Skip to comments.In Defense of Romney [Barf du Jour]
Posted on 10/04/2011 8:47:33 AM PDT by freespirited
Over the past several months, Mitt Romney has been an excellent presidential candidate. He has performed superbly in debates. He has outorganized his rivals. He has relentlessly stayed on his core theme of putting Americans back to work. He has taken Rick Perry apart with a cold ruthlessness that is a wonder to behold.
And throughout this period of excellence, he has done almost nothing to endear himself to Republican activists. They have spent this season of excellence searching for anyone else: Palin, Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain and now Christie. On Nov. 4, 2010, Romney earned the support of 23 percent of Republican voters, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. Today, he also has support from 23 percent of Republicans nationwide.
The central problem is that Mitt Romney doesnt fit the mold of what many Republicans want in a presidential candidate. They dont want a technocratic manager. They want a bold, blunt radical outsider who will take on the establishment, speak truth to power and offend the liberal news media.
They dont want Organization Man. They want Braveheart.
The question is: Are they right to want this? Well, if they want an in-your-face media campaign that will produce delicious thrills for the true believers, they are absolutely right. But if they actually want to elect an effective executive who is right for this moment, they are probably not right.
There are two important features of the current Republican moment. First, this is not a party riven by big ideological differences. ... Whoever wins the nomination will be leading a party with a cohesive ideology and a common set of priorities: reform taxes, replace Obamacare, cut spending and reform entitlements. The next president wont have to come up with a vision, just execute the things almost all Republicans agree upon.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ineligible Romney also removes the fake BC issue.
Romney, who failed in the economy in Mass
as its wandering governor, will also negate the economy
Romney also eliminates the corruption issue.
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."
Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
(Over the past several months, Mitt Romney has been an excellent presidential candidate. )
Basically a true statement. The problem is Brooks forgot to state that it is as a candidate for the Democrat Party.
“Brooks reveres Romney.”
Yes, but Romney is not his first choice. Obama is.
There's the tell.
Brooks knows Romney is going to tinker with Obamacare and all the socialist workings of the federal government. Not repeal it and throw it in the trash, but replace it with a more workable socialist health care solution.
That's what Brooks is looking for and what Romney will provide - a toned-down Obama.
Personally, I want a politician who will blow the political system up and tear down the wreckage. Since I'm not running, I'll have to vote for the candidate most likely to bring real, government-shrinking change.
Romney should be selling used cars, to suckers like Brooks.
There’s a simple solution: Brooks just needs to persuade Obama to stand down and let the Democrats run Romney in his place. It would greatly minimize their losses downticket and he actually has a better chance of being elected as a Democrat than he does of even winning the Republican nomination.
So why should we listen to a self-confessed sap?
Romney is this year's choice by the Stupid Party to gracefully lose. Sort of like Dole without the charisma.
If ANYONE at the times is for this guy, I’m against that person.
I am not for Romney but he has been better in these debates than the others. He has appeared unflappable and articulate unlike Perry. If people are turning to Cain, who cannot win the nomination for many reasons, and away from Perry, Romney will likely win the nomination. We have seen this before.
Whatever Brooks reveres I doubt it is Romney.
Well, considering that Perry got "Borked", who is left?
Romney's "Stalking Horse", Cain?
Today, with Perry severely wounded and Christie out, Romney is working to secure top donors and concentrate on the fast approaching early primaries. Serious candidates focus on serious election logistics and finances.
Today, Cain just started a national book-signing tour to hawk his book.
Romney and Cain played conservatives like a fiddle.
Herman Cain in 2011
Herman Cain said Wednesday that he would be unable to support Rick Perry for president if the Texas governor were to eventually win the party's nomination. .... The former businessman said, for instance, that he could support former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney....
Herman Cain in 2008
Romney has the leadership qualities United States needs,
By HERMAN CAIN
Published on: 02/03/08
The dynamics of political party connections, the political process itself and public perceptions have once again yielded the top two contenders of each major party in the 2008 presidential race. And once again, the public can only hope that the ultimate winner of the White House will be a candidate with the most leadership substance.
My vote is for Mitt Romney.
History is important, but the future is more important. The success of this country in the future will be shaped by the leadership abilities of the next president.
Our success will not be based on pandering to uninformed voters, promising emotional quick fixes over common sense or nitpicking of opponents' past records. Success will come from focusing on the right problems and solving them. That will mean making tough decisions about some problems that have been with us for decades. It will also mean taking a tough stand on new problems and challenges.
That's what leaders do.
Mitt Romney has done that as a chief executive officer in business, as a governor and as head of the U.S. Olympics. He has done so while balancing political consequences but not compromising fundamental principles of the founding of this country or free-market economics. We have prospered as a nation by strengthening those principles; we will not remain strong if we allow those principles to become diluted with a lack of leadership.
Anyone who wishes to find a reason not to vote for Romney can find one. But the reasons to vote for him are far more compelling. He has successfully managed a real business with other people's money and some of his own. He has balanced budgets. He successfully led a turnaround situation with the Olympics. And he has spent more of his career outside government than inside.
On the other hand, John McCain has spent more of his career inside government than outside, and the reasons not to vote for him as the Republican nominee are very compelling.
He voted against letting people keep more of their money in 2001 and 2003 when President Bush pushed through his tax cuts. He has been part of the escalation of the federal debt during his 20-plus years in the U.S. Senate. He showed questionable leadership on a failed immigration bill. And he showed no leadership by failing to support the president's efforts to establish personal retirement accounts a proposal that would have started to fix the coming financial train wreck in the Social Security system.
That's not leadership.
I do not question the character, integrity or sincerity of either Mitt Romney or John McCain, nor do I question their desire to do what's best for the country. I do not worry that they would fan the flames of social and religious differences. My focus is on their prospective leadership relative to national security, the economy, federal spending, free-market health care solutions and the elimination of dysfunctional programs.
Mitt Romney's history is more indicative of the substance needed to make major progress on critical issues, and not just to make more politically palatable incremental changes in Washington.
Media momentum and campaign funding aside, there are several other Republican candidates who would not cause me to worry about our grandchildren's future. The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, however, cause me great concern because of their severe lack of leadership substance and their policy proposals.
This is despite Barack Obama's appeal and strong public perception but entirely consistent with Hillary Clinton's self-proclaimed but quite invisible experience.
Great leaders are born, and good leaders keep working on it. We are not favored with an obvious great leader in the 2008 race, as is apparent from the primary process and the results thus far.
But Mitt Romney's leadership credentials offer the best hope of a leader with substance, and the best hope for a good president who could turn out to be great.
Perry is terrible in "30 Second Sound Bite Contests" but does well on the stump with regular people.
Romney is great in "30 Second Sound Bite Contests" but does terrible on the stump with regular people.
"Its when Romney tries to relate to average folks or banter about trivial things that he can struggle. His critics poked fun at snapshots he posted to his Twitter account showing him aboard Southwest Airlines and eating a Subway sandwich. When Romney posed for a picture with the staff of a 50s-themed diner in New Hampshire over the summer, he pretended one of the waitresses had pinched his backside. His attempt at a practical joke left those around him puzzled.
Perry tends toward just the opposite. When he gave a short speech on jobs in California recently, he was so focused on reading from the notecards he carried to the podium with him that he didnt seem to notice that a woman in the bleachers had passed out under the hot sun or that people were shouting for paramedics. Its in relating to people that Perry seems most at ease. He routinely puts down elites. In last weeks debate, Romney dismissed Perrys jobs record as luck, saying that governing a state with plentiful oil resources was akin to being dealt a poker hand of four aces. Perry shot back on the stump in Iowa:
I grew up in a house that didnt have running water until I was about 5 years old. My mom and dad were both tenant farmers. For sure, I was not born with four aces in my hand.
Perry does little to hide his disdain for Romneys state.
I would no more consider living in Massachusetts than I suspect a great number of folks from Massachusetts would like to live in Texas, Perry wrote in Fed Up! We just dont agree on a number of things. They passed state-run health care, they have sanctioned gay marriage, and they elected Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank repeatedly even after actually knowing about them and what they believe!
Texans, on the other hand, elect folks like me. You know the type, the kind of guy who goes jogging in the morning, packing a Ruger .380 with laser sights and loaded with hollow-point bullets, and shoots a coyote that is threatening his daughters dog.
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.