hopes and dreams is a team effort, and those few candidates who might happen to be outside that circle and refuse to play the game under establishment rules don’t stand a chance. I think that’s part of the reason why Sarah Palin didn’t bother to run this time.

Comments

28 Responses to “So What’s With the Shortage of Anti-Romney Ads in Iowa?”

  1. SignPainterGuy on January 2nd, 2012 4:08 pm

    Interesting ! As for the left`s hammering of Newt and previously Palin and Cain, keep in mind that the left will always tell you who they fear. They appear to fear Gingrich. The establishment Rs do as well !

    Listen to any lib who`s asked who they think should be our candidate; it will nearly always be Mittney. That says to me they think they can beat him … or work with him if they can`t beat him !

    It has been whispered for much of last year that Bachmann and Pawlenty were vying for Mitt`s VP slot. Perhaps ….. as much as I like what Gingrich says, I`d rather see him as a VP, not Pres., too much power from one I can`t really trust !

    My eyes and hopes are still on Santorum.

  2. clu seatoe on January 2nd, 2012 5:45 pm

    January, 2013:

    GOTCHA!

    Romney:
    Thank you for your confidence in me and for electing me as your President. I will now be switching party affiliation to the Democrats.

    GOTCHA!

    Zero:
    Now that I’m leaving office I can confess to you, I’m really not an American and I was not born in Hawaii, I’m Kenyon, and I’ll be forever grateful to the MSM.

    GOTCHA!

  3. Pasadena Phil on January 2nd, 2012 9:59 pm

    "The only reason I can think of is that the others have conceded Romney the nomination and are positioning for a VP nod or a cabinet appointment in a Romney administration. "

    That's exactly what I've been suspecting about Bachmann ever since was denied a leadership position after last November's Tea Party victories didn't without protest. She also hired Ed Rollins as her campaign manager who has attacked everyone but Romney from day one. I believe she cut a deal with the GOP leadership last year to work on solidifying the conservative vote in exchange for being Romney's VP. Rollins proves that for me.

    The other reason is that Romney is the only one with the money to spend. It takes a lot of money to negate the face-to-face campaigning that has made Santorum and Paul so strong in Iowa. Tells me that Romney is winning the laziest, dumbest and least informed voters.

    On the other hand, I believe that the "conservatives" are completely missing the boat as to what 2012 is about: anti-establishment. Hot Air posted this Taylor Marsh rant today;

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/01/taylor-mars

    Forget about the fact that she is as liberal as it gets. Focus on the message. We "conservatives" are completely missing the point if we again waste our vote by holding our noses to vote the the LOTE Romney. The election is again going to be won by the independents next year. But next year is different. Voters are abandoning the two Democratic parties in droves. "Both" parties are essentially warring on their base voters to secure their nominee and plan to "run to the center" in the main election. What exactly does that say about the establishment? Disconnected. They feel the heat but don't understand it.

    Disaffected Democrats (moderates AND uber liberals) are not running to the GOP. Disaffected Republicans (conservatives) are not running to the Democratic party either. We are all massing as independents looking for an anti-establishment alternative. Yet "both" parties are taking for granted that nothing has changed and all the nose holders will fall in line. It is now looking that this is NOT going to happen. "Both" parties are well on their way to nominating the weakest and least acceptable candidates ever. We could see desperate brokered conventions next year.

    The stage is set for a very chaotic and expensive race next year where a Trump, Paul AND maybe even Palin could run independent (if she can get the McCainotomy operation) and can stay very competitive right to the end because it is much more expensive to sell cancer than to sell the cure for cancer. "Both" parties are committed to selling the cancer of exactly what voters have made clear they don't want. Very, very bad idea.

    Democrats almost always vote for Democrats but liberals always vote for liberals.

    Republicans almost always vote for Republicans but conservatives always vote for liberals.

    One of those two true statements explains the problem and the solution. If we can get that 40% of voters who define themselves as conservative and the 20% who who define themselves as "moderate leaning conservative" to vote for a conservative for a change, we win. That's how the liberals do it. They vote for liberals.And next year, they are looking for a non-Democrat alternative. That is what conservatives should be doing too.

    Let's give that a try next year. There is NO reason to vote for a liberal. Stop doing it!

  4. Marshall_Will on January 2nd, 2012 9:59 pm

    And our 2011 Winner for "Not With YOUR D**k" comes from none other than walking INSULT to Conservative Women Kathy Griffin!
    http://www.katu.com/news/va?vaid=1c054116a6e37ef2

    'I' was actually having too much ( evidently CLEAN ) fun to have noticed this on New Years? Any semblance of dignity has gone RIGHT out the window here hasn't it? Real 'class' huh? What a skank…

  5. lynnbo on January 2nd, 2012 9:59 pm

    Obama wins if Romney is the GOP guy. Four more years of incompetence.
    Independent voter

  6. swede on January 2nd, 2012 10:07 pm

    Looks like Santorum gets my primary vote in Feb. I doubt Bachmann will still be in the game after Iowa. Who knows. At this point in '08 it was Rudy and Hillary. Things change.

  7. backwoodsconsr on January 2nd, 2012 10:18 pm

    I was just thinking that I was enjoying the campaign season so much more four years ago when I had such high hopes for President Thompson.

  8. SignPainterGuy on January 2nd, 2012 10:29 pm

    Again, You Too ?!

  9. SignPainterGuy on January 2nd, 2012 10:30 pm

    Tarheels gotta wait till May ! A lot has been whittled down by then !

  10. SignPainterGuy on January 2nd, 2012 10:34 pm

    Wasn`t looking "for it", but spotted that at the Blaze. Had her pegged as skanky long ago !

  11. backwoodsconsr on January 2nd, 2012 10:39 pm

    I attended three of his campaign appearances in SC, including one in Greenville the night before the primary. Got a few good pictures of him at the one in Abbeville. Fred was the only candidate I ever spent money buying campaign signs to put up for. I tried, but it just wasn't to be.

  12. SignPainterGuy on January 2nd, 2012 10:40 pm

    I didn`t realize you represented your Cali district of "Procrastinators Anon." ! "Next year" ? Or hasn`t Cali celebrated New Year yet ? ;-)

  13. backwoodsconsr on January 2nd, 2012 10:41 pm

    At this point four years ago I don't think I had ever heard of Sarah Palin. Of course, as a regular reader of Hot Air, I heard of her long before the rest of the country did.

  14. Pasadena Phil on January 2nd, 2012 11:27 pm

    Hey, I've been busy with Rose Bowl duties all week. Did I miss something?

  15. backwoodsconsr on January 3rd, 2012 12:00 am

    I don't know. A lot of fireworks went off the other night for some reason. There may have been something of significance happening.

  16. Pasadena Phil on January 3rd, 2012 12:03 am

    Apocalypse? No, that's December 21. Another earthquake in Japan? That must be it.

  17. backwoodsconsr on January 3rd, 2012 12:05 am

    Cubs win the World Series? Nah, that ain't happening.

  18. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 12:16 am

    I heard there were a bunch of OWSers stomping around in horse manure at the tail of the parade; any truth to that ?

    Oh, btw, some people hung up new calenders ! I will too as soon as I buy one !

  19. backwoodsconsr on January 3rd, 2012 12:19 am

    Well, until you buy one I guess you'll just have to go on living in the past.

  20. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 12:20 am

    Fireworks ? Yeah, here too ! And the mill blew whistles for like two minutes straight ! What WAS up wit dat ?

  21. Pasadena Phil on January 3rd, 2012 12:24 am

    CBS reported 5,000 OWSers but the only photo anyone has produced so far shows only a small handful. Unofficially, I am hearing it was closer to 100, maybe less, and they were within a whisker of having their butts kicked as they were followed by three trucks of LA Sheriffs in riot gear. This was NOT an Occupier-friendly venue.

    For CBS to report that this was a successful protest is a joke. They were waiting for something big. like a riot. I wouldn't have minded a few cracked skulls myself but that wouldn't have been good for the parade.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57350999/rose

    We were NOT occupied. We have nuts here every year. The sheriff trucks were a crowd-pleaser though.

  22. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 12:43 am

    Aaah haaa ! "This was NOT an Occupier-friendly venue." For a bowl game and parade carrying my namesake, I`m so proud !

    CBS looks through different ends of the binoculars depending on whether they support or oppose the cause. Remember, they reported the turnout for the 8-28 Rally was around 30,000 ! The DC Metro Police estimated the highest I heard at nearly 4 Million !

    Oh, I know, the CBS camera had the "Kaleidoscopic lens" on it ! Yeah, makes 100 look like 5,000 ! Kewel !

  23. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 12:48 am

    Well, since I don`t get the hardware stores "Weyerhauser Forests" or the oil company`s "Motley Crew around the trucks" calenders anymore, I have to buy them. I just took one down of really cute squirrels. I want a good one of lighthouses next ! Or maybe one of really neat astronomical photos like you just sent around to the crew !

  24. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 1:14 am

    It seemed like I had just settled on supporting Fred when he dropped out. I really didn`t care for any of the others at that point, my second choice was gone even earlier ! I pulled the lever for Palin wishing we had a real choice for Pres. !

  25. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 1:27 am

    My local paper has a story from AP up now on the parade; says the organizer claims 5.000, but police put the number at more like 400. You did say at MM`s that they were way back and apparently "Not in full view for you". (My take on your description)

    Libs can`t get anything right except how to screw up a good thing !

  26. Pasadena Phil on January 3rd, 2012 1:38 am

    No, I was at the Rose Bowl at the time but I have been hearing from people who were actually there that many of the people (like the guy carrying the cross) are the same nuts who do this every year at the end of every parade. Doug just posted a video that shows the actual protest. Try counting even 50 people. Most of those in the picture are not even involved. They are trying to leave the area and walking onto the street is often faster than working your way through the back of the stands.

    There is no way they had 5000 people. It is plainly obvious to anyone who has been to a Rose Parade why that can't be. Few of the marching bands have 100 members and look at how much space they take. The OWSers were even smaller than the smallest band! Outside of the pictures and video, nothing happened.

    The thing to remember is that the Rose Parade is by far the most watched parade on earth. Regardless of political orientation, there is simply way those who run the parade will allow it to be politicized. Period. We mean it. We can't allow EVERYTHING and EVERYPLACE to be politicized at all times. Enough is enough.

  27. backwoodsconsr on January 3rd, 2012 1:38 am
  28. SignPainterGuy on January 3rd, 2012 1:53 am

    Ooo, nice ! Tempting ! Thanks for this link !

    I think I will make a run to Barnes and Noble tomorrow; I`ll be in the area anyway looking for birfday presents, they have a good selection as do some other stores I`ll be in !

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.