Article

WHY ROMNEY LOST A WINNABLE RACE: AN ELECTION ’12 POST-MORTUM REVEALS THE LITTLE-DISCUSSED FACTORS

By DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, FRIDAY, NOV. 9, 2012) — Why did Mitt Romney lose the elections. The Monday Morning Quarterbacks, operating as they always do with the benefit of Williamsesque hindsight, have plenty of good reasons: Paul Ryan, 47%, loss of the Hispanic vote over his immigration policy, failure to connect with people in the high-voltage manner of Barack Obama, and so on.

We can debate this if not forever then at least for a short while to come, and the wise guys will remark that Mr. Mitt lost when he was talked out of listening to THE PLANET‘s input at key stretches in the campaign, especially in his selection of Paul “Little Buddy” Ryan at his VP choice. Would Romney have made a good President? Yes. He would have brought a fresh approach to dysfunctional Washington, D.C., that would have been worth trying, but it was not to be.

The simplistic answer to why he lost: He failed to take a single swing state. That’s a shocker. In the following article, Wall Street Journal writers Sara Murray and Patrick O’Connor explain a little discussed factor that ultimately sank Team Romney. That would be the campaign’s decision to go after the Big Money in major cities at the expense of not campaigning in the swing states.

In fairness, Romney faced a damned-if-you-do-or-don’t scenario. He needed money and lots of it going in, that much he knew. Obama had a well-oiled money machine, and as an incumbent President, he had that machine running on all cylinders. The only way Romney could get that kind of dough would be to hoof it into the gold-laden territories (Los Angeles, NYC, Texas). There was plenty of money for him there but not much game-changing politics. For that, he needed to be in Dayton, Ohio; Sanibel, Fla.; and Golden, Colo. Go there, however, and he wouldn’t have raised enough money to remain strongly competitive.

Romney has run for office four times and lost three. He won in his bid for governor of this heavily Democratic state by striking a moderate tone. While holding on to a conservative fiscal and social policy, he backed a woman’s right to choose and also reached out to the gay community. Then, Mitt made a mistake. He gave too much ear to ideologues such as Karl Rove types and others from the whacked-out Right. These fundamentalist zealots scared too many good, decent, moderate people away. If Romney had run the way he did in his bid for the Commonwealth’s governorship, he’d have won this race.

Mitt’s a good man. He would have made a good, maybe even great president. He could have flopped or become hostage to the right-wing, white-walled whackos on the hard right. We shall not know.

Here is Murray and O’Connor’s excellent piece. As always, we welcome your thoughts and analyses.

THE RACE WAS WINNABLE, BUT TEAM ROMNEY LET IT SLIP AWAY

By Sara Murray and Patrick O’Connor

First published by the Wall Street Journal

Special to PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary

BOSTON — Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. And yet the lack of money earlier this year stalled his campaign, and he never really recovered.

MITT AND ANN ROMNEY, moments after making their concession speech.

The GOP nominee emerged late last spring from a long and bruising Republican primary season more damaged than commonly realized. His image with voters had eroded as he endured heavy attacks from Republicans over his business record. He also felt compelled to take a hard line on immigration—one that was the subject of debate among his advisers—that hurt his standing with Hispanic voters.

More than that, Mr. Romney had spent so much money winning the nomination that he was low on cash; aides, seeing the problem taking shape, had once considered accepting federal financing for the campaign rather than rely on private donations.

[More from WSJ.com: Not Everyone Is Happy to See Political Ads End]

The campaign’s fate led on Wednesday to second-guessing and recriminations among Republicans chagrined that a seemingly winnable race slipped away. Some Republicans wondered whether the Romney campaign had misjudged the power of President Barack Obama’s coalition, while others were questioning Mr. Romney’s and the party’s approach to immigration.

Back in spring, the Romney campaign’s biggest worry was money. So the campaign’s finance chair, Spencer Zwick, huddled with political director Rich Beeson to craft a complex schedule that took Mr. Romney to the cities that were prime real estate for fundraising.

It meant visits to places like California, Texas and New York—none of which were important political battlegrounds—while only allowing for quick side trips to swing states that Mr. Romney would need to win to become president.

On one level the strategy worked: Mr. Romney ultimately garnered some $800 million or more, putting him in close competition with Mr. Obama’s robust fundraising effort.

But Mr. Romney paid a deep political price. The fundraising marathon reduced his ability to deliver his own message to voters just as the Obama campaign was stepping in to define the Republican candidate on its terms. Mr. Romney’s heavy wooing of conservative donors limited his ability to move his campaign positions to the center, to appeal to moderate and independent donors.

The search for cash led him to a Florida mansion for a private fundraiser where Mr. Romney would make the deeply damaging, secretly recorded remarks where he disparaged and dismissed the 47% of Americans who don’t pay taxes.

In the end, Mr. Romney lost nearly every swing state. Other factors contributed to his defeat, of course, including difficulty making voters warm to him and a dearth of support among Hispanics.

But in the eyes of top aides in both campaigns, that early summer period when Mr. Romney was busy fundraising was perhaps the biggest single reason he lost the election.

PRESIDENT OBAMA makes his victory speech.

The Obama campaign spent heavily while Mr. Romney couldn’t, launched a range of effective attacks on the Republican nominee and drove up voters’ negative perceptions of Mr. Romney.

The problem: Mr. Romney had burned through much of his money raised for the primaries, and by law, he couldn’t begin spending his general-election funds until he accepted the GOP nomination late in the summer.

The money crunch didn’t totally take the Romney camp by surprise. Long before Mr. Romney secured the nomination, his closest advisers began plotting what it would cost to wage an effective campaign against Mr. Obama in the general election. Mr. Zwick, his finance chief, assumed the best way to handle cash needs would be to raise money from private donors, rather than accept the public financing the government offers presidential candidates, advisers said.

[More from WSJ.com: The Long-Term Economic To-Do List]

Mr. Zwick looked at fundraising markets in every state and sketched out a schedule for Mr. Romney, his wife Ann, and his yet-to-be-named running mate. He decided the payoff from fundraising was worth the investment of the candidate’s time. Analytical decisions like that one were the campaign’s mantra. In interviews, staffers called it the “Bain way.”

In August, when Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan was announced as Mr. Romney’s vice presidential pick, Mr. Ryan’s fundraising schedule was released the same day: 10 events by the end of the month.

Mr. Romney’s finance team was vigilant in its efforts to ensure fundraising jaunts would be worth his time. Every other month the campaign’s state finance chairmen met for a roughly four-hour meeting with Romney staffers. During the meeting, fundraisers had to stand in front of their peers and report whether they had hit their fundraising target.

If the local finance chairman fell short of their targets, the campaign sometimes canceled its fundraising stops there, a finance staffer said.

The real cost, though, was in the lost opportunity to use Mr. Romney to do other campaigning to introduce himself to general-election voters on his own terms. Aside from a five-day bus tour of six, mostly Midwestern states, Mr. Romney’s highest profile summer campaign event was a problem-plagued overseas trip one aide called “total chaos.” Even in that trip’s schedule were nestled two fundraisers, one in London, another in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign and a super PAC helping it, Priorities USA Action, had unveiled ads attacking the centerpiece of Mr. Romney’s resume, his record as the head of private-equity firm Bain Capital. The ads portrayed Mr. Romney as the heartless leader of a company that gobbled up companies and then slashed jobs.

The cash shortfall hindered the Romney campaign’s response; to get through the sparse time, the campaign took out a $20 million loan.

Bob White, a former Bain executive who has long followed Mr. Romney, formed a team to research Bain investments so the campaign was prepared with a rapid response whenever one was questioned. Mr. White sought out more than a dozen chief executives of companies that benefited from Bain Capital investments to offer narratives of prosperous investments to balance out the ones that had soured. The campaign posted more than a dozen of them on a website lauding Mr. Romney’s “sterling business career.” But they couldn’t afford to air the testimonials in television ads, an adviser said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Romney’s two top strategists, Russ Schriefer and his partner Stuart Stevens, started to craft an ad strategy around their slim bank account. In focus groups, swing voters kept asking: What would Mr. Romney would do if elected?

They prepared spots explaining what Mr. Romney would do in the opening days of his presidency: approve construction of an oil pipeline to Canada, cut taxes and replace Mr. Obama’s health-care law with “common-sense reforms.” Yet the team didn’t even have enough money to air their ad in the Washington, D.C., media market, therefore ignoring the sprawling suburbs of Northern Virginia—a key to a swing state that Mr. Romney badly needed to win.

As Mr. Romney struggled, a group of flush Republican super PACs stepped in to lend the presumed GOP nominee air cover. The biggest, American Crossroads and its affiliate Crossroads GPS, realized early that the Obama team would front-load its advertising to attack Mr. Romney when he couldn’t return fire.

Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a Crossroads adviser, referred to this phase as “the interregnum,” and he reminded the group and its donors that former President Bill Clinton used this phase to undercut then Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 before he became the Republican presidential nominee.

[More from WSJ.com: After Election, Labor Leaders Plan Next Steps]

Between mid-April, when Mr. Romney effectively locked up the nomination, and the Republican convention at the end of August, the Obama campaign outspent the Romney camp $173 million to $75 million, according to data compiled by the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

But thanks in large measure to super PACs, Republicans outspent the Obama campaign and its Democratic allies over the same period by roughly $50 million, shelling out nearly $250 million compared with $198 million for Democrats, according to the same figures.

Still, the super PACs were better at attacking Mr. Obama than building up Mr. Romney, and the Republican’s “likability” ratings with voters stayed low. With few public appearances and little to spend on ads, the campaign couldn’t gain any momentum. An adviser described it as a campaign of “fits and starts.”

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, kept making his conservative talking points to donors and never moved to the political center. It was during those months that Mr. Romney was filmed at a fundraiser in Florida dismissing 47% of Americans as Obama supporters because they receive government benefits or don’t pay taxes and wouldn’t be amenable to Mr. Romney’s message of small government and lower tax rates. “My job is not to worry about those people,” Mr. Romney said in the video. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

The campaign also never figured out how to get beyond a damaging policy position from the primary season, a tough line on overhauling immigration laws. Mr. Romney refused to embrace legislation that might give some illegal immigrants long in the U.S. a path to citizenship, and instead advocated what he called “self-deportation.”

Struggling to win the primary, the campaign’s political team decided Mr. Romney needed to draw a contrast on the immigration issue to differentiate himself from the other Republicans on stage. The candidate’s hard-line stance alienated Hispanic voters, which would prove a critical failing in the fall general election.

By early September, the Romney campaign was slumping and trailing badly in the polls. The first presidential debate offered what might be its last shot at a turnaround.

On a dreary Tuesday in early September, Mr. Romney and his top brass descended on the remote Vermont estate of Kerry Healey, Mr. Romney’s former Massachusetts lieutenant governor, for debate preparations.

Beth Myers, a senior campaign adviser who was managing preparations, decided Mr. Romney had better dive into debate preparations—which the candidate disliked—head first. After just one mock session, senior Romney staffers were blown away—with Rob Portman, the Ohio senator picked to portray Mr. Obama.

Mr. Portman mastered Mr. Obama’s policies and mannerisms so completely that Romney aide Peter Flaherty referred to him as “Mr. President” even when they bumped into each other on the trail.

“It was game on,” said Mr. Flaherty, who played each of the three debate moderators.

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, worked on compressing his responses into two-minute tidbits. Just days before the first debate, Messrs. Romney and Portman, dressed in suits, took the stage at the Back Bay Events Center in Boston for a final rehearsal. Aides there said Mr. Romney’s answers were crisp, and he parried Mr. Portman’s attacks with ease. Afterward, Lanhee Chen, the campaign policy director, called his wife and told her, “Mitt’s ready.”

Minutes into the first debate Romney advisers saw their candidate was poised and relaxed with an easy grasp of the facts behind his answers. Obama advisers could tell the president was off his game.

Throughout the debate, the Republican nominee highlighted his work with Democrats during his four-year stint as Massachusetts governor, reassuring voters he planned to reach across the aisle as president, too.

Romney advisers say he always intended to make that point, because it cut to the heart of voters’ main complaint against Mr. Obama.

Ending partisan gridlock “was his biggest promise, and so therefore, it may be his biggest failure,” Mr. Schriefer said.

The first debate reshuffled the race. Obama aides traded concerned emails about how to get their campaign back on track even before it concluded.

In the end, postdebate bumps in polls and money weren’t enough to change his fate. On Tuesday, Mr. Romney managed to flip just two states Mr. Obama won in 2008, Indiana and North Carolina. (Florida remains too close to call.) Mr. Obama won the Electoral College contest easily.

By early evening Mr. Romney said he had only written one speech: A victory speech that stood at 1,118 words, unedited. Late that night, he delivered a concession speech that came in at just 646 words.

“I so wish that I had been able to fulfill your hopes,” Mr. Romney told a somber crowd in a not-quite-full ballroom at the Boston convention center. “But the nation chose another leader.”

The day after his loss, Mr. Romney stopped by headquarters to visit staffers and thank them for their efforts.

He didn’t hint at what he would do next, only saying “I’m not going away,” one staffer said.

52 Responses to “WHY ROMNEY LOST A WINNABLE RACE: AN ELECTION ’12 POST-MORTUM REVEALS THE LITTLE-DISCUSSED FACTORS”

  1. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    November 9, 2012 at 9:43 am #

    The Republican basic voter data base infrastructure compared to the Dems is like comparing an abacus to the new Apple Ipad…Obama campaign is the best one every assembled and run

    • Scott
      November 11, 2012 at 6:35 am #

      That’s why they had to resort to abortion and trying to make Obama look weak. Plus if 47% of people are on some kind of assistance it may have been a good idea to leave that topic alone altogether. I think he lost a lot of votes with that even from people who may lean right but believe people still need help. It was a big mistake to bring up big bird too. People love sesame street man we all watched that show when we were kids! Big Bird is an American icon for Christ sake.

  2. Ron Kitterman
    November 9, 2012 at 11:25 am #

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html

    Article from Real clear politics -60 million Obama – Mitt Romney has received 57 million votes – with 6 million less whites according to exit polls voting and increased African American and Hispanics voting add to this the Union base in the swing states and Sandy and Mitt’s image problems, It’s hard to beat Bedard’s …..

  3. AMBROSE
    November 9, 2012 at 11:53 am #

    Mitt lost in MA because the dems bloodied themselves in the primary and came out with a horrible candidate. Shannon O’Brien was a sneering, sarcastic mean person and showed it. If you recall, he came back from Utah where he had been for years. This good man shoved Jane Swift aside with his million$ and took over. He campaigned for the presidency in part on the great job he did in MA, lowering taxes and resolving all of our fiscal problems. He was pro abortion and anti gun. Six years later he’s anti-abortion and and pro-gun. If he did so much for MA, why didn’t he contest the state.

    • ambrose
      November 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

      I should have said that Mitt won the governoship in MA.

    • Open season on RINOs
      November 10, 2012 at 11:58 am #

      I should add Ma voted for Ron Paul and the crooks at the RNC STOLE his delegates.

      The RNC CROOKS did the same with Maines Ron Paul Delegates.

      Think that had anything to do with Willards loss?

  4. Spectator
    November 9, 2012 at 11:54 am #

    I know that there are probably a lot of people who read the Planet who are not excited about the outcome, but why are we continuing to pump Romney’s tires? Didn’t he lose?

    Can we start focusing on what we have ahead of us instead of dwelling on the past? We can’t turn the clock back to change anything so we might as well work towards shaping our future.

  5. FPR
    November 9, 2012 at 1:07 pm #

    Hey Dan,

    Yes the election is over. Time to let it go I guess.

    Mitt Romney lost because he didn’t legitimately win anything. Ron Paul beat him in the primaries in Massachusetts and yet the RNC refused to seat Ron’s delegates from MA and other states at the convention.

    He stole the delegates that Dr. Paul had legitimately earned.

    Did Obama deserve to win – probably not. However, Mitt Romney did deserve to lose. Out of any candidate who ever made it that far, he deserved to lose the most.

    His whole campaign was a fraud and a cheat. For those who played the lesser of two evils game, they got it right.

    Had Romney won, this nation would be embroiled in WWIII with Iran, Israel, China and Russia, in short order. No doubt leading to a nuclear exchange.

    • dusty
      November 9, 2012 at 2:48 pm #

      I felt the same way. Romney morphed into something different at every campaign stop. Plus he really believed his disparaging remark about the 47%.

      But most of all I am so sick of war. and Romney was rattling the sabre before he even got the power. Scary to think that he felt like Rumsfield.

    • Open season on RINOs
      November 10, 2012 at 11:59 am #

      I agree totally

  6. Party Unity
    November 9, 2012 at 1:36 pm #

    The reason Romney ran out of money so soon is simple. Party unity. There wasn’t any. It was a free-for-all between Romney The Inevitable and the Seven Unelectable Dwarves. Romney had to outspend 7 separate primary campaigns funded by various super PACs and it ran his campaign dry.

    The Republican Party has only itself to blame for this debacle.

    • danvalenti
      November 9, 2012 at 6:55 pm #

      PARTY
      So true. By the time Romney emerged from the primary, he had been through the gauntlet and blown a lot of money.

  7. Still wondering
    November 9, 2012 at 1:39 pm #

    There are crazy people on this site too.

  8. Pat
    November 9, 2012 at 2:06 pm #

    I don’t see why people can’t understand that people can change their views and that doesn’t make them flip floppers. Didn’t Obama change his view on gay marriage? Does that mean he flip flopped? You don’t hear anyone complaining about that. Why? Because Obama changed his opinion about something the mainstream media approved of.

    Romney went from supporting abortion to later opposing it. Why isn’t he allowed to change his opinion? Maybe he did some soul searching and realized he didn’t agree with the moral issues around abortion. People can and do change…it’s called maturing when we realize we can have an opinion that doesn’t necessarily please everyone, but is what we feel in our hearts. Something which many people in this country who take such a simplistic view of everything don’t bother to understand.

    I hope that people don’t have the same opinions as they did when they were younger because to me that means that they they have failed to mature, learn things, gain in understanding and finally in wisdom. People pretend to be so spiritual nowadays instead of being religious which is fine if that’s what they want, but it is actually a hypocritical and pseudo type of spirituality because true spiritualism understands the many changes that people go through in a lifetime. People change and it’s not flip flopping. It’s called growing.

  9. The Kraken
    November 9, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

    I think that Romney would have been a good president, and Scott Brown was and would have continued to be a good Senator. I think the Republican party helped both lose. That party has been headed in the wrong direction for 12 years now and I think alot of voters just could not bring themselves to vote Republican. I know I couldn’t. That party is just so filled with hatred, a lack of respect for women and minorities, negativity, and just cannot seem to tell the truth about anything. It’s a shame because Brown and Romney are not really like that. If the Republican party does not change they may not win another presidential election for decades. It’s time they got rid of the Karl Roves, Mitch McConnells, and Sarah Palins, and smartened up.

    • Tom Sakshaug
      November 9, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

      Kraken, you are spot on. I was born and raised a Democrat, but I can and have voted for a moderate Republican. The radicals in either party will never get my vote. Anyone who imagines that President Obama is anything but a left-leaning moderate needs to stop and look at the facts.

      • danvalenti
        November 10, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

        “Left-leaning moderate” is a precise description of The President. “Left” leaning has much more appeal than the rightist zealotry of tea-bag fundamentalism. Romney would have won had he run that way, the way he did when he bagged the governorship of this state.

  10. Joe Blow
    November 9, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    Big news in the Pitts today regarding Nuclea Biotechnologies putting a server cluster at the PEDA site. I did some research on this company and it’s CEO and I’ll just say it does not suprise me Pittsfield is doing business with him. I guess they didn’t learn anything from the E.V. scam. Grab your ankles taxpayers cause you’re about to get………..

    • Joe Pinhead
      November 9, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

      http://nucleabiomarkers.blogspot.com/
      A touch of light reading the more things change the more they stay the same
      Just sayin

      • Joe Pinhead
        November 9, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

        Joe blow thanks for the heads up. I spent about 4 hours reading and researching I wouldn’t invest my own monies that’s for sure

        • danvalenti
          November 9, 2012 at 6:51 pm #

          JOE P
          Nor would I risk mine. I don’t know a lot about this deal, but there’s already the appearances of another hosing for Mary Jane and Joe Kapanski.

          • Joe Pinhead
            November 9, 2012 at 7:00 pm #

            Racing is now done for the season, looks like I found my winter project.
            Just sayin

          • danvalenti
            November 10, 2012 at 10:38 pm #

            We must meet soon, over vittles and ale.

  11. tito
    November 9, 2012 at 4:22 pm #

    Joe you have just won this weeks King of the Swamp’ award, congratulations. I see this is another L L C also, will we ever learn?

  12. Scott
    November 9, 2012 at 5:03 pm #

    “Would Romney have made a good President? Yes. He would have brought a fresh approach to dysfunctional Washington, D.C., that would have been worth trying, but it was not to be.”

    I was talking about this with my wife the other day I said why don’t we just start trying everyone’s idea on how things work until we find one that does actually work.

  13. Scott
    November 9, 2012 at 5:09 pm #

    Romney want’s people to take personal responsibility for their lives yet he’s taken gov’t money in the past and according to Dan even considered gov’t money for his campaign.???

    • danvalenti
      November 9, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

      SCOTT
      He considered government money in the form of federal financing of his campaign, an option all candidates have. That would have enabled him to spend less time in LA, NYC, and Boston raising money and more time in the swing states.

  14. Rick
    November 9, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Dan; Sounds a bit like karl Rove…………..

  15. tito
    November 9, 2012 at 8:33 pm #

    Voters will never feel that there vote counts or makes any difference, until we make it a popular vote.

  16. dusty
    November 10, 2012 at 2:24 am #

    Dan can we talk about why there are more traffic lights in Pittsfield than in New York City?

  17. Dead to Rights
    November 10, 2012 at 8:47 am #

    Appreciate the coverage, DV, of the elections. I found it fair and to the point. I remember something you once said or wrote: the Democrats think your a Republican and the Republicans think your a Democrat. That’s when you know you’ve done a great job.

  18. Pat
    November 10, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    I often refer to Pittsfield as the “City of Lights” and I’m talking about actual street lights. It’s ridiculous.

    I’m sad that Romney lost. He is a good man. Romney said that 47% of Americans are on some type of government assistance, but it’s actually more like 49%. Americans have to get real and face the fact that we need to help people get off of government assistance and the only way to do that is JOBS. Most people would like to be self-reliant, but the jobs situation in this country is dragging half of the country down. What will Obama do to remedy the situation? Does Obama know how to create a job boom in this country? That’s the only way out of our current crisis. Romney understood this.

    • danvalenti
      November 10, 2012 at 9:47 am #

      PAT
      You are one to something. Pizza parlors, lawyers, drug traffic, and traffic lights. Pittsfield loves them. We shall have an item on this early next week. Thank you for your remarks on Romney.

      • CONCERNED
        November 10, 2012 at 4:39 pm #

        Dan Don’t forget Banks and drug store

        • danvalenti
          November 10, 2012 at 5:41 pm #

          And dollar stores.

        • Scott
          November 10, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

          Greylock is expanding into where kbtoys used to be in Coltsville.

    • Scott
      November 10, 2012 at 10:35 am #

      The people who have been profiting of dirty jobs need to invest in renewable energy solutions thus creating more jobs. The conservatives need to start thinking about this and resisting that direction. If they would just do it and stop being spiteful because it’s getting us no where. Don’t even get me started on the people who would still be lazy bums in a profitable and functioning economy where there’s enough to go around.

  19. Gene
    November 10, 2012 at 3:31 pm #

    Not only are there too many traffic lights in Pittsfield but they are not synchronized. I swear the city studied all the lights and programmed them to cause the most amount of stoppage. I had a lot of hopes when Bianchi took over. He’s proven less effective than any previous mayor since Mayor Doyle.

  20. CONCERNED
    November 10, 2012 at 4:41 pm #

    Lights and stop signs. Drive down Jason St. and you’ll see the most stupid place for a stop sign

    • danvalenti
      November 10, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

      Yes, that four-corners stop sign. R-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.

      • Bain hater
        November 10, 2012 at 6:53 pm #

        Ok Dan. How about the three way stop sign near the RedLion? That has to be the dumbest in all of Berkshire County. Oh that’s right it’s not in Pittsfield

        • danvalenti
          November 10, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

          Disagree, BH. That stop sign has saved many an accident at that active four corners.

        • Ed Shepardson
          November 11, 2012 at 9:25 am #

          My uncle was killed at that intersection before the stop signs went up. They are indeed necessary.

    • Scott
      November 10, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

      I always blow through that one and the one on Onota…

  21. tito
    November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm #

    Poor motorcycle Pete was stuck at the deadlight near Pontoosic dam, he was there for five minutes before being aware it wasn’t working,drivers were furious.

  22. FPR
    November 10, 2012 at 7:03 pm #

    You know this subject has died when people start talking about stop signs and traffic lights.

  23. Giacometti
    November 11, 2012 at 3:20 am #

    It seems that Carl Rove is furious that Mitt lost the election…I wonder why Mr. Rove doesn’t have the grapes to just put his money where his mouth is and run for office himself ? Sometimes people would rather just complain about things than actually get involved themselves. Maybe if Carl took a chance he would be less likely to complain when great leaders like Mr. Romney loose out.

  24. AMBROSE
    November 11, 2012 at 8:40 am #

    Four way stops are not to control trafic. They exist so councilors can show their constituents how hard they are working for them. A few neighbors cry that they think people drive to fast so they get a petition, present it to their councilor, he or she files it with the council, they all vote yea and the next week the stop signs go up. No trafic study, no trafic commision involvement, just put up the signs. There are three on Elberon Ave. in less than one-half mile. The three way stop at Linden and Onota was instituted to satisfy the residents needy petition and when the crybabys found out what a pain in the ass it was the same people got up another draft to take the sign down. The only necessary 4 way stops in this county are located in Stockbridge, the Berkshire’s only perfect community.

  25. tito
    November 11, 2012 at 2:39 pm #

    Jaywalkers on North street are a way of life.

  26. Open season on RINOs
    November 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    “New RNC Rules”

    “In an attempt to validate the power grab made by Romney and his team of lawyers at the Republican National Convention in Tampa this year, the RNC pushed through the following new rules. In order to push it through, they literally resorted to having security hold up the bus carrying the author of the minority report, who intended to challenge the new rules on the convention floor. His bus was held up by security until after the rules were passed.

    Here is the synopsis of some of the rules changes:

    Rule 12
    Members of the RNC may amend the party’s rules (except Rule 12) between National Conventions. To do so requires a ¾ vote of the entire body of the RNC.
    Rule 12 cannot be amended until the next National Convention in 2016.

    Rule 16
    Any statewide Presidential Preference Poll (i.e. “straw poll”) MUST be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the National Convention.
    Allows the Presidential Candidate to disavow (“veto”) any bound and/or allocated delegate and alternate delegate for any reason whatsoever.

    Rule 40
    Previous Rule 40 required the PLURALITY of 5 states to nominate someone for President and/or Vice President.
    New Rule 40 requires the MAJORITY of 8 states to nominate someone for President and/or Vice President.

    Essentially, these rules allow the presumed nominee to choose the delegates to the National Convention. As the presumed nominee can replace elected delegates for any reason whatsoever, there is no reason for states to go through the expensive charade of holding its own convention or of electing delegates. This greatly increases the power of the media in selecting the Republican nominee, as it reduces the power of elected bodies within the state to do so. It also makes it more difficult for someone to be nominated from the floor of the Convention, a rule that was actually made retroactive and used to deny Ron Paul the right to be nominated from the floor.

    These rules also allow the members of the RNC to change any rule they want, at any time, with a 3/4 vote of the RNC, except the rule that allows them to change any rule they want.

    These rules greatly reduce the chance that the GOP will ever field a candidate who was not selected by the media, and virtually guarantees that the GOP will be giving us candidates like McCain and Romney, who don’t stand a chance of winning an election, and who wouldn’t change anything if they were.”

    So in essence why vote for a STINKING RINO endorsed by the RNC, or for that matter ANYONE who opposes the “anointed one”. In this election, WILLARD.

    YOUR VOTE DON’T COUNT ANYMORE!!!!

    Wake up to the RNC Sheeple!!!

  27. tito
    November 12, 2012 at 8:49 am #

    Salute to all Veterans, Jim Henneberry is missed.

    • danvalenti
      November 12, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

      Thanks, TITO.