Posted on 02/16/2014 8:11:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Senator Cruz understands the value of attacking the enemy at multiple points of weakness.
RINO politicians, consultants, strategists, advisors, donors, volunteers, supporters and RINO voters do not understand this, as they tend to focus on one or two points of attack for the entire election campaign.
In this manner, the RINOs ignore the day to day fluctuations of opponent revealed weaknesses, and plod on to their usual, and very comforting defeat.
For example, in 2008 Loser Emeritus “Wacko Birds” McCain publicly admonished those who questioned the validity of then Senator Obama’s birth Certificate, thus assuring McCain of another very successful RINO-Style Defeat.
Another example is when RINO Speaker Boehner just last week chose to cave in to his overriding personal phobia of being bad-mouthed by the Left Stream Media, and took off the House calendar the necessary House Debate on the size of the National Poverty Debt Limit, thus guaranteeing the Conservative Democrat and Republican voters will from then on know that RINOs really stand for unlimited Federal Spending.
BTW, notice how many times RINO Rove says: “Republicans should let that go and concentrate on this one point.”
Senators Cruz, Lee and sometimes Rand Paul are wise enough to attack on many fronts, and the double down whenever a weakness is detected.
RINOs have refused to learn that the first rule in Federal Politics is to attack, Attack, ATTACK!
The second rule in Federal Politics is to savagely attack ALL weaknesses as they are revealed.
The third rule of Federal Politics is to accept, without question, that “ALL FEDERAL POLITICS IS NATIONAL.”
Newt, for a brief moment in time, used that wisdom to construct his very successful National “Contract with America.”
Newt’s wisdom soon quickly rejected by the rank and file RINO failure leadership.
No political Wing of any political party has ever enjoyed losing as much as the now obsolete, failed RINO Wing of the Republican Party.
House Member elected, House Sobber Boehner even lends a Soap Opera touch to many RINO cave in losses by sobbing frequently.
Democrats and all RINOs still believe the “Tipsy’” O’Neal failed con slogan which states: ‘All politics is local.’
Democrats and RINOs have used this failed slogan with great success to expand the number of non-working, non-taxpayers on their ballooning Welfare Plantation, paid for by borrowing to increase the National Poverty Debt.
In summary, RINOs belong in the Museum of Failed Politicians, (MOFP), and not on the taxpayer’s payroll.
Make 2014 the year of the extinct Federal RINO!
Might Romney’s political views have similarly shifted to the Right due to the 2012 campaign?
_______________________________________
they might but why would he ??? Why should he ???
though it is easy to give lip service to certain political views, don’t you ever watch for political actions ???
a record speaks of what a guy does not how he thinks...
and if you are talking about that propaganda film that Willard made about himself called Mitt that was shot over 6 long years and there would be 100s of feet of film left on the cutting room floor that didn’t make your boy Willard shine like a new penny...
apparently the profanity from Willard for instance was cut out...
anything that exposed his mocking of Conservatives and Conservative values was destroyed...
all you saw was a feel good Disney production the caricature of a matinee idol and not a real life portrait of a man..
the movie was designed to be a campaign ad for 2016, not an exposure of Willard’s true “heart of heart views and principles.”
Again, my point is that Romney has the potential to be useful to the GOP and to the conservative cause. I have seen far less likely things happen in politics. As for Todd Akin, he had a well-earned reputation in Congress as an oddball and was a poor choice as a GOP Senate nominee.
Romney is just the opposite as you dishonestly insist on portraying him, his liberalism is just something you agree with and want to advance in the GOP.
Why won’t you discuss the hurdle he would face in 2016?
Why won’t you explain how your man, who’s biggest challenge was to convince the primary voters that he had honestly switched to being pro-life in 2006 when he started running for president, is going to explain how, after he finally won the nomination, he reverted back to being pro-abortion in 2012 and campaigned on not supporting their pro-life party platform?
If Romney ran and lost, in doing so, he could do much to unify the party behind an eventual Tea Party type nominee like Cruz or Walker and thereby help the GOP to win the general election. Or, Romney might win the nomination on the premise of being the strongest GOP general election candidate against Hillary or whomever the Democrats nominate.
Assuming that Romney gave adequate assurances, National Review and most conservatives would support him in the general election. Would you instead sit out the election, whimpering, cowering, and gnashing your teeth because Romney was the GOP nominee?
Since you regard Romney as utterly flawed, unattractive, and irremediably liberal, why do you fear any prospect of him running in 2016? The mere mention of him running in 2016 gives you the vapors and unable to make a coherent argument. You also seem unable to name a candidate whom you prefer in 2016 to Romney.
I’m totally coherent, and totally fact based, it is why you simply post your personal wishes and hopes, and ignore the facts.
Will your man run as pro-abortion this time, or have another unexplained epiphany and become pro-life for the second time?
Do you think he can pull off yet another switch on the abortion/pro-life stance, this time switching from where he was in November 2012?
As I have stated at least twice, my preference is for Cruz or Walker as the 2016 Republican nominee. Why are you unable or unwilling to identify even one GOP candidate whom you prefer to Romney?
Don’t you think it is a little early to require people to name their 2016 candidate?
Just because you came out swinging for Mitt Romney doesn’t mean that all of us have to commit to a choice, before we even know what the choices are.
It is easy and appropriate though to name those who absolutely do not belong among the possibles, and Mitt Romney is at the top of that list, besides, you don’t really think he could reverse his abortion position yet again, do you?
If it is premature to talk about 2016 candidates, then why does any talk of Romney give you the vapors, especially when Romney adamantly says he is not running?
Why not just read the post, or at least quit lying, I didn’t say “it is premature to talk about 2016 candidates”, I said “Don’t you think it is a little early to require people to name their 2016 candidate?”
On Romney I made it clear also, “It is easy and appropriate though to name those who absolutely do not belong among the possibles, and Mitt Romney is at the top of that list, besides, you don’t really think he could reverse his abortion position yet again, do you?”
Can’t you read the post that is right there in front of you, and not rewrite it dishonestly?
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.