Skip to comments.Mitt Romney not into ‘vision thing’
Posted on 05/28/2012 6:20:36 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
The presumptive GOP nominee has some Republicans worried he lacks the vision thing that has hurt previous presidential candidates and haunted George H.W. Bush in his quest to succeed Ronald Reagan.
Some GOP officials fear that their nominee for president has so far failed to articulate a clear and compelling plan for the country if he defeats President Barack Obama in November. Instead of framing his ideas in a positive and specific way like some of his GOP primary challengers they say Romney must stop solely running a defensive campaign that leaves voters without a clear idea of where he stands.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
You would call Nana and me "purists" for rejecting Hillary Clinton if she switched parties and ran on the GOP ticket.
You are deceiving yourself when you indulge in the fantasty that we're rejecting Romney because we're "purists." You are only fooling yourself.
I believe our nation will be better off with Obama GONE..The choice for me is a simple one..I will vote to toss Obamanation and his administration out.
I will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat Obama..
I will vote for Romney if he is the one most likely to do so.
My first presidential ballot was cast for Eisenhower..I have yet to vote for a perfect candidate..
Okay, you’re right. You people are only purists in your own mind.
Here in the real world, you are haters and dreamers, pinning your hopes on the perfect candidate who doesn’t exist.
Letting your hate for Romney overcome all reason. Letting it fester and grow until that’s all you think about.
Purists? No. Pure idiots is more like it.
You know it’s vulgar.
And I’m only offended a few times a day from people like you on this forum.
My real life friends and associates do not use that expression.
Altura, I am not sure how you can maintain that we are “all sick of the vision thing” when we haven’t had a taste of it for so long.
Neither Bush had it. Dole and McCain didn’t have it.
The vision thing is what makes a political philosophy coherent.
Now, would I settle for a candidate who didn’t have the vision thing, but had reasonably conservative emotions or instincts (e.g. Perry)? Yes. But it is settling.
Romney has consistently behaved as if we are the ones to be managed. He is the one most likely to go Charlie Crist on us, but more likely to take the party with him, if he is POTUS.
Brushing off Santorum as a “loser” when he won a very large northeast state two times out of three and sticking around for a credible challenge on almost no resources means that we will continually accept only pre-screened establishment candidates. That might be okay with you. It might have been okay in the era of Eisenhower. It is not okay now. Too much is at stake. I cannot really consider Romney a winner as he didn’t even stick around for a re-election, which he almost certainly would have lost. He won as a William Weld Republican, he will govern as a William Weld Republican.
You do realize that Romney on the ticket will only depress turnout over the large portion of the country where down ballot Republicans actually win elections. Even now, the talk is that Romney fits the profile of the candidate that will make it closer, but not all that close in the liberal northeast, and will do worse in the rustbelt and the heartland than almost any other candidate (e.g. Santorum, Pawlenty). He’ll get votes because he’s not Obama, but so would Cain and Bachmann.
So, on this discussion site, instead of telling Blackelk to dry up, perhaps because he is reiterating points made before, that remain largely unrebutted, you might actually engage.
No Romney. No Obama. I don’t plan on drying up, either.
You want to threaten me or do just threaten folks who post under names suggesting being mature ladies of the Southland?
We got along without ya before we met ya and soon enough we are gonna get along without you in futuro.
Since that means I am joining in what you hallucinate to be a threat by Tennessee Nana, and you don't take "threats" very well, whatcha gonna do about it, Newbie?
Not satisfied with being a prone Mythbot prostrate before Myth's altar of mushball trashbag "Republicanism," you seem to think you have some business being an aggressive Mythbot as well and on an actually conservative website, no less!
Ohhhh, Myth promised to repeal Obozocare!!! Myth is the godfather of Obozocare. But, but Myth is not Obozo!!! No, merely Obozo's white ideological twin separated at birth.
You don't really have a problem with cliquishness. After all, you've got Altura in your clique and then there's.... and then.... Oh there must be SOME other Myth lovers out there in FRee Republicland! Aren't there????
If you are the shade of Comrade David Galloway of NBC Snooze, you might get the other shades of the golden age of network propaganda: Walter Cronkite, Edward R. Murrow, Chet Huntley, the unreformed David Brinkley, John Cameron Swayze and the rest to join you in playing make believe conservative. How much is Myth paying you? You can't be that much of a Romney whore and not get paid.
In any event, get this straight: When you and/or Altura take up your portable red lights, mattresses and sacks of quarters to vote for Myth (if you do), understand that many veteran FReepers will not be joining you and/or Altura.
This year's priorities were #1: Defeat Romney and, if and only if Romney was defeated in the GOP nomination contest, #2: defeat Obozo. Priority #1 failed. Priority #2 is no longer of any concern. Like others here, I will vote for Tom Hoefling who gives me the opportunity to cast an honest vote reflecting the actual conservative principles by which I have lived my political life and I will celebrate the defeat of as many of Myth Romney and Barack Insane Obozo as lose. Others here may vote for Virgil Goode. On the first Wednesday after the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, I will hit the ground running in the Resistance to either Myth or Obozo if one of them happens to win.
If, as seems quite unlikely, you are actually conservative, don't waste anyone's time whining about how disappointing Myth is when he names David "Swish" Souter live alikes to the SCOTUS and other courts or Herod Blackmuns or John Paul Stevens types or other social revolutionary trash, when he caves to the entire "green" agenda including cap 'n' trade, when he concentrates entirely on trust fund protection and further tax cuts designed to comfort only the comfortable, when he puts the fedgov ever deeper in debt, when he grabs guns, etc. Myth is the absolutely worst excuse for a "Republican" ever nominated by the denizens of Wall Street indifference to the interests of ordinary Americans.
I ain't voting for Myth. If you do, expect to be held fully accountable.
You have been around long enough to well understand that I ain't drying up and I ain't going nowhere. How often do you post or do you just lay low to not be conservative but stay at Holiday Inn last night???
Ignoring you is no challenge but whatever I deem to be my business IS my business. Do you expect that you will EVER have anything of substance to say when you are sooooo busy genuflecting to Myth on a conservative website and seem to get your knees in your mouth nonetheless.
BTW, Newbie, with all the rough and tough stuff, anonymous keyboard warrior, which scares no one, I doubt that anyone here is likely to give a rat's patoot over whatever you may hallucinate in servitude to the Massachusetts trashbag.
Finally, with your links, are you actually using FR to advertise commercial products??? Do you have JimRob's permission? Do you pay advertising fees to JimRob? I was getting: single mother makes $77/hr. on the internet and some BS about winning a $1,000 gift card from Walmart and/or IPads and Iphones. Perhaps trespass is your profession???
"Hes talked about the right people for judges."
"He has no particular blemish in his background ..."
I take it that you are not actually voting for Myth. I won't vote for a persecutor of the Church and I would be very surprised if you did. Caligula, Nero, Diocletian, Obozo, Myth. You see one, you see them all.
Although Mr. Romney wasn't my first, second or third choice, unlike you, I don't equate him with Caligula, Nero, Diocletian or Obama. In my view, the alternative to Mr. Romney is worse than Mr. Romney.
So, it is my plan, barring unforeseen events that either prevent Mr. Romney from getting the nomination or somehow prevent Obama from being renominated, to vote for Mr. Romney.
Morally, no. But politically? You have to be kidding me. He has a clear history of being a gun grabbing, big government, high tax POL who created almost the same Monster for MA as Obozo did with ObamaCare.
I am an unreconstructed proponent of limited government, very limited Federal Government, pro individual freedom and liberty, pro independent business, pro sound currency, pro religious freedom, pro military, pro 2nd Amendment, pro 10th Amendment and on and on.
I respect you too much to engage in an argument that neither of us is inviting. If you are successful in electing Myth, may he indeed not be the functional equivalent of Caligula, Nero, Diocletian or Obozo. I suspect that he is such an equivalent and will not vote for him. In any event, may God bless you and yours.
Thank you! The feeling is mutual.
I don't want to argue about it, either. I guess in this case, I'm pretty sure the devil I know is about as bad as it gets, and the devil I don't know could be a modest improvement.
That said, Mr. Romney strikes me as the second coming of G Bush I - a personally decent guy who wasn't really much of a conservative. But, unfortunately, a damned sight better than the alternatives in the general elections.
It's not smart of Romney at all to do this. Romney being vague has given Obama as the well-known incumbent a HUGE opening to do the defining for him, to independents & swing voters who don't pay close attention to politics. Similar to what happened to Kerry in '04, who Romney is even weaker than. Romney has no core values in politics so the Obama campaign is doing the etch-a-sketching for him.
There is a difference between defining of self and laying out a detailed political plan and agenda.
The Kenyan anti-Christ laid out little, if any, real specifics of policy during the 2008 election. In fact, I knew folks who thought he was a conservative pro-lifer. But he did take care to define himself as: brilliant; compassionate; hip; articulate; cool and reasoned (as opposed to McCain's overall nuttiness); a good family man; urbane; non-ideological (a surprisingly-important conceit) and; lettered.
I don't see him as much of any of those things, but he was very successful in getting folks on board thinking those things about him. So, we had Chris Matthews getting a hard-on for the anti-Christ, David Brooks marveling about the anti-Christ’s knowledge of Niebuhr, and Peggy Noonan gushing about how competent he was and how he could rise above partisanship.
Yet, the whole of his policy platform was “hope and change” and “I'm not Bush.”
Romney is following this successful model quite carefully. Whether he succeeds isn't certain, but he's doing the right things. He's coming across as thoughtful, intelligent, successful, upbeat, personally decent, not especially ideological, and most importantly, competent.
The whole of his policy platform could be given as “We'll fix the economy!” and he definitely has the whole “I'm not Obama” thing going for him.