Skip to comments.Romney getting band back together
Posted on 02/15/2010 9:27:18 AM PST by C19fan
One of the first big moves of 2012 -- Mitt Romney Names Matt Rhoades PAC Executive Director: BOSTON -- Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC announced today that Matt Rhoades, who has held senior positions on major presidential campaigns and at the Republican National Committee, will serve as the PAC's executive director. ....................................................
Rhoades, who's moving to Boston, is a well-regarded guy whose return to Romney pretty much confirms what will surprise nobody: That he's running in 2012. He's also, incidentally, been valued for his relationship with a key player in any GOP primary, Matt Drudge.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The thing is that Palin left with high approvals even after the media had been unloading on her nonstop.
Romney wanted to win reelection but he was such a lousy Governor that he finally admitted that the people would not elect him a second time, he lost the seat for Republicans, after all that, he wants to be promoted to President.
And yet again you mock Jim Robinson without pinging him.
I wasn’t mocking him, I was mocking you. I assume you pinged him. You are the one who invoked his name, not me.
So what do you think of Jim's official freerepublic statement? Is he just "slinging crude, ad hominem insults on FR"?
"If there is anyone here who doesn't understand why we cannot support a slick socialist politician like Mitt Romney, God help you, but you're on the wrong website. We went through this with the abortionist, gay rights activist, illegal alien supporting, gun grabbing Rudy Giuliani until someone created another website call WAnkers for Rudy and they all flew the coop. Hopefully, before too much FReeper blood is shed, someone will create a WAnkers for Romney site and we can be left to fight the good fight as we see fit!
FR is not for everyone!
1 posted on Sunday, May 03, 2009 12:32:08 PM by Jim Robinson "
You got it!
Yes but the standards in the first post weren’t lived up to by Palin. I’m ok if that is the poster’s argument for opposing Romney. But then it would be disingenuous at best to turn around and support Palin with such a stance against Romney, if that were the case.
Palin had real reasons to leave office in Alaska and join the national debate, Romney simply failed and was driven from an office that he wanted to be reelected too.
Don’t be a f****g idiot.
Fellate ‘em all you want, toots.
RomneyCare includes subsidized and “free” (aka, taxpayer-funded) coverage for those who can’t afford it. This is on top of Medicaid. That’s socialisim—in addition to the fascism of the goverment forcing people to buy a product.
From CATO (the whole article is worthwhile):
Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something “for free,” and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage.
RESULTS Feb. 2010 Early Freerepublic.com straw vote FOR GOP PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION
Governor Palin was the overwhelming choice of freepers who voted!
Palin - 102 votes - THE WINNER
None Of The Above - 12 votes
Barbour - 10 votes
Hunter - 8 votes
Demint - 7 votes
Pence - 3 votes
Ryan - 3 votes
Jindal - 2 votes
Jeb Bush - 2 votes
Liz Cheney - 2 votes
Mitch Daniels - 2 votes
Newt Gingrich - 2 votes
Thune, Gary Johnson, Joe Wilson, Scott Brown and rick Perry all got a vote.
No Votes for Romney or Huckabee .... 0 votes (none, zed, nada, doughnut, oh-no)
You keep trying to argue with me but you didn’t even make the post I was referring to (post 1). Therefore, unless one of your reasons for opposing Romney is that he only served one term and didn’t run for re-election, I’ve got no beef with you.
I took the original posters point to be that Romney sucked so bad that he had to forget his hopes for reelection and give up the office and was so clumsy and inadequate that he gave the office to the Democrats.
I think that is a valid observation and another argument against him. He sucked in the one elective office that he ever succeeded in winning during a 17 year political history to date.
That record is a reason to not consider such a loser.
“I think that is a valid observation and another argument against him.”
Then you have no problem accepting it as a vid argument against Palin.
Where is the comparison, Palin was a good Governor, pleased the people, left office with high approval and kept the office in Republican hands, she resigned, she was not forced from office because of lack of support from her citizens. Romney was denied the second term that he badly wanted, Palin was not in danger of being rejected for a second term and she did not hurt the state by losing it.
How could you read my posts and then take it upon yourself to lie, and put words in my mouth, is that just your way of coping?
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.