Posted on 12/28/2011 6:54:27 AM PST by TBBT
Also, the stakes are too high this year to let another "gentlemen loser" like Romney get the nomination. If we give Obama another four years, we may very well not have a democracy left in which we can have the luxury of casting a "principled" vote in ever again.
For those who fear a President Romney, don't worry about it because it isn't going to happen either way. Either Romney will lose the nomination or he'll lose to Obama in November. Choose your poison accordingly.
For even if Mitt Romney was a conservative we could get behind, he just does not have a very good track record in elections. Mitt Romney is a pushover, a milquetoast who has only won ONE election in his political career and even that was a unimpressive 5-point victory in the Massachusetts 2002 gubernatorial election against one of the biggest lightweights the Democrats ever ran in a statewide election (Shannon O'Brien). How much of a lightweight was Shannon O'Brien? Well, despite being a lifelong Massachusetts resident, I had to Google Mitt Romney's Wikipedia article to get her name because I had forgotten all about her.
Once in the governor's chair, Romney was so disinterested in the job that he didn't even run for re-election, nor did he ever prepare a successor, saddling us with the Obama-clone Deval Patrick. Romney apparently only used the governorship to impose mandatory health care, an initiative that he hoped he could use as a springboard for the 2008 presidential campaign.
That was the only political election Romney ever won. In 1994, which, remember, was a big Republican year, Romney was trounced by Ted Kennedy in a senate bid. And some Republicans think they want this guy to be their standard-bearer against Obama in 2012?
Trust me, if Romney gets this nomination, the only thing Romney will need to work on next summer is his concession speech - which is something, I might add, that he has more than a little experience with.
Romney will go down in history with John McCain and Bob Dole as just another gracious loser - a nice guy running an uninspiring campaign while the liberal Democrats kick his ass from Maine to California.
Excellent post.
Thompson had one job to do. Split the conservative vote in SC, the decider state, enabling McCain to squeak out a 33-30 win over Huck there. Bad times.You're absolutely right. And I was one of the delusional "bitter clingers" hanging onto Thompson at the time. Hindsight being 20-20, I would have done it differently. Had I viewed it "realistically" as simply a choice between Huckabee and McCain, I would have taken Huckabee. Huckabee at the time was the only one that could have stopped McCain. Like I've said many times... If not Newt, it will be Mitt.
Your exactly right. I think Palin might jump in as an independent if we end up with someone we have to hold our nose and vote for. Yes, I said it; let the verbal beatings begin.Ok...
I did enjoy the two folks from Fox Business who came on last night when Mark Steyn subbed for Hannity.
Styne was pushing hard for them to smear Newt and they would have no part in it.
Fred was too close to his recovery from cancer and looked tired with no "fire in the belly".
I saw him on the tube the other night and he looked so much more robust that I thought, "If he looked like this the last time around, things may have turned out differently".
As they say....timing is everything.
And what is Fox News doing? Pushing Romney hard and trying to take Newt out I did enjoy the two folks from Fox Business who came on last night when Mark Steyn subbed for Hannity. Styne was pushing hard for them to smear Newt and they would have no part in it.I saw that too. Wanna bet that Fox News doesn't allow that to happen again...?
One other thing... Our “conservative” blogs are getting just about as bad as Fox News...
Yes really.
The real conservatives will not finish in single digits, except Perry if you insist on calling him one.
Newt’s second largest contributor is Poet LLC, he should
do really well in Iowa //s.
I doubt Gingrich is working covertly for Romney, but I don't doubt that Gingrich would accept the #2 spot on the Republican ticket next to him if Romney wins the nomination.
If I had to vote for someone it would be Santorum. I would not vote for Romney, Newt or Paul.
The Republican Party has been throwing Conservatives under the bus since Goldwater.
They court us, take that to its inevitable conclusion and after the election tear the page out of their little black book and file it under 'next time'.
Now they tease us (bait and switch) with a couple of 'token' conservatives and blow them out of the water using Alinsky tactics as soon as they get any traction with the electorate--Which is why being 'front runner' has been a game of musical chairs this year.
They aren't even trying to hide it in the face of the ABO panic out here.
Paul and Romney are experts at running for president. Paul has run at least three times. Sorry, there is something amiss in the Virginia law when so many candidates could not have been included and I seriously doubt even Santorum or Bachmann would have made it.
Romney had the Lt Gov? (I may be wrong) submit his petition? both Perry and Gingrich should be included and the Virginia election process needs to undergo some serious changes. This is NOT over yet. We will not give up so easily and until this process is scrutenized and looked into or possibly a loophole is found...the entire process stinks.
Fox News has become The Mitt Romney Campaign Headquarters. The way to beat a lot of this is to go ON the Iowa sites and blog your guts out...go on the Virginia site and do the same. Have your facts straight and get the message out. FR is a wealth of information and it has to be used all over the internet. Maybe we could start a petition of freepers and send it to Fox News. Send it to everyone from O’reilly to Hannity to the owners.
We will see, sad to say on Tuesday:
Paul 25 ..I hate that! But it is what it is, dude.
Newt 19
Willard 18
Perry 9
Michele 9
Santorum 7
But in SC and FL..Newt wins each by TWELVE POINTS leading to Gingrich/Rubio ‘12 & ‘16, BABY!
If I had to vote for someone it would be Santorum. I would not vote for Romney, Newt or Paul.If you had to vote?
Sorry - I’m not buying.
Each election rolls around and I keep hearing that past positions and records are to be overlooked - it is the more recent statements and actions that are more meaningful. Well - that is all well and good, except in this election cycle, we are seeing “Conservatives” using this tact very selectively.
In this case - Newt supporters are clinging to a record from over a decade ago, over his much more recent and troubling ideas, statements, and positions. Since the days of the “Contract with America” and holding Clinton’s feet to the fire somewhat to, at least on paper, balance the budget - Newt has ventured far from the ranch - His positions have grown troublingly more and more “big government”. He supported RomneyCare and the individual mandate included. He dove off head-first into manmade-global warming and the associated strong support for Cap and Tax.
He is soft on illegal immigration (throwing “family values” into his defense of what is essentially another amnesty - even if not a “path to citizenship”).
Am I to also overlook his “consulting fees” from the bankrupt FreddieMac?
He stated he would have voted for the bailouts (after all - he directly benefitted from them...).
And this is all without even starting on his moral troubles since his past “successes” in Congress...
President - Gingrich
Vice President - Bachmann
Secretary of State - Bolton
Secretary of Defense - West
Secretary of Commerce - Cain
Attorney General - Issa
Secretary of Interior - Palin
Secretary of Education - William Bennett (as caretaker until the department is abolished) either him or the current head of the National Association of Scholars (the right-of-center university faculty organization that fights for academic freedom and against the watering down or curriculum)
Dept. of Energy : abolished, with functions dealing with extraction moved under Interior, others abolished or moved into Commerce (not sure who I pick for caretaker Sec. of Energy)
Dept. of Housing and Urban Dev.: abolished (ditto about the caretaker)
Dept. of Health and Human Services: not sure (just to make leftist heads explode, though I'm sure he wouldn't take it, Charles Murray's name should be floated)
Dept. of Labor: abolished with most functions moved into Commerce (again not sure about the caretaker)
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.