Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 3-S Test [Surprise! Lefty thinks Mitt, not Sarah, "Safe, Sane and Selfless" candidate for 2012]
The Pacific Northwest Inlander ^ | June 2, 2010 | Ted S. McGregor Jr. , Editor and Publisher

Posted on 06/03/2010 11:03:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
How come we never get to tell the "progressives" which candidates they ought to nominate?
1 posted on 06/03/2010 11:03:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Go right ahead...The Dangerous part is Stupid “Country Club” Republicans listen to the Progressives....ex.(John McCain). Basicly they have told us upfront nominate Mitt if you want to lose in 2012.........

Wonder if Barney Frank is up for a run....LOL...Rush would have probably spend his entire show uncontrolably laughing......


2 posted on 06/03/2010 11:14:22 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

absent makes mitt grow fonder in leftist heart


3 posted on 06/03/2010 11:15:24 PM PDT by 4rcane (Tennessee flood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They scared to death She will run...


4 posted on 06/03/2010 11:16:52 PM PDT by Crim (The Obama Doctrine : A doctrine based on complete ignorance,applied with extreme incompitence..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Wonder how much of his fortune Romney is spending to get this ¨message¨ out. The guy is a loser; I honestly wouldn´t vote if he were the candidate. But that´s probably what the Dems, who are no doubt behind this, want.


5 posted on 06/03/2010 11:19:37 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Yeppers - we want ‘OUR GUY’ on YOUR side in 2012. It's a win-win situation!
Only dangerous Christians and right-wing extremist patriotic types would try to upset such an obviously beneficial scenario!
6 posted on 06/03/2010 11:20:40 PM PDT by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jakerobins
The Dangerous part is Stupid “Country Club” Republicans listen to the Progressives

I'm glad you posted that, as I've been saying it for years. But I also want to throw out something I thought about seriously for the first time yesterday, while working out with Rush in the background (I don't care for the guy who was on today, prefer Steyn).

Palin is my pick of those who've been mentioned, though I have issues with her, as they say. But yesterday, thinking of the complete inability of Obama to deal with being in charge of the government, I wondered about the lessons we're gonna take from this current situation.

If one must call me a Palin hater or a Romney fan, let's just assume that, for the sake of argument (go on and search away to find how often I've said I'm voting for Palin and how often I've said anything supportive of Romney).

Now, here's what I was thinking:

What kind of experience does Romney have with working with situations that will help him pull this government together during these times of economic devastation?

What about Palin?

I'm a big pro-lifer, so obviously Palin is my pick. I'm NOT talking about any other issue except this one--which one would be better at the helm of our government during these economic times, and why?

7 posted on 06/03/2010 11:23:12 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377


Sorry, I think I know where you are going with this.

Just because Mitt has had some business experience, doesn't make him a principled leader.

That is what we need, not a businessman, but a leader with principles.

Somebody who will govern from heart-felt beliefs in conservative principles like self-reliance, morality, and a basic fidelity to principle.

Mitt fails on all three.

His morals are suspect as he has been all over the board on Abortion, and support for Gay Rights, and he lies all the time.
8 posted on 06/03/2010 11:27:53 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Sorry, I think I know where you are going with this. Just because Mitt has had some business experience, doesn't make him a principled leader. That is what we need, not a businessman, but a leader with principles. Somebody who will govern from heart-felt beliefs in conservative principles like self-reliance, morality, and a basic fidelity to principle. Mitt fails on all three. His morals are suspect as he has been all over the board on Abortion, and support for Gay Rights, and he lies all the time.

I get what you're saying, esp. about abortion. But I really don't want to get into that (since we're in agreement). As things stand right now, I support Palin.

Again, purely on how to deal with this economy, I simply don't see what Palin's got. Is it going to be enough to say to the American people "she's a good person"? She is that. I trust her more than I do Romney in terms of principles and personal morality.

But is being a good person enough to be the president we need?

Is it really a sign of seriousness that we look at Romney's track record and say "Mitt has had some business experience" when in fact he's had substantial experience.

We keep saying Obama has never run anything. Well, that's true. But has what Palin's run for a couple of years given her enough experience to deal with the current crisis?

I openly say I am not a Palin bot, thoough she's the best we've got right now. But we need a brilliant economic mind here. Are we really going to go to the American people while we're in our fourth year of Obama and say "She is the person best qualified to lead us out of this"?

What evidence is there that the American public will say "Well, we're in tough times, but she's very principled"

Reading over this I know I'm very close to looking like a Romney fan. To those who suspect this all I can say is I'm not, check my posting history.

We have to get it together to defeat this guy and, as the earlier post says, not let the Rockefeller Republicans take control.

I believe Palin is a Reaganite, and Romney a Rockefeller Republican through and through. I'm not talking about another McCain "electable" disaster.

But I don't see the argument to those who don't support Palin now that she's the best person to lead us in this economy. I can easily see Romney following McvCain's playbook, and some more "conservatives" splitting the vote and we get Romney...

I dunno, I'm just seeing a lot of trouble with either one--Palin from THEM, Romney from US.

9 posted on 06/03/2010 11:38:50 PM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

While you’re looking back at his so called experience, take a look at what he’s actually accomplished. Does Romneycare ring a bell?

Yes, Obama’s lack of experience is a nightmare, but when experience equals absolute failure, I look to vote for a different candidate.


10 posted on 06/03/2010 11:53:26 PM PDT by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
While you’re looking back at his so called experience, take a look at what he’s actually accomplished. Does Romneycare ring a bell?

I live in MA, and I didn't even think of that. I guess I've been healthcare'd out.

Which only makes me more frightened of Romney and the Roosevelt Repubs.

So we're back to square one--if not Romney, who have we got with something to offer economically? Jindahl? I don't know of his background.

Yes, Obama’s lack of experience is a nightmare, but when experience equals absolute failure, I look to vote for a different candidate.

Ah, you had me, then ya lost me. You have a president who doesn't have any experience and we're in a nightmare, so you're going to vote for someone BECAUSE they don't have experience? That doesn't make any sense.

11 posted on 06/04/2010 12:01:11 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Sorry for confusing you. I’m not saying go with someone because they don’t have experience. I’m saying don’t go with experience for experience’s sake — especially the bad kind of experience.

We still have to be discerning. Don’t accept bad experience just because it’s experience. Experience is not the be all and end all of everything. It is just one of the factors you look at. Romney has absolutely none of the factors necessary for president. He has little experience as governor. He is a liar who has no understanding of conservative principles. He is a flaming liberal pretending to be conservative whose acts vary only in degree from Obama. (Romney goes in exactly the same socialist direction as Obama.)

If you live in Massachusetts and you’ve already forgotten about Romneycare, then there may truly be no hope for your state.


12 posted on 06/04/2010 1:09:09 AM PDT by Waryone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
Sorry for confusing you. I’m not saying go with someone because they don’t have experience. I’m saying don’t go with experience for experience’s sake — especially the bad kind of experience.

OK, but who's got the GOOD kind of experience? That's what I'm really getting at here, in a roundabout way, I discovered as I wrote. I mean, I know we like her, but I have seen nothing that shows me Sarah Palin knows how to handle this economy. I know that a simple assessment like that is considered hate around here, but I haven't seen anything in her background hinting she could handle something like this. And I gotta admit, her habit of quitting is alarming.

I'm open--what's the evidence that shows she could handle something like this? Not asking for her to have run a country before, but something in her background that indicates she could handle this. Her position on abortion and gun rights has nothing to do with how she'd handle a complex issue like this. So let's have it.

We still have to be discerning. Don’t accept bad experience just because it’s experience. Experience is not the be all and end all of everything.

I know that, but it's extremely important. When your car breaks down, are you going to hand it over to someone who has had no experience with car repair because they share your views on abortion?

It is just one of the factors you look at. Romney has absolutely none of the factors necessary for president.

Just because I don't like him doesn't mean I'm going to be like a little kid and say "No, no, nothing, can't do anything, go away!" He could handle the job. He has extensive experience in business and government. You and I don't like much of what he did while he was in government, but he could handle the job. Whether he's another Clinton, Bush, or LBJ, who knows, but he could handle the job.

He has little experience as governor.

Yeah, but he didn't quit after two years, either. That's a huge issue, and if you don't think that'll come up if Palin runs (I'm starting to suspect she won't and will continue doing what she's been doing, which is party building, so we don't have such limited choices), well, I have to strongly disagree.

He is a liar who has no understanding of conservative principles. He is a flaming liberal pretending to be conservative whose acts vary only in degree from Obama. (Romney goes in exactly the same socialist direction as Obama.)

He's not a socialist. I know something about the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, and while I'm strongly against both--nope, sorry. We toss that word around like the libs do "Fascist". I can dislike him without making up stuff like that.

If you live in Massachusetts and you’ve already forgotten about Romneycare, then there may truly be no hope for your state.

No, it's just that I'm a human being with a lot on my mind. I've been thinking about healthcare debate for years, and sometimes, my mind is elsewhere. No more or less than that.

13 posted on 06/04/2010 1:27:56 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Fair play. These questions need to be asked.

The Palins have run their own business. They’ve had to make payroll.

And Palin has stated how important it is to get Government out of the way of business.

That’s two ticks, compared with Romneys one. Also Romney’s disastrous liason with government healthcare has got to drag down his economic credentials.

lastly: one of the more important things a President must do is a) keep out of the way of business, and b) keep Congress out of the way of business. Palin would do both: I have no confidence that Romney would do either.


14 posted on 06/04/2010 2:34:41 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Ah, Romney. Either backstabbing Gov. Palin through surrogates
OR defending Obama with his last breath.

“Romney praises Obama
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney praised President Obama
at a GOP fundraising dinner Wednesday ..
"I also think it's important for us to nod to the president when he's right," Romney said....
Romney, who spoke at a dinner for the National Republican Senatorial Committee,
said he's pleased with the president's plans to "finish the job" in Iraq and Afghanistan
-- lines that drew applause from the partisan audience. He also applauded the president
for standing up to the auto industry.
"I hope he continues to be tough ....The former businessman even offered faint praise for
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, saying that after a series of initial missteps,
"I think he's finally getting close to the right answer."



15 posted on 06/04/2010 3:30:35 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States Â… shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

"I'm not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values.
That's not what brings me to the race.

(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)



"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party
 over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
 to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldn’t make any sense at all.""

--  President Ronald Reagan



"I'm very clear I think, to the people across the Commonwealth
my "R" didn't stand so much for Republican as it does for reform.
"
(Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)



"A political party cannot be all things to all people.
It must represent certain fundamental beliefs
 which must not be compromised to political expediency
or simply to swell its numbers."

--  President Ronald Reagan



16 posted on 06/04/2010 3:38:10 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States Â… shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

John Batchelor: "As a candidate, she begins the nomination hunt with a formula
that none of her rivals can match, not even Mitt Romney,
not only because she gave up something in order to go for the
White House but also because she reached this decision by being drafted.

What is going on right now in the Republican Party—
even as the professionals scramble to react with grins and
snorts to the news of Palin’s Alaska resignation—
are the early scenes of the 2012 campaign for the presidency
with Sarah Palin as the once and future hero. Like Joan of Arc,
Catherine the Great, Elizabeth Regina, and, skipping
four centuries of quarrelsome princes, Margaret Thatcher,
the Republican Party has already decided that the governor of Alaska
will rescue the GOP from its ruination.
What Sarah Palin begins with an announcement from
Wasilla is not only a campaign, it is an Iditarod of a crusade—
first woman, first mom, and second moose-hunter into the White House."

"In fact, the governor does not need much more than a ballot line from the aimless,
tongue-tied, villain-rich GOP. She certainly does not need the GOP to do well
in the congressional mid-terms in 2010; she does not need the party
to improve its flabby polling on health care or trust;
she does not even need the Republican Party to raise a voice
to explain her positions on the burning controversies on Capitol Hill.
Palin does not need to prove anything at all about wise government,
because she appeals directly to the anti-authoritarian crowd that has
been with us since Shay’s Rebellion in 1787."

17 posted on 06/04/2010 3:43:40 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States Â… shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Today’s new candidates must rise above the mess; they will set the tone for the next generation of the GOP

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght. While they on the left get to continue to engage in meanspirited attacks, lies and disinformation campaigns because, well, because they're the more moral, ethical party, after all, dontcha know!

The author may think he was being high-minded and rational when he named his vanity-site "common ground" but that, like everything else a liberal does, was nothing more than infantile ego gratification.

Tell ya what, lefty; you want us to "play nice" when we have to start cleaning up the Augean Stable size mess you libs have made out of this country in 4 freaking years? Then you'd damn well better start "playing nice" first - after all, you have all the marbles right now, so what are you so afraid of that you won't even make a good-faith attempt to be nonpartisan?

Go eff yourself, lefty; you've already effed the country up enough.


18 posted on 06/04/2010 3:52:19 AM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Al B.; SoConPubbie; SoCalPol; Virginia Ridgerunner; 2ndDivisionVet
Well, well. Another democrat for Romney...LOL. Even worse, this bozo lives in fantasyland. He actually thinks the media loved Bush and never gave him the scrutiny given to Clinton and Gore!!!!

Bush's Media Pass, by Ted S. McGregor, Jr.

~snip~

Which brings us to the strange case of George W. Bush. It's hard to argue the point that Bush has never had to stand up to the level of scrutiny — and derision — that Gore or Clinton did. Bill Clinton had to endure investigations over missing files, the suicide of a friend and a real estate deal in which he actually lost money. Bush has a hard time getting investigated for taking the nation to war under an apparently manufactured rationale — something that could, in time, be viewed among the nation's most notorious scandals. Then there's Monica, which Clinton clearly deserved to be scrutinized for. But impeachment? Note how there's absolutely no coverage in the media about impeaching Bush for his alleged crimes. Remember, it's not about what you did; it's about lying about what you did — if you're a Democrat.

Then there's the way Al Gore was treated in 2000. You'll recall the running joke about how stiff Al Gore was, and later how he thought he invented the Internet (snicker) and dreamed up that he was the basis for a character in the book and film Love Story. These stories were pushed by Republican operatives and Fox News, and Gore was pummeled over them. But most voters don't remember that, in fact, he did run the first Congressional investigation on amping up the Internet and he was the basis for a character in Love Story. Corrections, when they ran, were never as big as the story in the first place.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

19 posted on 06/04/2010 3:59:09 AM PDT by onyx (Sarah/Michele 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Fair play. These questions need to be asked. The Palins have run their own business. They’ve had to make payroll.

So have I, and millions of others. What does running a business and meeting a payroll have to do with dealing with Fannie/Freddie, bailouts, the dollar, the Fed?

I looked up the business experience Palin has, and could only find slanted sources I don't really trust like the Village Voice, which claims the Palins ran a car wash and "her husband's commercial fishing business"--what exactly does the partner in a commercial fishing business do that makes her fit to run the world's largest economy?

I have always been a blue collar worker, so I'm sure as hell not saying there's a thing wrong with running a small business. But what is it that makes this particular owner of a commercial fishing business fit to run this economy at this time?

Would you be changing your mind about Romney if his business experience was that of co-owning a commercial fishing business? Would you downgrade your estimation of Palin's skills if she had Romney's business history of takeovers/leveraged buyouts, layoffs (we're all saying the president needs to cut the size of government)?

Which business experience is of more use when dealing with an economy such as ours?

And Palin has stated how important it is to get Government out of the way of business.

Hasn't Romney said this and more? Whatever one thinks of Romney, hasn't he been very articulate in saying this same thing, while also having turned around the troubled 2002 Olympics, arguably at least as massive a labor as Palin's business ventures?

As I wrote, if there's more to Palin's non-governmental experience, let me know, as it seems when I search these terms with Google I get a lot of suspect sources.

That’s two ticks, compared with Romneys one.

I don't know about that.

Also Romney’s disastrous liason with government healthcare has got to drag down his economic credentials.

As I mentioned, Romneycare makes him a non-starter for me. But it's also a lot more complicated than that--check out the history of what he did, what he vetoed, and the Democrat numbers in our statehouse. It's at least as complicated as Palin's struggle on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which she resigned after a year.

lastly: one of the more important things a President must do is a) keep out of the way of business, and b) keep Congress out of the way of business. Palin would do both: I have no confidence that Romney would do either.

I don't know, I agree on your point about Palin, but if it weren't for Romneycare and his obvious efforts after the fact to spin and spin like it's such a conservative thing, I don't think anyone would see Romney as anti-business--the idea is absurd on the facee of it. I really don't get what the heck he's doing with the healthcare thing--I get his point about making people pay instead of having others foot the bill, but he sure seems to have hopped aboard the train as a way of appealing to the supposed middle by saying he's a compassionate conservative or whatever. What is it with him and former oilman Bush, with big business backgrounds, wanting to do something for The Little People, with OUR money?

20 posted on 06/04/2010 4:02:09 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 ("You seem to believe that stupidity is a virtue. Why is that so?"-Flight of the Phoenix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson