Skip to comments.Top Romney adviser: Mitt will erase his conservative positions once he’s the nominee
Posted on 03/21/2012 8:42:55 AM PDT by Fred
Think Progress flags an amazing exchange on CNN, in which Eric Fehrnstrom, a top adviser to Mitt Romney, seems to confirm that the conservative positions Romney has been forced to take during the primary wont be a big deal because he can simply erase them once he becomes the GOP nominee:
HOST: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
FEHRNSTROM: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. Its almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.
There you have it. Dems, predictably, are pouncing on the remark, arguing that it validates their message that Romney has no core and will say or do anything to get elected.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I would and here's why.
Their governance would be 100% indistinguishable. No difference. Nada. Which means driving us to decline.
SO...if that's going to happen anyway, better that the Dems be blamed than the GOP.
In addition, it would teach the GOP a lesson (assuming it is educable) that it can't keep shoving the Doles, McStains and Myths down our throats.
Surely you jest... You think that Romney would Nominate the same two or three Justices to serve on the SCOTUS that Obama would?
Again, surely you jest. At least I hope so.
“Which conservative positions are those, exactly?”
I dunno. Hoping you knew.
...”Whats sad is that a lot of Freepers even after reading this will still vote for Mitt if he gets the nomination, and rationalize it by thinking anything is better than Obama.”
Wow... In other words, you’re saying you think Obama is BETTER than Mitt.
Haven’t you realized yet that Presidential elections ALWAYS force us to vote for THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS??
Other than Reagan, I’ve never seen anything but a “Lesser than two evils election.”
Though George Shrub wasn’t an evil person, he was pathetically inarticulate and folksy so was an easy target for the liberal media. I voted for him rather than Albore or KetchupKingKerry.
Do you realize that if you stand out this election in a stubborn protest against a repub candidate you don’t like, you’re giving one vote, by default, to the Marxist? You do realize that, don’t you?
YES, I’m in the “ANYTHING BUT OBAMA CAMP,” aren’t you???
If there is no other choice other than an anti-Obama vote (and assuming the other choice is even more pathetic like Reverend Wright, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackwagon), YOU VOTE FOR THE MORE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE.
What am I missing here? Seems like you want Obama for 4 more years rather than a Repub you don’t like. Do you realize that the country may not survive that?
Yes, I’ve heard the tripe about how “Mitt will tarnish the reputation of conservatives, so we can’t choose him, but better to have Oblamer for another 4 years.”
But face it: 1) Mitt will primarily tarnish the reputation of Mitt, and 2) Conservative image has already been tarnished by George Shrub.
Get real, dude.
My thoughts exactly, all of ‘em. Around my neck of the woods we’ve never been so steamed at the GOP brass as we are now the way they’re heedlessly shoving Mitt down our throats despite the same message, 100 different ways, that we don’t want him. He personifies everything about the Republican Party establishment and it’s country-club incompetence that’s shackled the conservative movement for the past two decades.
— RINO-ism. Little introduction needed, not even Juan McCain can hold a candle.
— Political opportunism. Defined Mitt Romney’s entire career, a “Republican” who made sure to cozy up to Planned Parenthood and liberal judges in shameless imitation of Mitt’s real idol, Ted Kennedy.
— Wishy-washy, equally opportunistic corporatism, always happy to pretend support of conservative causes but then equally ready to stab traditionalist conservatives in the back if short-term profits are at stake. Thus the corporate mealy-mouthing against conservative radio hosts who- shockers- dare to take on the MSM and speak openly about controversial issues. Or the corporatist factions who make their money, and thus necessitate deals with juicy big government contracts and cronies in high places. This is Mitt’s style from his Bain days, which is a world apart from Reagan’s free-market capitalism and the bootstrap entrepreneurism of gutsy small-business owners. Addressing real business concerns like decreasing red-tape, or knocking down small business taxes, let alone the idiot world-wide taxing and double-taxing that us productive expats and exporters have to put with, is never on Mitt’s agenda. For similar reasons:
— Globalism and neoconism, the same phony “conservatives” like Juan McCain or Ruby-Red Giuliani who despite their self-applied label, manage to be at odds with traditionalist heartland conservatives on just about everything. As Gingrich and Santorum have both pointed out, Mitt made sure during his Bain tenure to maximize his pension-raiding and job-gutting in heartland communities full of law-abiding hard-working Christian conservatives. Followed up by outsourcing their jobs to other countries and supporting intiatives to flood their once prosperous communities with mass immigration to push down wages, and to break up the spirit and traditional, patriotic values that bound them together. Straight out of the NWO globalist, back-stabbing, pseudo-conservative play-book.
- Loser-ism. So the GOP establishment drinks the MSM Kool-Aid and proclaims Mitt to be the most “electable”, based on polls that at this point are little more than name recognition contests? All this when Mitt can’t fire up crowds, can barely win a primary in his own home state without almost buying it off, out-spends his rivals sometimes up to 10:1 but still gets less than half the votes in almost all states, and even then gets humilliated by Santorum or Gingrich (or both) consistently in key heartland states and the conservative core of the country? This is our “frontrunner”? Santorum and Gingrich have both done far more with much less.
- Blind Europhobe-ism. My wife and I now spend about half the year in Europe for our business, and the place is a mixed bag but there are plenty of rock-solid conservatives there with exemplary success and things to learn from. Heck the Finns, Swiss, Germans and Danes have become worlds more conservative then the US under Barrack especially on issues like securing the borders, managing their finances, reigning in both the culture Marxists and the banksters with all their community-wrecking mischief, encouraging small business entrepreneurs and other marks of traditionalist conservatism. Even Greece where we do a chunk of our business, with all it’s blunders and failures, still has a more tradtionalist conservative bent in some important areas and thus a chance to recover. Reagan and Buckley both knew this and so learned what they could from Europe’s conservatives to improve the movement here. But not Romney. No, with Mitt it’s hate all of Europe all the time even the conservative countries, rather then learning a thing from them. This despite Mitt hiding out in a chateau in France on his Mormon mission sipping Cabernet, while real conservatives were out defending their country and getting shot at in Vietnam. Yet more proof of how much of a poser he is.
We can only hope now that both Santorum and Gingrich clobber him in Louisiana, not just by a small margin, despite Mitt’s now customary attempt to buy votes and bamboozle the public. Maybe on the scale of Mitt’s defeat in Minnesota- if it happens even now at this point it might finally pressure the brass to realize what the base has known from Day 1, that Mitt is toxic and they’d better get their support behind a real conservative fast. If they ignore us yet again and push Mitt through, there’s gonna be thousands who’ll burn our GOP registrations and probably millions more privately. A nice metaphor for the establishment burning the bridges with the base.
The biggest difference between Romney and Clinton is Clinton was a better liar
Me too but I will do my part and vote out Obama. In SC, there is no way that Obama will win this state, but I will vote against him regardless of who we put up.
About Romney it should be shocking. Of all candidates, Romney SHOULD not go to the middle because he is a supposed "conservative convert" from liberalism. Any move on Romney's part to the left is simply Romney moving back to his familiar soil.
This is exactly, by the way, what Romney did after the 2008 primary. "Convert" Romney was endorsing gay unions within months of McCain losing the election.
The bottom line is that Romney is a liar.
I will not support him for any reason. In fact, I will work to defeat him with a 3rd candidate. My hopes would be twofold: (1) To recreate the Republican party, or (2) to build a real, conservative alternative party.
I’m confused why you posted to me and pinged Jim? Are you actually so politically naive that you believed Romney was going to run in the general as a conservative?
Excellent observation. Clinton covered his liberal roots with great glibness. Romney can’t pull it off.
My post to you and ping to JR were separate. One was responding to you, and the other was a reminder to him that Romney had reverted to gay agenda Mitt after the last election.
Not that he had forgotten, but, I hoped not.
I guess it’s because I don’t want FR to become a Romney friendly place after the primary if Romney gets the nod.
“Pretty much every election both Republicans and Democrats run to the edges during the primary and return toward the middle to pick up General Election moderates. Is this really shocking to anyone?”
The difference is the Democrats really are liberals (and govern as such), while the faux conservatives like Romney really are liberals (and govern as such).
I’ve said it before, and say it again: I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ROMNEY.
If this was a vaccuum, you’d have a point.
But Romney has shown, repeatedly, he is willing to lie and take any position to be elected, so this statement merely confirms what has been repeatedly shown.
Romney is the worst type of hypocrite: he looks all pretty and kosher on the outside, but is rotten to the core on the inside.
this pretty much sums up everything I have ever feared about Romney, and I am more determined than ever never to cast a vote for this fraud.
I want this to go to the convention so we can pick some one else.
Newt Gingrich Ad: ‘Sketchy Romney: Everything Changes’
that ad is brutal!
if only this had come out 2 months ago :(
the best we can hope for now is taking this to the convention, and picking someone decent.
14 Bald-Faced Mitt (Etch-a-Sketch) Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain in 2008
Romney is a LIBERAL!
Everything in that ad was on youtube for years and well known two months ago.
If Romney is in my focus will be on keeping MO red and beating Claire McCaskill. I am confident on red, but a weak candidate hurts the 2nd.
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.