Skip to comments.Romney strikes bipartisan tone at GOP fundraiser (praises Obama)
Posted on 04/02/2009 8:17:33 AM PDT by MaestroLC
click here to read article
Given the circumstances, Mitt Romney most likely would have had no prayer of beating Obama.
First, Romney would have presided over a party even more fractured than the one that McCain had. For whatever reason, the "I won't vote for Romney" group was larger than the "I won't vote for McCain" group.
The economic meltdown would have destroyed Romney's campaign. Imagine how effective this advertising would have been in times when people are beginning to fear for their jobs: hundreds of testimonials from people who lost their jobs because Romney's Bain Capital put them out of work in their downsizing operations. Mitt Romney would have been portrayed as having a colder heart than Scrooge.
His Mormonism would have depressed the turnout in evangelical voters meaning that it is highly unlikely Romney could have flipped North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Indiana. While this issue would have helped Romney in Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, it would have possibly turned a couple of other red states blue (including Missouri).
Despite huge advantages in several primary states in terms of time campaigning and finances, Romney never seemed to gain a groundswell of broad support. Romney did much better in caucus states where a small group of dedicated supporters can carry the day than in primary states where broader support is needed.
I have a couple of friends who are very active in the Democrat Party. They wanted Romney to win the Republican nomination because they loved the idea of running a campaign of the oppressed minority who rose above the obstacles versus the son of privilege who grew up in mansions with maids and private elitist schools.
Obviously, this is speculation on my part but other than money, I don't see what Romney would have brought to the table which would have overcome the advantages that Obama had.
Mitt is right, Hispanics and Asians should be flocking to our party's ideals of family values, protection of life and individual freedom. By not resolving this issue in the most conservative fashion possible, we allow the liberals to use it against us. Meanwhile we fail to enlist the socially conservative Hispanics and Asians who should be Republicans.
There is a way to reform the immigration mess in a sensible and conservative fashion. Why aren't we doing it?
THAT IS MY POINT !!
...And Romney will do precisely what he is told when in office.
"Lucifer... wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking.'... "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy." (LDS Improvement Era, June 1945, p. 354)
It is true that we do have to resolve the immigration issue in the most conservative fashion possible. But that can’t be done with the Democrats in power. We squandered that opportunity in 2001-03. I am afraid that any compromise plan that the GOP signed onto now would be just be another Meidcare Presciption Drug plan, a an attempt to get rid of an issue that really only gives our opponents a chance to move the ball in their direction.
Sadly, you might be right. We squandered away a lot of opportunites to get things done in the proper fashion and move the ball in OUR direction.
The virulent Mitt-nots are using Alinsky’s rule #12:
“RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”
Trying to trash him early, to take him out of the possibility of POTUS.
Just like the group that is trying to take out Palin early, IMHO. Same tactics.
“I think the American people are seeing through what’s happening,” he said. “The Democrats are trying to use this crisis as a way to advance their philosophy of the supremacy of government, and I don’t think they’re being fooled.”
Romney claimed the president “incorrectly believes that the 2008 elections settled the great issues that divide America. I don’t believe that’s the case. I watched the debates. The great issues were rarely discussed at all.”
I know, I was one of them until just recently. I discovered all the secrets they try so hard to hide, WHILE DEFENDING ROMNEY HERE, and resigned from the chruch.
3. Romney “
That you put Palin or Jindal ahead of Romney speaks volumes for your anti-Romney bigotry. So what if he’s Mormon and has changed his views on abortion (remember Reagan did too???).
Face the facts: Palin made a superb teleprompter speech at the Repub Convention, but she’s a woefully PATHETIC speaker. In that respect, she’s like Obutthole, but not even nearly as good of a speaker & b.s. artist as he is. She NEEDS A TELEPROMPTER. The media made mincemeat out of her. Do you want that to happen again? In spite of her good values, PALIN is unelectable.
Next time around, it makes sense to put an articulate speaker up for the job.
Romney’s ability to speak intelligently without notes/teleprompter and his understanding of business and finance should have made him a shoe-in for the job.
Jindal is another unelectable weakling (witness his recent bad speech.
I sure hope Romney runs in 2012 and, like those of us who were not pleased initially by Reagan, but then were won over by him, you will be too (if you can get past your stubborn anti-Romney anti-Mormon bigotry)...
I spent 15 minutes talking to Reagan in his office once. Romney has the same characteristics as Reagan did. Open your minds.
Did you know that FLDS/LDS "Prophet" Joeseph Smith once "prophecied" that There were men on the moon ?
You can call all the names you want...Bigot, Alinsky follower etc, BUT THE COLD HARD FACT IS THAT THE MEDIA WILL EAT ANY MORMON ALIVE....and we will be forced to stcik up for his CULT, like it or not.
The Mormons claimed that Joseph Smith's power as a "seer" extended even beyond the earth. In February 1881 Oliver B. Huntington recorded the following in his journal:
" Inhabitants of the Moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the Earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the quaker Style & are quite general in Style, or the one fashion of dress. They live to be very old; comeing [sic] generally, near a thousand years."
So let me get this right. Because you have personal problems with the Mormon church you want to exclude the 6 million Mormons from GOP politics. That pretty much turns the Mountain West blue and leaves the GOP with 2/3rds of the South, the Plains and Texas. The electoral math is impossible.
Philosophical agreement doesn't mean we have to theologically agree. I'm happy to work side-by-side with Mormons for a political cause but don't force me to accept their theology as a legitimate Christian theology. I'm not offended if Mormons hold that my beliefs are theologically wrong.
They sound just like the RINO'S that have destroyed our party to me.
My point is that WE WILL ALL get stuck trying to defend THEIR faith during and election....And the well documented FRAUD of their founders will bludgeon us all to political death.
But...they didn't. Even though Romney -- whom I supported -- was running against the most unsatisfactory GOP candidate since, maybe, Thomas Dewey (realize that Bob Dole never supported CFR or amnesty, etc.).
Romney supporters now need to ask themselves "Why?" Why couldn't Mitt Romney beat John McCain, of all people.
Personally, I gave Romney's conversion to conservatism the benefit of the doubt. Nor am I bothered by his Morman faith, not at all.
But, by his "striking a bi-partisan tone" and supporting Obama, while arguing for amnesty, Romney has now totally disqualified himself. On some watershed conservative issues, he has become another McCain -- whom he failed to beat in the firt place.
It's time for us to turn to fresh talent. Palin, Jindal...or somebody yet to emerge.
While Romney may have some of the same characteristics as Reagan, Palin has the same political philosophy and she isn't embarassed by it. That is why she has resonated with conservatives while most conservatives don't trust Romney. She is a genuine true believer in Reaganism while Romney will grasp or cast it aside as is expedient in the moment.
Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth president of the Mormon church, recorded in his journal an address delivered by President Brigham Young in 1852. In this address we find the following: "And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cane [sic] the ownly [sic] way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off & spill his Blood upon the ground it would also take the life of his children..." ("Wilford Woodruff's Journal," January 16,1852, typed copy; original located in LDS church archives).
Rommey, my choice in 08, has peaked. He started too early in 08 and is not now as interesting as he once was. He's a fine man, but now just another Gingrich.
It has NOTHING to do with his Mormon faith. It has EVERYTHING to do with his RINO philosophy.
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.