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

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney’s legacy: No ‘Romneyists’
washingtonpost.com ^ | 11/13/2012 | Jonathan Capehart

Posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:08 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

In a New York magazine piece this week, Benjamin Wallace-Wells eulogizes Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The headline pretty much sums it up: “So long, Mitt: In love with America, terrified for its future, relegated to its past.” But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Many times during the campaign, I slammed Romney for his ideological promiscuity. His flip-flopping was a character flaw that engendered mistrust among the Republican base and disbelief among the general electorate. As I wrote last month, politicians changing their minds on a core issue isn’t uncommon and should be respected. What Romney did during his six years running for president was change his mind on everything.

Romney’s change of position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, immigration, climate change, his own health care law — collectively, they called into question whether he had a core at all. They also made it impossible for those who believed in the former Massachusetts governor to point to anything he really believed in. That’s why there’s no discernible Romney philosophy from 2012 that will define the Republican Party for decades to come. That’s why there are no Romneyites.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: cinos; failure; mittromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!


2 posted on 11/14/2012 12:40:59 AM PST by ari-freedom (It's the bennies, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
but you still need to be a conservative!

Seems so damned simple and... well... obvious, doesn't it...? ;)

3 posted on 11/14/2012 12:42:42 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

It was so obvious even a political neophyte like me could see it plain as day. Not one of Rove’s finer picks.


5 posted on 11/14/2012 12:47:53 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The Democrats tried running a massachussetts flip flopper in 2004, didn’t work out too well for them either.


6 posted on 11/14/2012 12:52:22 AM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In their sweaty, increasingly bug-eyed and frantic desperation to win win win -- no matter how glaringly unsuitable their anointed candidate, or how poisonously anti-conservative their favored platforms and tactics -- the now wholly irrelevant CINOs have long since forgotten just why, precisely, "winning" is so important to conservatism in the first place.

The goal, plainly, isn't simply to plop any handy, available "R"-branded hindquarters into any given House or Senate seat, in and of itself; otherwise, we could just as easily nominate and run (oh, say) Justin Bieber, or Chris Hemsworth, and be virtually assured of a nice, easy victory, ten times out of every ten.

If "winning" said seat means doing so by filling it with someone who does not willingly vote and/or legislate along demonstrably conservative lines -- or who routinely needs "their feet held to the fire," in order to decently advocate for and represent conservative principles -- then: that is, by any sane and rational definition, L-O-S-I-N-G.

A large, capital letter "R" following their name in the congressional ledger, notwithstanding. ;)

7 posted on 11/14/2012 1:03:51 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Instead of riding a white horse he’s riding a horse with no name.

If he had shown half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had when he want after Newt he’d be President elect.


8 posted on 11/14/2012 1:08:19 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Hey, I mentioned "Romneyist" the other day, but I called it "Mittism"

""To this day, no one knows what Romney's politics are, and no one knows why he was obsessed with being president.

The man has been in politics since his teens and has spent the last 20 years and 55 million of his own dollars trying to get into the white house, and no one knows why, or even what his political reasons were, what his agenda is.

The man is ego driven, and has no center, no convictions, he is a salesman of Mitt, (not Mittism as in a political view, there isn't any such thing).""
111 posted on Mon Nov 12 2012 16:02:36 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ansel12

9 posted on 11/14/2012 1:08:52 AM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Instead of riding a white horse he’s headed for the desert on a horse with no name.

If he had half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had for beating up on Newt he’d be President elect.


10 posted on 11/14/2012 1:09:44 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

??????? duplicates, sorry


11 posted on 11/14/2012 1:10:54 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

You run a Liberal Candidate against a Marxist and this is what happens.


12 posted on 11/14/2012 1:19:57 AM PST by Trueblackman (I would rather lose on Conservative principles than vote for a RINO candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I couldn’t vote for him because he was a flip-flopping liberal!

If I want to vote for a liberal, I’ll vote for a Democrat!

‘Nuff said.


13 posted on 11/14/2012 1:24:58 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Romney only existed to beat Obama—forced upon us by the big bucks of the RINO GOP-e he was yet just another predictable dud like McCain and Dole.

Obama won now Romney has lost his reason to be and so he doesn't.

Dole-Fool me once shame on you.
McCain-Fool me twice shame on me.
Romney-Fool me thrice you can't fix stupid.

14 posted on 11/14/2012 1:34:06 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter beg to differ.


15 posted on 11/14/2012 1:37:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

The GOP nominated the next loser in line who couldn’t beat the original loser.

That is how Karl Rove and Anne Coulter pimped on us the weakest candidate in Republican history who cost the party its chance at a Senate majority.

His weaknesses were evident all along and in Mike Pence or Scott Walker the GOP could have had a decent conservative candidate but the party leaders and conservative commentariat decided electability was more important than principle.

In the end, the GOP got the worst of all worlds.


16 posted on 11/14/2012 1:40:54 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!

Bush wasn't.

17 posted on 11/14/2012 1:45:51 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter

AllahPundit and Meghan McCain, with slightly better agents.

18 posted on 11/14/2012 1:57:00 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Yes ... it doies seem obvious except to those oblivious "Establishment Repoublicans" and those idiots who aren't paying attention.

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

YOU SAY [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment.""
I disagree.
I ask you again: It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 2:05:58 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Sorry.
You DID NOT say " [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment."""
That was someone else, but the point needs repeating, just not to you.
20 posted on 11/14/2012 2:08:33 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

FUMR!

Go to Hell and Burn...

I never want to hear from you again...or your skank supporters....


21 posted on 11/14/2012 2:15:08 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthurio

Well, then there’s that...


22 posted on 11/14/2012 2:16:12 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Luv’d the euphemism of MittMentum.../s not


23 posted on 11/14/2012 2:18:47 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Just as a Squirrel is a Rat with a press agent.


24 posted on 11/14/2012 2:19:11 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Trueblackman

PfffT!!!


25 posted on 11/14/2012 2:21:04 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Get outta here! Whuddyuh really mean? /s


26 posted on 11/14/2012 2:22:13 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yosemitest
My mind-set and approach towards the GOP-e remains today what it was prior to this last election:

If we steadfastly reward them for unacceptable behavior... then the only thing that nets us, ultimately, is MORE unacceptable behavior. ;)

27 posted on 11/14/2012 2:27:05 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I have nary qualm nor compunction about likening the Meghan McCains of today’s Republican party to vermin of any stripe. ;)


28 posted on 11/14/2012 2:31:21 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
If we steadfastly reward them for unacceptable behavior... then the only thing that nets us, ultimately, is MORE unacceptable behavior. ;)

Who would or could have been the perfect candidate in your opinion? Why?

29 posted on 11/14/2012 2:32:49 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'm afraid Lindsey Graham is the next chosen GOP-e RINO loser—Pansy Grahamnesty believes being McCain's #1 butt boy and constantly being on all the news and talking head shows means it's HIS turn to deliver America to another Leftist...

...we are trying to work up a movement to primary his RINO ass out in 2014 but that sissy sumbitch has deep pockets and many favors owed him by powerful people.

30 posted on 11/14/2012 2:38:53 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Who would or could have been the perfect candidate in your opinion?

Unsupported assertion. I do not (nor ever have) sought "perfection" in any political candidate.

What I do insist upon -- and this is a simple enough baseline to meet -- is that said candidate be both fiscally and socially conservative (see sig line, below). There are at present, to that end, approximately 230+ Republicans in the House; 45 or so in the Senate; and somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 sitting governors.

The pertinent question, here, is: why, from that available pool, does the GOP-e routinely (and suicidally) persist in cuddling and cossetting the absolute LEAST conservative potential candidates possible...?

Any other formulation is, ultimately, mere arm-waving and mugging in the service of (failed) distraction.

31 posted on 11/14/2012 2:45:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
So Romney's shortcomings were more important to you than the evil that Obama does and now will continue to do thanks to you.

It's Mitt's fault that he couldn't convince you and others like you to help him stop Obama...

...but Obama thanks the both of you nonetheless...guess you can't complain about Obama now without being a hypocrite.

32 posted on 11/14/2012 2:49:08 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
thanks to you.

Pfffftt. Idiot sulking, and nothing more. Try familiarizing yourself with the electoral history of Seattle -- where a conservative's is the equivalent of Kleenex in blast furnace -- and then get back to me, mm'kay?

33 posted on 11/14/2012 2:52:34 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Ryan may leave more of a legacy than Romney.


34 posted on 11/14/2012 2:54:24 AM PST by gotribe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gotribe
Ryan may leave more of a legacy than Romney.

That would be meager enough take-away, from the GOP-constructed bungle of this last election... but a (comparative) bright spot, nonetheless. ;)

35 posted on 11/14/2012 2:56:29 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Simple question, did you (and the millions like you) choosing not to vote for Mitt Romney help or hurt Obama?

We all know the answer as we are sentient beings...

...but you are addicted to sophistry and the thrill of argument so I cease to waste my time on someone who will not be serious.

a final sardonic “thanks for Obama” will end it.

36 posted on 11/14/2012 3:03:57 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain
Again: "Try familiarizing yourself with the electoral history of Seattle -- where a conservative's vote is the equivalent of Kleenex in a blast furnace -- and then get back to me, mm'kay?"

Too difficult? Too bad.

37 posted on 11/14/2012 3:05:47 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; Happy Rain

As another “conservative in exile” here in the Seattle Area, my non-vote for Romney did NOT affect his election chances. AT ALL. My vote for all the folks with an “R” after their name for everything from Governor down to City Dog Catcher also was to no avail. I thought we had a chance with Governor and some of the other State positions.

And it is also disheartening to see all of the money that I donated to the local races end up on the losing side. But - we try to do what we can.


38 posted on 11/14/2012 3:19:46 AM PST by 21twelve (So I [God] gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices. Psalm 81:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Strangely there are a few true/blue Romney-ist here @ FR. They are vicious and will start howling at anyone that mentions the failure that is Romney!
Then there’s Coulter, Hannity and friends.


39 posted on 11/14/2012 3:30:21 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Unsupported assertion. I do not (nor ever have) sought "perfection" in any political candidate.

Who do you believe would have been a candidate who could have been victorious over Obama? Based on what?

The pertinent question, here, is: why, from that available pool, does the GOP-e routinely (and suicidally) persist in cuddling and cossetting the absolute LEAST conservative potential candidates possible...?

Maybe because Bush won twice and real conservatives rarely win congressional of senate seats?

40 posted on 11/14/2012 3:32:19 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve
Not voting against Obama with a Romney vote regardless of where you are gave Obama a bigger mandate than he deserved.

Even in the deepest pits of Leftist Hell I would still register my opposition to the Devil.

Besides, imagine the joy the Left in Seattle experiences when they see the election results and logically believe conservatism is more dead than it actually is...I, for one, wouldn't give the SOBs the satisfaction.

41 posted on 11/14/2012 3:34:08 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 21twelve; All
As another “conservative in exile” here in the Seattle Area, my non-vote for Romney did NOT affect his election chances. AT ALL.

Of course it didn't; and the unhappy pouter stamping his widdle feetsies to the contrary certainly could have taken the minute, minute-and-a-half tops to Google the requisite information to that effect, had he genuinely any demonstrable interest in adding anything other than dull, dyspeptic bleating to the conversation. But [::sighs::] whaddya gonna do, right...? ;)

A little fable, for any/all out there still resolutely Not... Quite... Getting... It:

"Once upon a time, a pet food company created a new variety of dog food, and rolled out a massive marketing campaign to introduce the product.

"Despite hiring a first-rate advertising agency, initial sales were very, very disappointing. The agency was fired, and a new agency (with an expensive new campaign) was launched. Sales, however, stubbornly continued to crater. (If anything, in fact, they fell even further than they had before.)

"In desperation, the CEO called in all of his top executives for a brainstorming session to analyze what had gone wrong with the two campaigns, and how a new campaign might revive sales.

"The meeting went on for hours. Sophisticated statistical analysis was brought to bear on the problem. One VP argued that the mix of TV and print ads had been hopelessly bollixed. Another argued that the previous campaigns had been too subtle, and had failed to feature the product with sufficient prominence. Still another argued that the TV ad campaign had focused too much on spots during sporting events, and not enough on regular programming with a broader demographic. And yet another argued the exact opposite: not enough sports programming had been targeted!

"After the debate had raged for hour after fruitless hour, the CEO felt they had accomplished damned little. He asked if anyone else had any theories -- any at all -- that might conceivably explain the failure of their new product. Finally, one newly hired employee raised her hand and was recognized.

"'Maybe the dogs simply don’t like it,' she offered."

I can't even remotely imagine why that particular fable occurred to me just now. Honest. ;)

42 posted on 11/14/2012 3:36:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alaska Wolf
Maybe because Bush won twice

Slipshod statistical analysis. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost. Dole (CINO) lost. McCain (CINO) lost. Romney (CINO) lost. Dubya is, demonstrably, the aberration; not the rule.

Who do you believe would have been a candidate who could have been victorious over Obama?

Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative -- with a genuine record OF conservatism in governance -- would have accomplished Step One out of Baby's Big Book of Basic Electoral Politics, if nothing else: "Start By SECURING Your Base, Not DEPRESSING Your Base."

Which is, inarguably, considerably more than Mittens managed to do, given six full years and a hundred million dollars or so.

(... and, again, the correct question to be asked here is: "Why, given the humiliating record of crushing electoral futility highlighted above, does the GOP mulishly insist upon doing precisely the opposite -- ?!?")

Based on what?

Asked and answered. See above.

43 posted on 11/14/2012 3:51:26 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: iopscusa
They are vicious and will start howling at anyone that mentions the failure that is Romney!

They got precisely the genteel Massachusetts liberal they wanted; who ran precisely the campaign they wanted him to run; with a multi-year head start (since '08), and more cash on hand than might have been found forcibly crammed into Scrooge McDuck's fabled money bin.

They have no one at which to legitimately howl, ultimately, save themselves. ;)

44 posted on 11/14/2012 3:59:01 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I agree!


45 posted on 11/14/2012 4:11:23 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Slipshod statistical analysis. Pappy Bush (CINO) lost

He won once.

Any reasonably eloquent fiscal and social conservative

Do they have names or are they figments of your imagination?

46 posted on 11/14/2012 4:11:51 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

Now that would make me do a “Happy Dance”!


47 posted on 11/14/2012 4:13:46 AM PST by marygam (I have extra ducktape for anyone who needs to wrap their head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

THE BOOK OF MORON

48 posted on 11/14/2012 4:17:24 AM PST by Vaquero (Don't pick a fight with an old guy. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I’m glad to see that Romney finally has the political stake through his heart. Now, we need to exile those that shoved him down our throats. Let’s start with Rove and Coulter.


49 posted on 11/14/2012 4:19:49 AM PST by freedomfiter2 (Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
.


Political "Death of A Salesman" : Romney's Pathetic Self-Implosion and Defeat by Obama (Vanity)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2957804/posts



.
50 posted on 11/14/2012 4:22:38 AM PST by Patton@Bastogne (Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin will DEFEAT the Obama-Romney Socialist Gay-Marriage Axis of Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

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.

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