Is Pelosi afraid of Romney?

Is Nancy Pelosi trying to use reverse psychology on Republican voters?

Suspend disbelief for a moment, and pretend that Pelosi knows how to use reverse psychology.

If that is difficult for you to do, then pretend that Pelosi read about reverse psychology in Psychology Today while waiting for a botox treatment.

Now keep that thought in mind as you read the following excerpt from Politico:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday launched political grenades at Mitt  Romney, arguing that Republicans haven’t coalesced behind the GOP  frontrunner because they don’t believe he can beat President Barack Obama in November.

The House’s top Democrat repeatedly jabbed at the former Massachusetts  governor during an hour-long interview hosted by POLITICO and taunted the GOP  for a slate of presidential contenders that she said was “not exactly what you  would call the first string of the Republican Party.”

“If the far right thought that Romney could win, they might be more enthusiastic  about him,” Pelosi told POLITICO’s Mike Allen during Tuesday’s Playbook  Breakfast. “But they question what he stands for and they don’t think he’s going  to win. So what’s the sell? I’m not sure he knows what he stands for, and that  makes it harder too.”

Now, if you were a Democrat, and if you wanted Romney to be the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, then would you be throwing political grenades at him during the primary process?

It seems to me that you would throw grenades at Romney’s Republican rivals, instead, in order to make Romney look better in the eyes of Republican voters.

The Democratic Party wants the weakest GOP hopeful to gain the GOP nomination. Thus, it would be helpful to the Democratic Party if the strongest GOP candidate were to be attacked during the GOP nomination process.

It appears to me that Pelosi is trying to spook GOP voters into believing that Romney is unelectable, with the hope that the voters will not vote for him in the primaries, because none of the other GOP hopefuls have a real chance of defeating Obama in November, as indicated by polling data provided by Real Clear Politics.

The RCP polls currently give Obama a +0.7 spread in a match between him and Romney. In a match between Obama and Gingrich, Obama has a +11.0 spread. In a match between Obama and Santorum, Obama has a +8.5 spread. In a match between Obama and Paul, Obama has a +4.6 spread.

So, Romney is a much stronger contender than Pelosi claims him to be.  According to the RCP polls, in a match between Obama and ABO, ABO has a +1.0 spread. If Romney becomes ABO, then Obama will have a real challenge. Pelosi has to know what the polls are saying.

Indeed, Pelosi gives away her game in her comment about the far right. In order to defeat Obama in November, the GOP nominee has to be appealing to moderate and independent voters, and any nominee who appeals to them will not be as appealing to the far right. When Pelosi says that Romney doesn’t appeal to the far right, she is admitting that Romney is more appealing to moderates and independents than the far-right favorite.

Romney’s broad appeal among voters has to worry Pelosi, and she would be crazy to believe that far-right voters wouldn’t cast votes for the GOP nominee if that person were Romney. The far-right’s dislike of Obama is much stronger than the far-right’s dislike of Romney.

Considering everything that has happened to the USA since January 2009, American voters are willing to give someone else a turn in the Oval Office, even if that person is Romney.  So, when Pelosi claims that Romney is unelectable, then either she is out of touch with political reality, or she is deliberately making a false claim.

As it is with many politicians, you can tell when Pelosi is lying. Her lips are moving. Perhaps that is why Pelosi favors botox.

New York Times blogger spreads false story about Romney
Politico's Fake Tea Party-Slamming South Carolina Poll
  • Romney’s supposed “broad appeal” is the problem. My focus on picking the candidate is not “electability” (which determinability I reject anyway) but the candidate’s positions on the issues. Is the candidate willing to fight the good fight? Romney is like the old Tareyton smoker; except he would rather switch than fight. The Democrats offer absolutely nothing that I want to reach a consensus on. It is always our side that talks consensus, while the Democrats tell us to shove off. How ironic that so-called conservatives love to ridicule the left as appeasers, when they are the biggest political appeasers of all. Romney is the icon of right-wing appeasement.

  • TWB

    I totally agree with you David. Given what’s happened over the last three years, Americans are ready to give someone, anyone else a chance. I cracked up today when Glenn Beck was talking about the fact that he’d vote for his shoe over Obama. There’s definitely some truth to that.

    Romney in the White House might be a stinker on some levels, but no where near the stinker that’s in there now.Honestly though, I don’t think Pelosi is smart enough to realize that she’s tipped her hand. She lives in the D.C. bubble where she believes that she’s so far above the rest of us rubes that she won’t realize it’s over until it’s over. And even then she’ll be in denial.

  • Brucehenry

    Two botox jokes in one column.. Come on.

    • UOG

      More like two Nancy jokes, Bruce.

      Me, I like Nancy jokes, because I think Nancy is a joke. I’d love to see her “promoted” to the position of Official Greet-er of all government-owned G5 aircraft. Park her butt in a little metal kiosk out on the tarmac where she can wave at all arriving and departing G5s. Maybe have her record the tail numbers in a little log book.

    • retired.military

      But they’re Twue  they’re twue.

      Come on Bruce. If blinky changed facial expressions the concrete would crack.

    • Sky__Captain

      That’s because Nancy IS a botox joke.

  • GarandFan

    Nancy-poo lives in her own little world.  She’s taken from one friendly event to another by her caretakers.  When she’s occasionally shot a straight question, the fun begins, and her handlers rush to the podium saying that ‘she’s late for another engagement’.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Its so hard to tell with Nancy. On one hand, she could have made this statement during one of her more lucid moments, as an attempt to employ reverse psychology. On the other, she might not even know who Romney is.

  • Yeah – Romney strikes fear in the hearts of Democrats. I hope he is the GOP nominee.

    As if Americans had a choice as to who the Republican nominee is going to be.

    The GOP elite have already decided on Romney — and a woman or person of color as VP cause, well… we got to get us white honkeys some of the “e-neth-thizity” thing.

    It worked so well when we picked Michael Steele.

  • ackwired

    She’s being less that straightforward.  That’s what the opposing party does during primary season, try to drag down the opposition’s frontrunner.  It’s been going on at least since Ed Muskie in 1972.

  • Olsoljer

    Romney is the weakest candidate. What the LSM is afraid of, is he WON’T be obama’s opponent.  I would hazard a guess that at this very moment the LSM is licking their chops at the idea of Romney, that they already have formulated plans to systematically destroy his credibility.  It won’t be hard to do.  I’m with Otis here, “electability?”  Electable is getting enough votes to win, not a contrived term to sway public opinion. Obama, the  LSM, and the DNC WANT Romney.  It would be like shooting fish in a rain barrel.    I bet the thought of obama having to face Gingrich would send a warm tingle down their leg, and if they checked it quite probably would be urine.

    “Oh, please don’t throw me in the Briar Patch!”

  • jb

    Guys, you’ve just got a really bad bench this year. Romney IS awful, AND he is the most electable. And Pelosi is just relating the facts how she sees them. And she’s far from alone in this. I think many conservatives and GOP agree with her assessment.

    This isn’t reverse psychology, because none of the candidates have any other chance.

    The smartest of the rest is Gingrich – and he is tremendously unlikable.

    The most likable was probably Rick Perry – and he’s just dropped out. Honestly, he was too stupid to begin with. He makes GWB look like a shining light of scholarly excellence.

    The next likable is Michelle Bachmann. She’s actually smart enough – it just so happens that she’s also completely insane.

    Ron Paul is smart, likable, and not completely insane – but his lack of desire to invade other countries makes him unpalatable to the Right, and his desire to defund government makes him unpalatable to moderates and the Left.

    Santorum is impossible due to his religious conservatism – and the Google bomb attached to his name.

    And Huntsman is even blander than Romney.