Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: palmer

That revelation may play among a few of the oldsters, but
‘92 was a ways back to create much of a pants on fire turning point in time for Iowa.

What is eerie to me is that Romney is spending money on negative ads and opposition research and mean connections against all threats, but is basically saying nothing, offering nothing, doing nothing, IS nothing, and on top of that he is a bore! How do you get in the lead and be the guy to beat like that, by just showing up with your hair on?


5 posted on 01/01/2012 8:57:50 PM PST by RitaOK (The higher you poll in Iowa, the more embarrassing it is for that candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: RitaOK

Some local conservative friends think highly of Romney. The problem is they are looking through the media, they are not on the internet and what the media shows is all highly favorable speech snippets (while playing gaffs by other candidates over and over).


6 posted on 01/01/2012 9:04:57 PM PST by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: RitaOK

Obama did the same thing. Romney is running the same “empty suit” campaign that Obama did. Problem is the media let Obama get away with it but once the GE starts, they won’t let Romney get away with it. He’s even more at risk because he is such a bland character. The media has all the room in the world to fill up his empty suit with any narrative they want, most likely the heartless Wall Street capitalist angle with some of the flip-flopping chameleon angle thrown in. How is Romney going to claim he’s anything else? He has no compelling life story and no record of achievements to define him as anything. “Good family man” sure as hell won’t cut it.

Part of the problem is people who think they’re armchair political consultants, thinking they can’t nominate a candidate who they think has “baggage.” Just think about the illogical logic behind that. People like a candidate, but instead they vote for a candidate that is boring and doesn’t excite them, because they think the candidate they like has “baggage.” Then who they nominate is a boring candidate that doesn’t excite anybody else either and loses the election. An exciting candidate with “baggage” is more electable than a boring candidate who won’t inspire anybody to vote for him.

What people don’t seem to get is that a boring candidate like Romney could only win if Obama is incredibly weak and doesn’t excite his base. But he absolutely will. He is a real leftist and both the left-wing and the right-wing know it, although the independents are clueless. They will rally to one of their own. If we don’t have someone who can make a compelling and inspiring case for conservatism, then we will lose the election due to low turnout from our side.


23 posted on 01/01/2012 9:42:47 PM PST by JediJones (Newt-er Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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