Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

‘The Next John Kerry’

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Newt Gingrich, tells National Review Online that Mitt Romney’s comments to CNN earlier today, that he is “not concerned about the very poor,” are a “startling reminder that Romney may not be the next John McCain, but the next John Kerry.”

“That comment, like so many others by Romney, is not just odd but out of touch,” says Conway, a veteran GOP pollster. “He does not share a connective tissue with the average American.”

 ”Romney seems to be feeling his oats and overplaying his hand,” Conway says, predicting that such “hubris” would haunt the GOP, should he win the nomination. “He neither shares nor understands voters’ struggles; he’s cocooned.”

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   59

EXPAND  

 jgs
   02/01/12 12:46

So that makes Newt the next Howard Dean? Yyyyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 12:50

Well, about time you guys noticed. I've been saying to anyone who will listen that Mitt Romney=John Kerry for months now.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:01

Sorry, had you confused with vepxistqaosadi (hardcore Romney) and vepxistqaosazi (hardcore Santorum) and vepxistqaosafi (hardcore Paul.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:30

Hah! Now, that's funny.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 12:52

That comment EXACTLY reinforces the image Republicans have been trying to ditch to reach more Americans.

Trouble is, I'm afraid Romney was being transparently honest. That is a big problem not only for the election but for our future.

Stuck between a candidate who wants to drive the USA into a redistribution of wealth that makes us all poorer, or a candidate who doesn't appear to have reasonable compassion for the poor. Either extreme is falling in the ditch in my opinion.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:14

Stuck between a candidate who wants to drive the USA into a redistribution of wealth that makes us all poorer, or a candidate who doesn't appear to have reasonable compassion for the poor. Either extreme is falling in the ditch in my opinion.

Assuming Romney really lacks "reasonable compassion for the poor," ask yourself who can do the most damage -- to all of us, rich and poor alike.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:27

I didn't say it would make me vote for Obama, Hardcastle. It just makes me despair for the future if Romney is the best we can do as 98% of the posts on NRO propose.

There is NOTHING that could make me cast a vote for Obama.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:22

"I'm afraid Romney was being transparently honest. "

Really, DonnaDiorio?

Really?

Did you even bother to read what Romney actually said?

If you had, the only reason you'd say what I quoted is that you're being hideously disingenuous and trying to twist his words, out of context, to imply that he is Marie Antoinette.

I prefer to not ascribe such bad intentions to your post. So that would mean you didn't even read what he actually said.

Not even bothering to inform yourself as to what Romney actually said, you're going to say that he was being transparently honest and has no reasonable compassion for the poor?

That is past outrageous.

You can say many things about Romney, but you can't say that he has no compassion for the poor.

Did you see how much of his (considerable) income he contributes to charity, Donna?

Your comment is really past outrageous. It has no bearing to what Romney actually said, and the allegation you make is disgusting.

You can call Romney many things. But uncharitable is not one of them.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Fleurs9
   02/01/12 15:00

Read it. Got it. He contributes the bulk of his money,as is his right to his church, not to the poor and got a heavy tax deduction for it. Further if MR wants us to accept taking Obama's remarks out of context, we are perfectly right to take his just as he said them - "blah" "blah"..not concerned about the poor "blah blah. Get the man a telepromter

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 15:58

So your position is that:
a. the church doesn't give any money to the poor
and
b. Romney only gives the money for a tax break.

Yeah.

OK.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
ChrisB2
   02/01/12 12:51

What? Is this what NRO is to become? A place to copy and paste verbatim hollow attacks ("press releases"?) made by campaign advisers without analysis? If I wanted every to know the spinning thoughts of Gingrich aides, I would subscribe to their email blasts.

If you read Romney's comments in context, he was saying he's not as concerned about the portion of the population living comfortably off welfare as he is with the portion that's not.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:12

Funny thing, you never complained when it was Romney's campaign managers being quoted.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:20

Context, schmontext.
He began his statement with, "I'm not concerned about the very poor."
That's political suicide. Any Democrat can beat a Republican who says things like that.
How stupid.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 12:54

Kellyanne Conway. My Lord. That dunce is still around? Like he boss, she is the embodiment of what has gone terribly wrong with our country.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 15:15

Free speech is a great freedom ... it's just tough to watch sometimes.

I'm sure you are a very successful Rhodes scholar yourself scooter.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 13:00

I have been saying he is the GOP answer to John Kerry as well- an aloof, filthy rich candidate who looks great on paper but who always seems less than the sum of his parts.

I want to hear from all of those flacks who insisted that we needed to choose Mitt, if only to ensure that people pulled the lever for the other Republicans in Congress and Senate. Because if they think Romney's "Thurston Howell III" impression will draw moderates and independents to the GOP side of the aisle, they need to give back their pundit cards. This is exactly the caricature that Republicans have been trying to ditch for 20 years, and we stand ready to nominate Daddy Warbucks. Really?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 MSP
   02/01/12 13:22

Envy doesn't become you.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/01/12 15:13

Sure, I'll take the rich guy if my other choices are the fat captain who wrecked his ship years ago and spends time napping instead of putting an organized team together (Newt) or Gilligan who's been undermining all of our best efforts to rescue this country (obviously Obama).

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Collins
   02/01/12 13:02

Romney is right. The poor in America are the richest poor in the history of the world. We have lots of programs in place to help them. Nobody is talking about ditching those programs. The truly poor continue to be looked after.

But who are really slipping are the folks where most of America lives which are the middle-class, It is neither insensitive nor cocooned to focus where the majority of the people are - to care for the majority.

We'll never be able to help the poor unless we shore up the middle class.

But, again, Gingrich is playing to the crowd rather than give sensible thought to the issues and his rhetoric.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
a_serious_man
   02/01/12 13:05

Right. Because obviously Romney meant that he holds the very poor in contempt and blames them for all of America's ills. He couldn't have possibly meant that from a policy standpoint he is not concerned about caring for the very poor . . . because they are already well cared for by existing policies. Nope. Not that. Mustn't give the man the benefit of the doubt.

This puts the Gingrich campaign in lock step with the AP and other Obama enablers. Way to go, Newt. Way to go!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact