Skip to comments.Mitt is Kicking Butt Out There
Posted on 05/25/2012 5:08:11 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: Mitt Romney yesterday on his website and his YouTube channel (he has a YouTube channel) released a new ad entitled, "Day One, Part 2." Romney's staying on message. There's one thing... I probably, in the near future, need to spend a little bit more time in this. But you know, everybody's talking about Obama and his daily events and so forth. But Romney is kicking butt out there, and Romney is staying on message, and Romney is rapid-firing back. And this is part and parcel of what has them a little bit discombobulated.
So here is a Romney ad staying on message Day One, Part 2.
ANNOUNCER: What would a Romney presidency be like? Day one: President Romney announces deficit reductions, ending the Obama era of big government, helping secure our kids' futures. President Romney stands up to China on trade and demands they play by the rules. President Romney begins repealing job-killing regulations that are costing the economy billions. That's what a Romney presidency will be like.
ROMNEY: I'm Mitt Romney, and I approve this message.
RUSH: Now on CNN's Starting Point this morning, Christine Romans, the fill-in host, talked to Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz, who runs the Democrat National Committee. By the way, do you know Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz was scheduled to appear and make a speech after services at a Miami temple, a Jewish temple? And a member of the temple, a man by the name of Tate stood up and said (paraphrased), "I'm outta here. If you bring her in here to make some concocted political speech on Friday night, I'm outta here. I mean, I'm out!"
So they canceled her. A Miami temple canceled the appearance by Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz. When was the last time you heard of that happening? Normally that's the kind of stuff that happens to us. One of us is scheduled to go someplace, the left protests it, and whoever was scheduled to host it shuts it down. Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz was disinvited or uninvited, and this Tate guy... I forget his first name. Stanley? I'm not sure. Anyway, he persevered.
And this temple is very close to her district. It's in Miami but it's very close to her district. Anyway, she was on CNN's Starting Point this morning and Christine Romans said, "I want to start with this attack on Romney and Bain Capital. A lot of people, Debbie, are seeing this as an attempt to disqualify Romney in battleground states, so the lunch-bucket Democrats have somebody to blame for their factories closing. The White House said this is their big strategy: Go after Bain; go after Romney. Will it play in those battleground states, and if it doesn't, what's Plan B?"
Day One, Part Two
SCHULTZ: It's not strategy! What it is is that Mitt Romney has made his record at Bain Capital his experience in the private sector -- which is almost exclusively at Bain Capital -- the central premise to American voters, uh, that ... that they should elect him president. There are thousands of workers who he laid off, uh, companies that they deliberately forced into bankruptcies, and Mitt Romney and his partners run -- made hundreds of millions of dollars.
RUSH: "Deliberately forced into bankruptcy."
So they're doubling down on Bain.
Whether it's working or not, they are going to double down on Bain.
And Romney's ads are entirely positive. And, by the way, remember all these calls against negative ads? "Gotta stop all the negative ads!" Well, Romney's out there running positive ads, and the media is still dissing his ads. The media is still ripping Romney's ads. The media is still criticizing Romney for his ads even though they're the essence of positive. So Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz says there basically is no Plan B. "We're going after Bain, we're going after Romney, and nothing gonna change." So Christine Romans says, "Well, why is it not hypocrisy for the president to take campaign donations from private equity when he's attacking private equity, making that an essential part of his campaign?"
SCHULTZ: Accepting a contribution from a particular person involved in venture capital and criticizing Mitt Romney -- who has made his record as a venture capitalist at Bain the central focus of his credibility and his qualification for being president -- are completely different things! So Mitt Romney, in the way that he ran Bain Capital -- the companies that he deliberately drove into bankruptcy, the creditors that he left with less than pennies on the dollar in return, and the thousands and thousands of people who he left on the unemployment lines while making hundreds of millions of dollars of -- in profits for himself and his partners -- is an appropriate examination for a man who is saying that this is the reason we should elect him president.
Who contributes to Barack Obama --
RUSH: Stop it! I feel like I'm I listening to Hillary. I can't stand it. It's nothing but... It's just poppycock. It's just lies. It's all lies. It's all absurd. I tell you what I'm gonna do. When we come back at the top of the hour, we'll do Marc Thiessen. Washington Post headline: "Forget Bain -- Obama's Public-Equity Record is the Real Scandal." And it's a list of all and every one of Obama's abject failures -- bailing out companies, green energy sector -- using your money. Romney used his own. Obama is using your money, taxpayer money is got a dismal record.
You talk about bankruptcies and people losing their jobs?
Obama's the king of destroying companies!
RUSH: The fact of the matter is Bain Capital was trying to keep these companies out of bankruptcy, and they were asked in to save these companies. These were not takeovers. This woman doesn't have the slightest idea what she's talking about.
Romney is an extreme liberal pretending to be a moderate or, at times, a conservative. A pretender will never get my vote. I vote for honesty, if honesty is not there, I don’t vote (that old conviction thingy hounds me day and night).
So, my choices are between a socialist/communist and another socialist who doesn’t have the ability or brains to realize that he is a member of a cult. Gee, choices, choices ... not my call.
Seems to be a lot of energy expended on my one vote ... sorry, my mind is made up. Let the chips fall were they may. If Obama wins, blame my one vote.
My convictions stand ...
To clarify, I will be voting for everything except for President. Polling machines don’t allow write in votes ... you must go to paper ballot. I will not go the write in option knowing that my vote will mean nothing.
Sorry if I’m a dumbsh*t in you estamation ... I have convictions that supercede political concerns.
I hear ya. However the Bishop is a photo negative of the original.
Do you really expect him to do the right thing about anything?
His plan is to trash Romney so that lots of people will stay home. It works for FR, they get Obama and it appears like their fingerprints were not on it.
You are wasting your time with these people. They never are happy with any candidate unless that candidate does everything they want. And if not - they proceed to tear him/her down.
We realize we have to fight - no matter the weapon we are given. Obama is destroying America and it is in our hands to do what we can to stop it. I do not want a dictator or destruction of our constitution. I don’t want anything in the hands of Obama or a democrat.
So - we may not get all we want - but at least we would have a man that does love America and is an American.
Suggest we spend our time with tea party people willing to fight against Obama.
These are bench sitters - so the voters will decide and they can sit at their computers and pat themselves on the back for sitting out the most critical election for America.
Primary’s mean nothing now.
Help yourself, vote for yourself, it will make no difference.
The big question is in November.
We all know that, but unfortunately we are stuck with him.
I don’t see any hope for anyone else so I vote anybody but Obama and that’s Romney.
Good move: That will free you of any guilt when Obama is elected.
That is actually a good picture of Was-A-Man.
If you consider yourself a social conservative, how does the following quote sit with your conscience?
“”Omission” is here taken to be the failure to do something one can and ought to do. If this happens advertently and freely a sin is committed. Moralists took pains formerly to show that the inaction implied in an omission was quite compatible with a breach of the moral law, for it is not merely because a person here and now does nothing that he offends, but because he neglects to act under circumstances in which he can and ought to act. The degree of guilt incurred by an omission is measured like that attaching to sins of commission, by the dignity of the virtue and the magnitude of the precept to which the omission is opposed as well as the amount of deliberation. In general, according to St. Thomas, the sin of omission consisting as it does in a leaving out of good is less grievous than a sin of commission which involves a positive taking up with evil. There are, of course, cases in which on account of the special subject matter and circumstances it may happen that an omission is more heinous. It may be asked at what time one incurs the guilt of a sin of omission in case he fails to do something which he is unable to do, by reason of a cause for which he is entirely responsible. For instance, if a person fails to perform a duty in the morning as a result of becoming inebriated the previous night. The guilt is not incurred at the time the duty should be performed because while intoxicated he is incapable of moral guilt. The answer seems to be that he becomes responsible for the omission when having sufficiently foreseen that his neglect will follow upon his intoxication he does nevertheless surrender himself to his craving for liquor.” newadvent.org
You, like Romney, give up entirely too easily on the real issues of the day.
We have one of two choices: a. help Obama b. help Romney
The only reason I’ll vote for the republican nominee is because
I consider the alternative to be truly evil.
ALL THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST OBAMA ARE MOOT WITH Milt
There is a difference and at this stage, any difference can the one that saves this Nation from destruction. If minds like Palin/Rush/Gingrich and others can see it and understand that Romney, despite his faults, is head and shoulders better than Obama, those with an ounce of sanity might consider it.
What you have on FreeRepublic is a bunch of egomaniacs who believe they’re doing the Lord’s work by being anti-Romney and anti-Morman. Look at the postings, extreme liberal? Oh, please.
You are correct in your care about this nation. We must get Obama out of the Executive; all the Democrats for that matter. But you can’t fight the human ego that’s attached to the religious bigotry on this forum. I have challenged some to prove that their own religions are provable; I receive nothing in return, save cheap responses, liberal type misdirection and stonewalling.
People will vote for Obama because he’s black, but they’ll give other reasons. People won’t vote for Romney just because he’s LDS, but they’ll give other reasons.
I remain free to tell others that Romney isn't the one we need.
You are engaged in magic thinking.
RomneyCARE exemplifies the Democrats.
Got THAT? Romney = RomneyCARE
Milt Romney is a bully, a backstabber, a liar, a cheater,
a statist, a destroyer of Constitutions,
a shapeshifter whom HIS PEOPLE CALL “Etch-a-Sketch”,
a piss poor Governor, and a vulture corporatist.
Please then tell us how he can win.
Romney was CHOSEN to lose and destroy America.
Yeah bozo those tough questions are just too hard to answer for your little mind aren’t they.
Great post. Just shows what rocket scientists we are dealing with here who are making FR a laughing stock in the blogosphere.
So ignore me boy.
Voting for a liberal is not the conservative position.
It is the position of chicken littles the sky is falling hand wringing bedwetters sniveling about the bogeyman under the bed.
As another FReeper put it:
"If you are afraid of Obama, vote for Mitt. If you are afraid of God, DON"T!"
>> an ounce of sanity <<
Obviously not required for posting on this thread!
How is Romney his "boy"? Pointing out that Romney is going to be the GOP nominee and that he is better than Obama doesn't make him anyone's "boy". Most people here wanted someone else, but our candidates lost or didn't run.
You are engaged in magic thinking.
LOL. You are still grasping at straws that Romney isn't the nominee aren't you? Still living in some fantasy world where you refuse to accept reality? Mitt not only will have all the delegates he needs, he will have lots extra to spare. Romney has 1084 delegates at the moment and will get plenty more when NJ, CA, TX, etc, vote. It's over dude. Romney is the nominee. Deal with it. You make yourself sound ridiculous when you continue to suggest Romney still may not be the nominee.
Yup, a lot of those type of people found a home here. I think because Romney was not the candidate most conservatives wanted, the anti-Mormon haters were given a lot of leeway. Their anti-LDS vitriol has spread all over the site now though, instead of just being confined to the religious forums. I really think it's driven a lot of mainstream conservatives away.
Fortunately, 90%+ of conservatives don't have these fringe anti-Mormon, anti-Romney positions. Most are going to vote for Mitt even though he is not their preferred candidate. The stakes are too high. Hussein must be defeated. The overwhelming majority of conservative voters understand this. The fringe Mormon bashers will make no political difference, though I do think they are hurting this website.
Stay positive! That’s the right way to go. Quickly debunk the Obama lying ads but keep Romney’s ads as positive as possible. Like ‘Morning in America’ Reaganesque.
I will definitely vote against Barrack Hussein Obama Dada in November.
2012 thru 2020 is going to be a long, hard stretch for you to pull, pal.
However, Romney is on record (at least on record second-hand via a Rush monologue) as saying he expects to be a one-term president. After making and implemening the hard choices necessary to realign the course of our republic, even many fiscal conservatives won’t want to re-elect him.
The serious austerity the slackers of America need to experience will be a hard way to go for all of us.
>> 90%+ of conservatives don’t have these fringe anti-Mormon, anti-Romney positions <<
Almost but not quite. The latest survey I’ve seen puts the number at 87%.
I used to think Blabbermouth Schultz should do something about her hair. I now think it’s just perfect just as it is ;) Blab on, Schultz.
You've convinced me. Guess I'll vote for Obama.
The 0bots don’t fear Romney.
He lost in one of the great landslides ~ and against a man who was corrupt to the core!
Regarding “Mormon bashers” might we ask which bunch of Mormons it is who are legitimate and which ones are illegitimate? I’d hate to be bashing the phony ones and wasting my time (if I were bashing Mormons).
Wait four more years for, at least, a somewhat conservative Republican nominee and, in the meantime, ride the backlash against a lame duck Marxist President to a record majority of Republicans in Congress.
Liberals might actually be right about Romney Republicans -- you are reactionaries. You're so desperate to get rid of Obama that you refuse to consider the damage a Romney President will do to the conservative movement and Republican party.
Republicans in Massachusetts held less seats in the legislation than at any time since the civil war after Romney was done there. And, Romney's leftist judges and healthcare plan continue to wreck havoc on the state.
No, I want to avoid a Romney President that will likely be a bigger disaster than the Bush 41 Presidency was. I want to prevent a liberal Republican from wiping out the gains that were made by the conservative movement in 2010. I want to avoid a scenario where Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia retire and are replaced by another David Souter.
Voting for Romney is political suicide for the conservative movement.
Romney's liberal policies devastated the Republican party in Massachusetts to the point there were less Republicans in the legislation than there had been since the civil war.
Here's a link to help yours:
Yeah, voting for liberal, one that was the father of gay marriage and provided the blueprint for Obamacare, is going to advance conservatism? ROFLOL! That notion is what is brain dead.
Maybe their souls will, barring repentance, for casting a vote for the father of gay marriage, someone that openly supports gay adoption and gays in the military and who is likely to replace judges like Scalia and Kennedy, neither of which would retire with Obama in the White House, with pro-Roe and pro-gay marriage justices.
Huh? No idea what you are going on about. My point was simply that recently there was a lot of Mormon bashing here. That may have always been the case on the religion forums, I wouldn't really know. What I have seen though, is that anti-LDS venom is being spewed all over the regular discussion threads. I think this is because almost all of us opposed Romney in the primaries and perhaps overlooked some of it. In that sense, maybe we are all at fault for not speaking up loudly enough before this nonsense spread.
There have always been cranks, crazies, religious bigots, conspiracy theorists, tin foil hatters, etc, here. That is part of any political forum, and not necessarily a bad thing. The key for a healthy forum is that the vast majority of grounded, sane, reasonable people keep the fringe in check. What has happened, unfortunately, is the anti-Mormon(ism) vitriol being spewed was allowed to go unchecked for too long. That has badly affected these forums and probably driven a lot of good, decent conservatives away.
It doesn't. But, it avoids a bigger disaster -- a Romney Presidency, which will be bigger than either Bush Presidency.
You keep wanting to pretend voting for a man with liberal record and no principles is going to make the country better. It won't.
I think we deserve an answer to that question ~
The risk with Romney is much greater because the party in the White House almost always loses seats in Congress.
The choice is between Obama and growing conservative majority in Congress or Romney and shrinking Republican minority. The latter is a far worse combination.
What makes you think conservatives are going to have that sort of leverage? We've seen Republicans far more conservative sellout their principles when exposed to DC culture and the media.
And, Romney KNOWS you'll vote for him no matter what he does. He establishment you and those voting for him are making threats they never follow through on.
Like, just to pick something at random, Scalia would want to quit for Mitt? Give Scalia credit for some sense?
How is it that this father of gay marriage has now suddenly disowned his offspring? Could it have been an adoption of convenience, and abandoned as quickly?
The time to cast the soul saving vote was in the primary. Now we are faced with the question whether the guard should change. You can’t cast a vote for a spoiler and pretend before either man or God that this time around it won’t do what spoilers always do.
You'll vote for him no matter what he does if office because you will always convince yourself he is the lesser of two evils. He and the establishment know that. You're making threats you never follow through on. It's like the little boy that cried wolf.
Shoot, if in 2016 a more sensible rival appears in the primaries, I’d cast a primary vote for him/her without a qualm. That’s the time to worry about souls. In November now the question is, should the guard change (or if it must change, which of two possibilities should it change to). Greater America will sit out Mitt if not vote for a Rat rival, if it is dispirited enough with his performance.
Let’s see, will a flip flopping, mushy moderate who always has a finger in the wind (but does have a lot of business sense) prove a less competent steward than a resolute far lefty who pretends that, say, requiring religious organizations to carry insurance policies that support things contrary to the religion (with the meaningless difference of “who” pays for it being “the company” i.e. the subscriber) is some kind of compromise?
The choice in November being such stinks to high heaven, of course.
“You keep wanting to pretend voting for a man with liberal record and no principles is going to make the country better. It won’t.”
And you’re pretending that a second Buckwheat term won’t damage the republic more. Buckwheat is already illegally ruling through the fascist bureaucracy and executive dictates, doing whatever he wants.
If we had Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens and the Radical Republicans like in the 1860s, I could see taking Buckwheat out. Stevens stripped Johnson of his commander in chief role and took over the military. He also effectively neutralized the court and pushed through Reconstruction without Johnson’s assent.
The entire Republican leadership today are gutless worms. There’s not a single Thaddeus Stevens among them.
What’s your plan to neutralize Buckwheat and his Nazi bureaucrats?
Um, no. I am not Mormon. In my view, Mormon's are not Christian. However, I don't see the need to bash them. In my view they are just another one of many religions I don't subscribe to. I don't vote based on a politicians religion. I know lots of wonderful Mormon people and I hold nothing against them. I also know many terrific Buddhist and Hindu's and have no issue with them either.
I think we deserve an answer to that question ~
Actually, you don't. But I gave you one anyway. Are you one of the FR Mormon bashers? I hadn't associated your name with that twisted group before, but looking at your responses I am beginning to think you may be one of them.
Of COURSE he is!!!
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, December 1, 1831. HC 1: 238239. The Prophet had continued to translate the Bible with Sidney Rigdon as his scribe until this revelation was received, at which time it was temporarily laid aside so as to enable them to fulfill the instruction given herein. The brethren were to go forth to preach in order to allay the unfriendly feelings that had developed against the Church as a result of the publication of some newspaper articles by Ezra Booth, who had apostatized.
14, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are sent forth to proclaim the gospel; 511, Enemies of the saints shall be confounded.
1 Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, that the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you, even as I will.
2 Verily I say unto you, proclaim unto the world in the regions round about, and in the church also, for the space of a season, even until it shall be made known unto you.
3 Verily this is a mission for a season, which I give unto you.
4 Wherefore, labor ye in my vineyard. Call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.
5 Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;
6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto youthere is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.
11 Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.
|The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
© 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.