|
Posted on 08/17/2012 3:40:53 PM PDT by mkjessup
Your comments about the media reminded me of something I was thinking about earlier. I hope Romney & Ryan don't accept an invitation to appear on "Saturday Night Live" like McCain and Sarah did. No minds will be changed by using that program. I mean, people who love a blowhard jerk like Alec Baldwin and whatsherhoozie that did the Palin impersonation are not going to vote for Republicans.
Yeah, I know it's Tina Fey, but she's just whatsherhoozie to me.
I agree. Those shows are nothing but a bear trap for any conservative politicians. Nothing good can come out of appearing on them. Especially with Romney as he is in no way cool and trying to appear cool will make him look like the world's biggest dork (think Richard Nixon on Laugh-In).
I suspect that Romney and Ryan are not going to be doing any entertainment shows this election. I hope I am right for they have serious business to attend to - such as removing the clowns that currently occupy our federal government.
Romney = philosophical threat
Obama = existential threat
Here is where Human Events reports Romney’s ACU rating of 88.98 over 9.45 years of service (they do rate Presidential nominees - try Google before you try slander and libel). http://www.humanevents.com/2012/01/05/romney-picks-up-most-congressional-endorsements-to-date/
Not as high as Paul Ryan’s 91.69, but better than Hussein’s 10%...
I have grown tired of you calling me a liar - it’s like having to deal with democrat.
Let me try again with small words and short sentences:
1.Reagan is good.
2.Even Reagan can seem bad, if you only talk about his bad points.
3. If you only look at bad points, and judge everything and anyhing by them, you will miss the good.
4. If you see only the bad points of someone, you can be so confused, as to think that Romney is as bad as Obama.
If you think clearly, and you care for this country, you will conclude that a better President is better than a worse President, and you would be able to see that Romney is better than Obama.
You lying to smear Reagan is a lot different than someone giving the accurate and truthful history of candidate Romney, a history that you do not know, and seem determined to pretend doesn’t exist.
Quit trying to tell us that ACU rates Governors and that the failed Massachusetts Governor who left with 34% approval had an ACU rating, the man is a stone cold liberal and the ACU never rated him.
Your level of BS and dishonesty and distortion and anti-Reaganism, and anti-conservatism, is high.
Quite honestly the fact that you need to write a long article to defend your decision to vote for Romney/Ryan against Obama/Biden, is mind boggling.
It’s not even a close call and never has been.
Well said. Sadly those who are arguing against you seem to engage in exceptionally convoluted reasoning.
It’s sad because Romney is running a very conservative campaign against a very very leftist Obama.
But they just tell you that everything Romney says is a lie.
Seems to me that if a candidate has to become more conservative, that is a good thing. Conversion to pro life is a good thing. But no, nothing can be seen as good from the evil Romney.
Well, except for the fact that he has never “converted to pro-life.” His own “pro-life” position to this day intrinsically destroys all the fundamental, essential principles upon which the pro-life position completely depends. Notwithstanding a paper-thin layer of lies he has put around the judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat, pro-choice for states package.
“For all his faults, Mitt Romney is Winston freaking Churchill compared to Barack Obama and the America-hating scum that surround him. We must remove Barack Obama this November.”
What he said.
Who thought up this brilliant strategy? The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly?
Nicely written.
You got it, I want that bumper sticker.
You left out the third Romney argument though,”yeah! but at least he isn’t Muslim”.
If Mitt Romney screws up as president, then what will conservative voters DO in 2016? Will there be a final candidate for the GOP POTUS in 2016 that, really, is a decent conservative, too, or will there, only, be Mitt Romney running for a second term?
Conservatism loses, if there aren’t enough conservatives in the House AND Senate to make conservative legislation law. Help to make the next House and the next Senate conservative enough to overrule and override anything and everything “leftist” that “a President Mitt Romney” attempts to do, during Mitt Romney’s entire duration as POTUS. Ditto, if Barack Obama is re-elected.
1. He regretted signing pro-abortion legislation as Govenor - you admit this.
2. He was divorced from Jane Wyman - fact. Back then, there was moral stigma associated with divorce, which is pretty well gone now. In its day, it was considered scandalous and offensive to social conservatives.
3. He was a once registerd Democrat - fact.
4. He was once a Union member - in fact he was a Union boss.
None of that is a lie. You saying those are lies, is a lie or an error. Liar, or just inattentive and biased enough to jump to the wrong conclusion?
My point is not to discount people in their entirety, if they fall short in one category or another, or fail one litmus test or another.
Did you check the Human Events link I provided for Romney's ACU rating? I guess they are just lying also, and everybody is lying, and everybody is lacking any redeeming quality, except for you.
No one who is a straight (no pun intended) uncompromising conservative on every issue could get elected in Massachusetts. If you want anyone to get in there and contest one party Democrat control of everything, they will HAVE to compromise some conservative positions. To insist on all or nothing in Massachusetts will reliably result in nothing - a decision that is either weak on logic emotionally immature.
My central point, is my opinion about Romney's motivation - I think a good bit of "why" he has adopted liberal social positions is simply a professional politician pandering to a liberal Massachusetts electorate to get elected. You seem to attribute it with utter certainty to an essential characteristic of his being, which is totally devoid of any truth or shame, etc., etc. Granted, if he were firmly committed against those positions he would not compromise on them, but to me, he seems more like he was carefully tap dancing around hot button social issues trying to please who he needed to please. I believe that his priority is fiscal conservatism, rather than social conservatism, and I believe that fiscal conservatism is something that we need urgently in Washington.
It is easy to be pure while sitting in one's PJ's at home, but to get out there every day for 12 or 15 hours with your shoes shined and shirt pressed dealing with everything under the sun to get elected as a Republican in Massachusetts with three registered Democratsis for every Republican is quite a feat, and demands quite a bit of juggling and finessing and smooth talking. As TR put it:
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds
Romney was not my first, second or third pick in the primary, But I can appreciate what a high wire act he had to perform as a Republican in Massachusetts, with the press recording every word to bash him as a right-wing extermist with the liberal majority of voters there.
I did not post in favor of Romney until the primary fight was done, and then I followed Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "Thou shall speak no ill of a fellow Republican." That commandment is based on practical politcal wisdom - You need to build a coalition of 50% plus 1 to win (52% or 53% if you are Republican, for the voter fraud margin).
Now that the primary is over, I am out knocking on doors and making phone calls and doing what I can to uphold the oath that I carried through 25 years of service and three wars - to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That does not leave me the luxury of nuturing any petty fits of pique.
Obama Must Be Defeated!
You are still lying.
You said Reagan “”did evolve to be solidly pro-life.””
“”Despite his (then) scandalously liberal personal life as a divorcee””
“”Thank goodness that conservatives supported him despite his Libertarian social leanings “”
I posted this * Reagan was always pro-life, he didn’t “evolve” into it, and yes that bill he hesitantly signed in his first six months in office in 1967, he regretted greatly, as it was abused. I have never heard that Reagan was famous for scandals. None of this has anything to do with the anti-Reagan Romney.
Reagan was a famously anti-communist Union head, and 1948 was the last time that Reagan voted for a democrat president, after that he always campaigned for the republican. Reagan was a social conservative, a famous hero of the religious right and social conservatives.
Conservatives did not support him “in spite of” he was THE LEADER OF CONSERVATISM, conservatives were his base, Reagan led them to victory over the Romney wing of the party.
Are you going to go to that Human Events link and actually read it? Or keep not reading it, like you do my posts?
Mitt Romney DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACU RATING!!
I have posted a great amount of history to you on Mitt Romney, and you simply ignore it and lie about him as though he was merely pretending to be a moderate republican in Massachusetts, a state that he did not have to run in ( he could have run in Utah), and besides, he was the FOURTH REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN A ROW there, it is a state that prefers republican governors.
You just blow off insights like this.
Mitt Romney- “One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
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.
