If Republicans nominate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be their party's presidential candidate, whom are they going to get?
Posted on 12/01/2007 9:06:35 AM PST by jdm
If Republicans nominate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be their party's presidential candidate, whom are they going to get?
Apparently the USA has perished. Everyone stay home this election.
That is incredible!
You just admittied Mitt is Moderate!
(If I have to draw thew logic for you I can, but it will be later)
As for the rest, what Rush said was not quantified or obfuscated, just true...
The point is nobody was even concentrating on Fred. He was a non-issue. If he had the momentum or was leading in the early states, you can bet that CNN would have explored his actions and his past illegal immigration positions as well as the votes listed above.
What I do find odd, and it is from your last post, is the piece where you quoted or paraphrased Huck. You know the bit about “kicking from behind” and such.
You Mitt folks have been kicking Fred harder than any other. This post took effort and was offered as a SECOND response to mine.
Therefore the only conclusion I can draw FROM YOUR OWN POST(S)is....
Well you are a smart person, you can figure it out along with how you just admitted Mitt is a moderate...
Don’t worry, you are still a “Republican”, because that has lost some meaning here lately. As you learn about Reagan Conservatism and how Republicans were once the party of Reagan and should be again, well you will come to understand that conservatism has less to do with attraction to bright shiny objects and more to do with ideas and preserving this nation.
***************
What a smooth talker. You vote for Romney, I'll vote for a conservative. Fred Thompson.
You got any snake oil to go with that pitch?
We need to take our best shot at selecting a nominee that we can still trust after the election is long behind us. A political panderer works for himself only. He does not work for the nation, his party, nor the people. All the smarts in the world does not make up for a lack of firm principles.
A history of moderate to liberal statements and actions going all the way up until Mitt decided to run for POTUS is. His lack of traction among the Conservatives of FR also seems to bear that out. Despite the noble and sometimes arrogant sales job you Mitt folk have been doing, he is less popular here than ever it seems.
Anyways, Mitt’s moderate and liberal actions and words have been given to you time and time again.
As for the rest, it’s horse hockey, which is for you Mitt folk is SOP. People paid attention to Fred as much as Mitt, Remember Franks after action report. Both were “winners” so good for the goose, good for the gander.
That also means an equity for Rush’s very accurate and knowledgeable easement.
Anyway, Fred was such a force to be reckoned with for awhile there. You all told us so. He deserved some "kicking from behind." Now it is pretty clear he has lost any momentum he ever had and his campaign is faltering. Huck has usurped his place as the spoiler.
However, like Ann Coulter said: Mitt or Rudy. If so-cons remain divided -- Rudy will win.
Coulter is wrong often enough, just like now.
Mitt’s history of caving to the left while in office does us no good. Even if he was the slick wheeler dealer in the bunch, the deal would have to be one that is good for conservatives. We need an actual Conservative in the office or the veto is a moot point.
LOL. I wasn't here back then, but if that mattered at all we could ask President Keyes what he thinks about that.
>>
All the smarts in the world does not make up for a lack of firm principles.
>>
The smarts are the only thing that will prevent eroding principle.
Again. We Advance Nothing. No program is going to get through the Democrats. All you can do is water down the filth they will present to just barely the needed extent to uphold a veto.
A 2009 GOP president Can’t Do Anything More. The Dems will have Congress.
And who says Romney lacks firm principles on victory in Iraq, which I think we all know is more important than abortion to the future of this country. He has published a program of tax policy that is far more conservative than Fred’s. He wants all tax on interest and capital gains zeroed for income levels under 250K.
But even that doesn’t matter. Because of an arrogant presumption of hard core conservatives in the GOP Congress 4 years ago the tax cuts were not made permanent. The GOP presumed it would hold Congress in 2010 and could extend.
Well, we won’t hold Congress in that year. The Bush tax cuts are going to expire in 2010 and there is ZERO chance the Democrat Congress will extend them. So the 2009 GOP president’s role will be to maneuver and adjust and cajole the Democratic Congress to provide at least some minimal new legislation to in some small way extend a portion of the cuts.
This requires political brilliance and competence.
A 2009 GOP president has to nominate probably 2 USSC Justices. There is zero chance a staunch conservative can get through a profoundly liberal Senate. So what does he do? Does he leave the court unable to convene and work? Do all appeals of every liberal legislation get stymied because the high court can’t convene to overturn it? Or does he nominate a justice who is moderate enough to get confirmed yet conservative enough to even appear on the shortlist his Republican staff will provide to him?
This is not 2000, people. We don’t hold Congress. The most effective president we can nominate is one who is brilliant, profoundly competent, and experienced in dealing with hyper liberal legislation. That’s Romney.
Anyways If it is down to those two it is becoming apparent there is little difference.
I am glad that it is not going to be the case.
You do good, you make good if not over used and already dispelled arguments. A bit weak on the whole “no one is paying attention to Fred” bit, but I can see where you think it comes from.
You will make a good conservative advocate one day, once you figure out what Conservatism is all about.
Why are you here?
(BTW keyes was never that popular here as I recall, good man thouigh he is)
Most accurate thing you have said yet...
As a conservative I’ll always trust the best from among our own any day and I reject the notion that your man is all that brilliant. I do believe he’s smart, very driven, and extremely slick, but I’ll place my trust in Fred Thompson’s intelligence and common sense over Mitt’s any day.
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.