Posted on 11/07/2008 6:20:56 AM PST by Leisler
LLS
I always though GHWB regretted picking Quayle and lent him little help after 1989. when Quayle trailed to run in 1999 against their anointed one, even Barbara Bush (I think but cannot recall the details) denounced Marilyn Quayle at one point.
PALIN 2012!
In your face Romney.
I also think but could be wrong that Quayle would have performed better as President than either GHWB or GWB.
LLS
This is the real trick. When Palin comes back in 2010 she will have a plan and a blueprint for the path of this Country. She will be able to discuss “her” plans and ideas for the public. I imagine her coming out with something like what the congressman from WI has out now. It might not be the same ideas but it will be clear objectives that she actually believes in. It is always easier to defend your ideas and not someone elses. Mitt has presented “his” plan and it was rejected. That is why Mitt is not going to be the next choice.
This is bad. You know, I feel if Iowa and New Hampshire are STILL allowed to go first in the primary process. And NH is STILL allowed to let anybody vote in the primary regardless of party, Mitt may well have a solid chance of being the front-runner out of the gate.
What law says these states have to vote first? Is there one? McCain didn’t even carry Iowa or NH ultimately. And NH was primarily responsible for fueling his comeback, right? Can’t we work to stop this now?
Can the GOP reject delegates from states with “open” primaries? The argument that it will upset them doesn’t wash when you see that the libs were still able to carry MI and FL this year after screwing around with their delegates.
Can the GOP have somebody else vote first? Like, for example, the states that won by the “reddest” margin this year? Maybe it could provide some good incentive for local grass-roots organizers. States that have the strongest showing get the distinction of being the first in the process.
In my opinion, restructuring our primaries should be the first thing we go after if we want to rebuild the right way. I’m not an expert. Maybe I’m way off base. But if you agree, how do we get this done? Where do we start?
Is it already too late for 2012?
I’d take Mitt too right now over Obama. When we were down to McCain, Huckabee, Paul, and Romney in the CO caucus I chose Romney. However, for 2012 I don’t want to see the same old in the line up—2008 part II. A lot can happen in 4 years, but I’m hoping for a Jindal run right now and a lot of other fresh conservative faces. I have no idea who some of those faces might be, but I hope they are out there and getting prepared.
Don’t bet on it. Whether you like him or hate him, he has 300 million bucks or so waiting to unleash in a campaign. That much money will make him a player.
“wish he had been McCain’s ‘pick’ for VP”
You would have really seen an Obama landslide then.
I like Mitt ok - but he’s a Republican, not a conservative.
The best speech Mitt gave was his concession speech- he should leave it there.
In my view, we need new faces and voices who are enthusiastic and principled conservatives. Men like Pence, women like Bachman.
For 8 years we’ve struggled with a “compassionate conservative” as the leader of the GOP. It’s been a long hard road for me to lose faith in my president. I dearly love the guy - and yet I believe he’s been badly served by those he trusted.
Whatever the cause- the result is the GOP is a mess- without a vision. We are suffering from a lack of leadership- because we stopped standing on our PRINCIPLES. It is hard to lead without clarity of purpose and beliefs.
So basically we gave the “rino” wing of the party 8 years, several of them under complete majorities in the executive and legislative branches. We see the results.
There is a nucleus- mostly in the House, a few in the Senate- of conservatives. They should be expected to craft positions and policies based on PRINCIPLES- not the other way around.
The struggle in the party is now between the ideas of Democrat-lite and actual conservative principles.
I don’t see Romney on the side of the latter.
I’m not proposing lurching to the left; quite the opposite, actually. I’m using Romney as an example of what the party should be going after: an Economics-based candidate(s). Who else is out there to use as an example? Please, hold him/her up.
OTOH, Mitt is no where nearly as horrible as folks have made him out to be. I know - I lived here in MA when he was governor. Is he my #1 choice? No. But again, Ronald Reagan isn’t making any more campaign stops.
Another thought: the GOP/RNC should buy their own TV network - this will be the only way to get the message out.
Well, Romney is handsome, and he can appeal to the dumb women who were turned on by Bill Clinton, and I guess now Barack Obama........
NO! GODDAMMIT, NO! He may be a LOT smarter than Bush and McCain, but NO MORE GODDAMNED RINOS!
Okay, so now we can libs in charge of the economy instead of Mr. Romney. Great.
Well Sarah is prett, so what’s your point?
I'll tell you this: Mitt would have ripped Obamarx a new one during the debates for sure.
The Republican Party needs someone who can effectively communicate and speak coherently.
"33 percent believe Mitt Romney should be the party’s new leader..."
The party also needs someone who is actually a conservative.
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.