Posted on 02/16/2014 8:11:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
OK I just looked into your posting history, you have been a romneybot all along, even supporting him back in 2008.
You only play dumb and spontaneous as a part of your routine, you have been pushing the guy since preferring him and voting for him in 2008.
You know the facts, it’s just that you like his liberalism, here we are on a Palin thread in 2010 where you are denigrating Palin and comparing Romney to Reagan.
To: Rockingham
*”Do you have reliable sources for your claims against Romney?”*
Of course I do, you have six years here and you never learned anything about the guy, yet you like him as a candidate?
94 posted on 2/8/2010 9:55:32 AM by ansel12
In 2008 and 2012, in weak fields of GOP candidates, Romney eventually seemed to have the best chance of winning the general election. In 2008, I gradually came to prefer Romney to McCain, who seemed (and was) destined to lose the general election with an inept general election campaign. In 2012, I considered Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum but decided on Herman Cain as my first preference before settling for Romney after Cain's campaign imploded.
Despite running an inept general election campaign in 2012, in 2016, Romney may offer the best prospect of beating Hillary or whomever the Dems nominate. Yet my preference is for Cruz as president, and his or another conservative's chances in the general election would almost certainly be improved by defeating Romney for the GOP nomination.
In 1980, Reagan demonstrated his talent and determination as a candidate by winning the GOP nomination against George H. W. Bush and other rivals. Reagan's campaign organization also went through a major shakeup that resulted in the highly capable Bill Casey being installed by Reagan as his campaign manager.
Apart from insisting that Romney is a liberal, on what points do you disagree with my logic, whom do you prefer in 2016, and what case do you offer on their behalf?
So in 2008 you fought for the most liberal in the field, Romney, and you kept fighting for him for the next 4 years, and you are still fighting for him for the future.
That is just being a plain old liberal, and romneybot.
After FR spending 8 years trying to tell you how radically anti-conservative Mitt Romney is, it is clear that you are truly devoted to his liberal politics, and want him over any and all possibilities.
This is just true, hard core, personal devotion to the man, and his lefty agenda.
Romney won’t be running this time, but we can bet that you will swoon for the rino that he backs.
I get that you don’t like Romney and that it has spilled over into vituperation and falsehoods against me, but which candidate or candidates do you suggest that we should support for President in 2016 — and why? And whom did you support in 2008 and 2012 — and why?
I have this file, (pun intended), who should not run.
MSM will put any talking head on their shows.
Ask McCain. He loves being on Sunday Morning shows.
Having Romney run (let alone actually win the nomination) would be a very bad thing.
However I think having himout there now, in the capacity of being Obama’s losing 2012 challenger, is a good thing. A lot of folks are seriously regretting having pulled the lever for Obama. Reminding them of how they were presented with a viable alternative and chose poorly may lead them to pull the lever for Republicans this Fall.
However, I don’t believe that the value Romney has right now, in the midterms, translates into good positioning to take on Hillary or another Dem nominee in 2016. We need new blood and solid Conservatism at the top of that ticket.
I haven’t said anything false about you, you were voting for Romney back in 2008 and you have always been devoted to him.
Here it is February of 2014 and you are pushing him for 2016, just as you have been for at least 7 years, that is devotion, and a firm, unwavering commitment to a liberal agenda.
You are trying to build support for the man to run, even now.
You have been trolling for the guy all this time, always with the same effort to appear fresh, as though it is a new idea to you, just like on this thread, many years of that same phony act to push Romney.
As for Romney being a liberal, he enjoyed the support of Human Events, National Review, and virtually all major conservative figures.
Fo example, immediately after the 2012 election, Ann Coulter wrote that "Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. . . . Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded. Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it's delusional and won't help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future."
It is amusing to watch you drop your veil.
This is why you never engage on the specific facts about Romney, for you, it is always the sales pitch, the advancing of his name forward.
Aside from the fact that he can’t win elections, his pro-abortion position and ads that he re-adopted after he won the nomination, will keep him from running in 2016, from his days as a Planned Parenthood fund raiser, to his impassioned pleas for abortion, and family stories in defense of his pro-abortion beliefs, to his switching back to them in 2012, he could never reverse himself yet again for the 2016 cycle.
There won’t be a 2016 Romney, but you guys can hope to elevate him and utilize him to make sure of getting in another weak rino for 2016, which is the intention of the liberal wing, although you personally, seem to just truly want more Romney.
In 2016 not only would he have to confront his lifelong support for abortion, but he would also have to defend his wanting to remove the GOP pro-life position from the party platform in 2012.
Mitt Romney’s record, to put it gently, has not always been that of a National Review conservative. The more we have learned about the health-care plan he got enacted in Massachusetts, the less wise we consider it. During his campaign he has too often been unimaginative or vague on health care, federal spending, and taxes. Yet he has also stood, riskily, for a necessary reform of entitlements. He has vowed to be a reliable ally of pro-lifers and judicial conservatives. Without indicating any desire to go to war with Iran, he has treated its nuclear ambitions, and the increased power their realization would gain it, with an appropriate alarm (and we trust Tehran would read his election as a negative development). He has made it clear that in cutting spending he would be mindful that the national defense is the federal government’s foremost responsibility. In choosing Paul Ryan as his prospective vice president he has shown far better judgment than Obama, whose own pick weekly demonstrates that the categories of buffoon and demagogue are not mutually exclusive.
In this election we are proud to stand with Mitt Romney over the vain collectivist in the White House, and we hope the voters will make the same decision.
From: Mitt Romney for President.
You may disagree with this analysis and conclusion, but you cannot credibly call it liberal or the product of a liberal. In essence, it is my view of Romney today as well, that he would be preferable to Hillary or whomever the Democrats would nominate. If you prefer another candidate for the nomination, you ought to state who they are and make your case. My preference is for Ted Cruz, or perhaps Scott Walker, but I would like to see Romney also in the mix as a possible candidate.
He has vowed to be a reliable ally of pro-lifers and judicial conservatives.
______________________________________
Kid check out the grouop of GOP that Willard has listed as his picks for 2016 that he has promised to support..
All of them are RINOs not one Conservative among them..
Most of them are pro-abortion, big government, AMNESTY pushers, SSM, etc..
do you really think Christie would make a good president ???
Your boy Willard does ...
How about Rubio ???
but your Mormon Slick Willie has not mentioned any Conservatives...never ted Cruz...
Both Christie and Rubio have open Presidential ambitions, while Cruz remains relatively coy. Those three and others, including Palin, are expected to speak at CPAC this year and may clarify their intentions. As for Christie, I believe that he is too damaged, too moderate, and too temperamentally unreliable to be a credible GOP Presidential candidate. Rubio may yet be salvageable, but he must man up and resolve the mistrust that he earned by repudiating his election promise and getting aboard amnesty as he did.
your boy Willard is a lifetime Liberal...
He doesn’t intend to support a Conservative...even if he or she is the GOP nominee...
As for Christie, I believe that he is too damaged, too moderate, and too temperamentally unreliable to be a credible GOP Presidential candidate
______________________________________________
Willard doesn’t...
Willard thinks Christie would make a fine president...
Similarly, Romney has considerable value to the GOP and conservatives in spite of his record and any defects in his heart of heart views and principles. Romney could help raise large sums for the GOP. He could endorse and energetically campaign for the eventual GOP nominee, helping to reconcile doubters to a Ted Cruz nomination, for example.
It should also be recalled that even well-established political figures sometimes change their views. In Reagan's 1976 campaign, he made an effort to appeal to moderates by announcing Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker as his running mate. Many conservatives grumbled at the choice and the episode was quickly forgotten after Reagan's loss of his campaign for the nomination.
The experience was transformative though for Schweiker. For the first time, he came into close association with conservatives and found that he shared more of their principles than he realized. Schweiker's votes in the Senate shifted sharply Right and he eventually served as HHS Secretary after Reagan's election to the Presidency in 1980.
Might Romney's political views have similarly shifted to the Right due to the 2012 campaign? I suspect that must be so to some degree, with Romney getting enough of a political education in 2012 to learn what most of us in this forum already know.
Romney could help raise large sums for the GOP
___________________________________
he could...
but he wont...
He didn’t in 2008 and he didn’t in 2012...
Which Conservative did Romney raise money for in 2008 ???
Which Conservative did Romney raise money for in 2012 ???
Let me tell you about 2012 and Romney and his opportunity to raise money if he had wanted to...
Because of Romney’s marching orders the GOP deserted a Conservative and left his campaign to die of lack of funds...
Willard had the GOP cut off Todd Akin...
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?
Romney is dead in the water, he won a single election in his 20 years of running for office.
After all, Christie is likely to remember and return such favors as are rendered in his current distress.
_____________________________________
How hypocritical do you aspire too ???
Christie’s current distress ???
What about the distress of Todd Akin that Willard caused and then didn’t help him ???
Yes Willard caused much of it...
Willard made a mountain out of a mole hill...
he made it all about him..
Willard is a narcissistic egotist and everything has to be about him...
he and Obama are joined at the hip in their its all about ME...
Willard cried like a wee girlie man that he is “Oooo this is going to hurt ME ME ME”
and the liberal Willard fed Conservative Todd Akin to the lions..
wheres your pity for Akin ???
Wheres your “If I were a prominent Republican, I too would say nice things about Akin for the sake of supporting him and damning the Democrats who are after his scalp”
not that Willard is a prominent Republican...
Romney has considerable value to the GOP and conservatives in spite of his record and any defects in his heart of heart views and principles.
_________________________________________
Name them...
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.