Posted on 02/12/2012 11:20:42 PM PST by Lancey Howard
On Friday, Ann Coulter turned up on Medved's radio show to talk about Mitt Romney. During the interview Coulter claimed that conservatives aren't going for Mitt because he's "too square". Coulter has not only jumped the shark by endorsing Romney in the first place, she's gone stupid.
Conservatives don't like Romney for one obvious, glaring reason: he can't be trusted.
Ann (along with many other Romney supporters) has become expert at providing lame excuses and explanations for Romney's past proclamations that he was "more gay-friendly" than Teddy Kennedy, has "always supported a woman's right to choose", and "doesn't want to go back to Reagan". Mitt once actually called HIMSELF a "moderate". Most of the excuses amount to, "He was running for Senator (or later, Governor) of liberal Massachusetts! He HAD to say those things to get elected!" Okay. Unfortunately for Coulter and the rest of the excuse-makers, most conservatives have seen enough TV cop shows to know that if Romney was in court and on the stand, the first thing any competent lawyer would do is lean into Mitt's face, stare him in the eye, and ask sternly, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"
And it is a perfectly valid question.
If Mitt "only said those things because he was running for election in a liberal state", then why shouldn't it be presumed that what he is saying NOW he is saying only because he is running for the GOP nomination?
Bottom line: conservatives are not rejecting Romney because he's "too square"; conservatives are rejecting Romney because they do not trust him. He is viewed by many, if not most, conservatives as a pandering political whore who will say whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. There is simply no evidence that Romney has core convictions.
Add to this "trust factor" the many other problematic aspects of a Romney candidacy - - his reputation as the architect of Obamacare, the inevitable media portrayal of Bain Capital's Romney as "Chainsaw Mitt", and the numerous mind-numbing flip-flops of the kind that made a laughingstock of John Kerry's campaign - - and Romney becomes just another "hold your nose" GOP candidate who can never be expected to generate the kind of passion among the electorate that is necessary to dump an incumbent President, even one as destructive and corrupt as Obama.
Romney cannot win depending primarily on the "dump Obama" vote. And you can absolutely count on the Democrats joining in on the chorus: "Were you lying then, Governor Romney, or are you lying now?"
vanity bump
Once more...
Do you know how you can tell when Mitt Romney is lying?
The evidence of Mitt’s life is that he was raised liberal, by liberal parents (who were battered and mocked by the right), and is naturally inclined to liberalism by his own personal nature.
If anything stirs him politically, Mitt seems to be driven by an anti-conservatism, a hostility to American conservatives.
Yes, Mitt said his mother taught him to be “pro-choice”, and his father was a liberal governor.
Plus Mitt’s own father, George, was born in Mexico, so you can count on the rats and La Raza beating him over the head with that little hammer whenever he talks about addressing the ongoing invasion of illegal aliens.
There are just too many ways that this guy Romney is wrong.
The Republicans need to get it right this time.
The survival of the America we grew up in literally hangs in the balance.
Many Republicans are that, simply because they can’t possibly see themselves as Democrats. So they are the one, simply to avoid the other. Mitt is a classic RINO in hiding. Do you know how hard it is to hide a RINO? Coulter et al provide much-needed cover. Add her beside my tagline’s protagonist below.
Some “cover” that leaves the RINO exposed for what it is.
Romney told the abortion movement in private, (and homosexual leaders) to trust him as a stealth supporter, to just get him into the White House so that he could then deliver on his true, and necessarily secret, agenda.
NYT about Romney running for Governor in 2002, but referencing a greater national role: “At the end of the private session, when it became clear that the group was going to endorse Mr. Romney’s Democratic opponent, he surprised its leaders by saying he could be a “good voice” and the most effective national Republican leader on abortion, said Melissa Kogut, a former Naral official who has detailed notes from the meeting.
“I thought, ‘That’s interesting. He’s running for governor, and he’s trying to convince us to get behind him because of the role he is going to play on the national stage,’ ” she said. “We left the meeting feeling pretty good.”
Should we have trusted Ronald Reagan when he changed from many years as a democrat and a union official to conservative sounding republican? Should we believe in a war hawk Robert McNamara during Viet-Nam war conversion into a profound pacifist in later years?
My answer is some transformations are genuine and some are suspect. Flip flop once and you are still in the game. Flip flop twice on the same issue and you are out for good.
Well, he’s a dodo bird, so I don’t know.
So.... Make the case for your guy.
No one seems to be able to make a case for this guy. It’s all about his supposed “electability” in November.
Is Rick's wife, Karen, a real conservative?? Is Callista?? Look to the wives to see what they will do.
Certain amount of entropy is involved .....
Personally, I would want a President who is not easily swayed by his wife.
Was Nancy as conservative as Ronnie?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.