Why did Murray name one of the two towns after Mitt Romney's home town, Belmont (MA)?

Calling Romney a weak candidate is laughable and pathetic.  At worst, he is not the greatest campaigner ever.  But we had the greatest campaigner ever last time, and that "talent" has been significantly discredited.

Two things I love about this podcast.  First, it makes me think of being in high school around 1980 (a little before and after) when there was all this great British music around; and FM radio in NYC mattered.

The other things is how the long, rambling interesting conversation on radio still lives. I remember this mostly from listening to domestic UK am and lw radio while living in France.

Just great and reassuring.

This is how Obama can win the election.  Possibly the only way.

And if this is considered irrelevant even on Ricochet, then it's truly irrelevant.

Sorry guys, Romneycare will help MItt get elected I the general election because it will make it that much harder for the Dems to demonize him, which is what they will try. Moreover, the argument that Romneycare isnt fundamentally a conservative solution or compensation mechanism for the free rider problem is weak. You, most of you, were wrong about this. It's why Pawlenty and Bachmann and Perry are gone. It why Santorum will be gone. Obsessing over one state's decision to hold free riders accountable with some taxation is madness.

While I am relieved that Romney has come to life this week, the idea that he didn't have "fight" in him is absurd.  He has accomplished way too much, in too many different realms not to.  Was he tired in SC?  Did he use SC as kind of phase I of a rope-a-dope strategy?  Was it just his new debate coach? He is going to win the nomination.

I noticed yesterday that the Romney Team has adopted "Occupy" tactics:  high-level endorsers showed up at a Newt event.  When Obama refuses to debate Romney (Hugh Hewitt thinks he won't, or offer one debate), I hope this tactic is deployed again.

And on what basis?

An odd, out-of-proportion accentuation of the negative, and downplaying of the positive about Romney. 

You're free to disagree.  I like PR immensely, but still, this is what I sense.  I will say no more. 

I think Peter Robinson, Reagan speechwriter, is threatened by Mitt Romney because Mitt Romney has the depth and breadth of experience and decency to be at least as good a conservative President as Ronald Reagan--and Peter Robinson feels threatened by the prospect.

Look.  Healthcare everywhere, an especially in the blue industrial states, was highly regulated before Romneycare.  It was expensive and getting more so before Romneycare.  Romneycare was a relatively minor change; it was an income tax increase with a tax credit offered. 

As I first mentioned as soon as I thought Romney would run again, and as Mitt says in that clip, Romneycare will be a significant, an possibly decisive ADVANTAGE for Romney in the general election.  It will make it materially harder for the Dems and the MSM to paint Romney as an uncaring, evil Republican extremist.

Relax Peter.  Even if Romney gets to take down Iran, it won't be nearly as big as taking down the Soviets and the Berlin Wall.  Your political Camelot is safe.

Was that Breuer's VP audition?  She's was already in my Top Five...

It's not a dumb commercial.  It plants a seed of doubt and concern.

It's about not pretending that Nancy Pelosi is trustworthy

The question isn't whether she is believed by Republicans but whether she is credible, to any extent, in the eyes of anyone who might vote for Newt as GOP nominee.

Romney says we should listen to Nancy Pelosi.  I can't imagine any primary voters seeing this ad and being affected by it, given how deeply Pelosi is despised; if anything, it will help Newt.

I'm sorry, but you are failing to see the bigger picture.  The issue isn't loyalty to the GOP v. a despicable Democrat.  The issue is the ability of a potential GOP candidate to be sunk by the enemy by some now-secret info: a bribe, some deal, an affair, whatever.

I'll just go ahead and link to it again:

I watched, I read, I disagree.  The ad implies that if Newt is allowed to become the nominee, Pelosi will be able to either blackmail Newt, or sink his campaign.  Now, you may challenge the truthfulness of this claim by Pelosi, or the effect such disclosures would have, but this is clearly a negative that doesn't apply to Romney.

So what am I missing?

So many months, so many debates and every time that Romneycare comes up, everybody cringes. I think Romney's making a calculated bet that in the general election.

Given that Romney has VOWED to repeal Obamacare, it will be a net asset to him in the general election.  Why?  Because it will makes it harder for the Democrats to demonize him as an uncaring Republican and businessman.  Because "he cares about the healthcare issue."

Romney doesn't play checkers.  He plays 3D chess.

I really don't understand it.  Romney supporters seem to be ignoring it - I've posted on it in three different threads, and all I've gotten is silence.  I can understand why you would want to ignore it.

Guess, as a Romney supporter, I don't hear this dog whistle?  What am I missing?