Skip to comments.Romney says his campaign doesn’t need a ‘turnaround’
Posted on 09/23/2012 8:51:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Mitt Romney insisted his campaign is not in need of a "turnaround" in spite of polls showing President Barack Obama expanding his lead in battleground states.
In an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," the Republican presidential nominee rejected criticism from conservative pundits who have called his campaign incompetent.
"It doesn't need a turnaround," Romney insisted, pointing to national polls that have him "tied" with Obama. "I've got a very effective campaign. It's doing a very good job."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I think we have discussed all the reasons nominating Romney was a bad idea, back in the winter and spring.
The insanity of allowing a “winner” to be designated in a party primary when 65% of the voters choose somebody else is revealed.
On November 7, there will be plenty of time for “I told you so”.
Now is not the time.
hello? This “gossipy woman” posted why she is voting FOR Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
Presidential elections, in the United States of America, in the year 2012 are between the nominees of two political parties. You might want that changed, you can do your part on that, but not by typing on a “conservative” website’s message board.
This year, we have Barack Obama whose record for the past four years as President of the United States of America is horrible at best. Unemployment is holding at a unsustainable level, more Americans than ever are beholden to the federal government for their mere existence, allies of this country have been publically insulted, race relations are at a low point that I’ve seen in my lifetime and let’s not even talk about the out of control spending. Mitt Romney, the republican candidate, nominated after a long and intense battle among the republicans (especially the ones here), has stated his intentions. Call Israel a friend, address the ever increasing on producers tax issues, repeal Obama Care. Just a few points.
Your choice is between those two candidates. Oh, you could write in some other name just to have some sort of ‘protest’ vote under your belt. I am going to start with the premise that you’re intelligent, you haven’t shown me anything to alter that thought, so you are well aware of the consequences of a non vote for the republican candidate or the writing in of a third party candidate, or a protest non vote.
This isn’t childish personal stuff.
This is the future of our country.
Get out there and work to elect the nominee of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney
OR, just keep complaining. Your choice.
“All Mitt can do, is hope that there are enough people who dislike Obama enough to choose, ‘the other guy’.”
And for me, for this election, that’s good enough. Whatever it takes.
This photo of Obama leading his campaign for September, shows serious problems brewing.
So the headline for this morning: Romney's Campaign in Disarray
thanks for your kind words.
I really do get disgusted when I read some of the posts here.
I see what you are saying here, and think you on the right sort of track. Yet the Benghazi mess might not be the best to have central focus upon. It's awkward now (but hopefully in a good way?). People in Libya, along with official "police" have moved against the militias there in effort to oust them. The killing of our ambassador appears to have been the trigger --- IF we can believe what has been broadly publicized (BBC, NY Times, various Arab language news, etc.)
However, if it could be achieved the result could be devastating for Obama because it would starkly put into place his failures across the board and make them clear as his personal responsibility, the unavoidable result of his radical leftist ideology.
The average voter would have everything, foreign and domestic, fall into place.
You know, I had an epiphany last night as I slept. Upon awakening this morning, I recalled my glorious dream. It was Nov. 6, and as I went behind the curtains...I just couldn't bring myself to pull the lever for an IMPURE CONSERVATIVE *gasp* Mormon to be president of these United States. After all, I've seen the light and error of my ways.
Since none of the anti-Romney HTTB ever informed me who I should vote for instead, I wrote in MINNIE MOUSE because she has as much chance of defeating the evil Marxist Czar in the White House as any other third party. How did I ever come to a decision? My oh my...it was difficult, but I finally decided I may as well vote for whomever has the CUTEST SHOES.
p.s. Have you ever seen Minnie's wardrobe? She has the most adorable hair bows and ribbons. I know it'll just make my 2 year old granddaughter so proud that I was persuaded to vote for her favorite character.
” We won’t have a Republic if its left to the Marxist. “
Correct. As I have previously posted, even if we defeat Obama, it will take 10 years to fix all the damage he has already done, both here, and abroad.
Vote OUT every possible democrat too.
Can't do much of anything if those Marxists retain control of the US Senate.
MO has Akin. Time for the idiot GOP-E and Romney to back him.
I tend to agree with most of what you said. However I can see the difference between Romney and Obama. One worked in the private sector for quarter of a century and was a huge success. The other never worked in any private sector. I have worked 2/3 of my working career in private sector and 1/3 for the government. I have seen both from the inside.
I am going with the guy with private sector experience.
Post 10 was not a told you so post, read it again.
” Vote OUT every possible democrat too.
Can’t do much of anything if those Marxists retain control of the US Senate. “
Yeah, and this kills me. Reid is a one man wrecking crew.
” MO has Akin. Time for the idiot GOP-E and Romney to back him.”
I’ve heard it before, Romney isn’t Muslim, Romney isn’t Obama.
I already described that way back in post 10.
On the other hand; As I've mentioned previously on this forum, since I live in California --- I rather doubt my own vote, or even the votes of every single freeper who also lives in this State, if they were for Romney,would be enough to make much a dent much less turn the tide for this State's 55 electoral votes. yet we can vote for conservatives downticket (where they can be found that is), and on other ballot issues (some more local in nature than others).
I think Romney needs to say, Ill give everyone the biggest tax cut in history by repealing Obamacare!
maybe. It needs to be pointed out that beyond the questionable individual mandate portion of the law, there will soon follow EMPLOYER MANDATE to cover employees, which will strangle productive sectors of the economy --- hijacking and handing tons of cash over to insurance company executives at the same time, surely isn't a roadmap for bringing this nation out of the economic doldrums.
The Act is deeply flawed, despite it's "best intentions". We need more than good intentions. We need programs that actually work --- or we need to avoid creating bureaucratic stranglehold nightmares that seize control as much for the sake of the appearance of "control" as anything. 1,200+ pages of the monstrous bill, followed by 10,000 more pages of government "code" written by Obama bureaucrats, is not the path we need take. It brings along far too many negatives, for (the original) sake of saving insurance companies and health insurance ratepayers premium costs -- particularly when it's obvious now that EVERYONE's rate will NOW INCREASE due to the 'Affordable" Act.
Instead, not only will it cause employers to lay off or fire workers, and reduce future hiring too, it is for those reasons also a sure-fire formula for 25% unemployment (if we're lucky it will only be 25% and not more), which will leave the government needing to subsidize healthcare insurance for more than this nation can afford, --- effectively breaking the bank, while enriching insurance companies, and for-profit health care providers. At the same time, we will need also to increase borrowing quite heavily, putting the nation even deeper into crushing debt.
There are tons of doctors who don't like the Act. Maybe Romney could get himself backed by a fleet of them, like Obama did for a photo-op, but this time without the phony white lab coats...
The so-called "Affordable Health Care for America Act", is anything but it's descriptive title. That point needs to be hammered home.
Romney could score big points on his "repeal and replace" theme, if he included that the Senate, House, and Executive branch would all be subject to the same rules as everybody else, in regards to whatever will come of a worked-out "replacement". No more gold-plating for the political class, while everyone else has to pay through the nose for lesser results.
That sort of talk would resonate with the people. But does Romney have the balls to make that stand, and the fire-in-the-belly passion to make it resonate?
I doubt it, but would love to be proved wrong on this point.
Some form of non-profit HMO might be the way to go. I'd like to see pilot programs to prove the concept, before forcing the entire nation to submit to provisions of some far reaching "Act of Congress"
Simply streamlining the paperwork (if this could be done while still guarding against fraud) could help make health care affordable for more than it is now.
If one could make it cheaper and better, industry would flock to buy that "product". But first --- make the government, it's employees and it's executives fully subject to the provisions for some span of time, before forcing all the rest of us into doing the same.
Government is spending taxpayer monies already for health care for "employees". There's a ton of dough right THERE. Use those expenditures more efficiently in some form of proof of concept, then they could say to all the rest --- we have your health insurance plan right here, cheaper, better.
Forcing everyone now to pay into the systems now in place, is just a coward's short-cut, along the road to socialized medicine. Government could create the incentives for non-profit HMO's to flourish, if they set their minds to it. We need not listen to the screams of the insurance companies. They can learn how to compete -- or DIE for all I care. Let's face it... they're somewhat parasitical in nature from the get-go. Why must we all be forced into supporting that?
I am afraid that the Romney-Dewey similarities are all too real.
I hadn’t thought of that.
It took 138 posts to catch the 360 degrees joke!
That’s the problem, they’re unable to sell him, here and elsewhere. Certainly, you won’t sell your candidate with insults, personal attacks and refusal to discuss facts, proposals, strategies, or even the article above. Just vote for our guy, ‘coz (in big red fonts!): who are you gonna vote for?! Desperate. He should have run in the RAT primary against Obama. I would have supported him then.
I was thinking this morning that Romney, besides being the Stupid Party’s Al Gore (Look Dad, I’m on top of the world!), remains what he has long been, a corporate raider, one without any particular beliefs or interests in any particular industries, except a belief in himself and his MBA buddies, so get out of the way Henry Ford, we know how to run this assembly line faster! This is just what he’s saying to Obama, and you can bet he can manage the job better, and without any ideological leanings.
I see that you very conveniently ignored why I am voting FOR Romney, not just against Obama.
I don’t understand it at all. There are liberal websites all over thet whose job it is to criticize Romney, I wonder why you choose this website instead of one of the liberal websites.
Well, carry on. You have a choice in November. You can vote for Romney OR you can vote for Obama. I’m voting for Romney, you can’t, or don’t wish to talk about why you’re voting for someone else. Obama called the slaughter of our Ambassador just a ‘bump in the road’. You make a choice when you go into the voting booth.
You are relatively new here, you don’t realize that freerepublic has been the most anti-Romney site around since 2006.
This is not a republican site, it is a conservative site.
You probably shouldn’t ask people who were here a half decade before you, why they “choose this site” to post on.
If there were only 2 choices in elections, then freerepublic would probably become a republican site, instead of an independent site.
this website exists ONLY to help defeat Mitt Romney? You know, if that’s the goal of this website, put it on the front page, if you’re voting for Romney, you’re not allowed and oh, by the way, refuse ANY of that money donated by those who are voting for Romney. And spare me any of this third party nonsense. Libertarian candidates are just fine on this “conservative” website? Really? You need a civics lesson, my friend. You need to study, closely, the Perot disaster and read how many um, “principled” conservatives were duped.
Mr. Robinson knows that I am not one of the butt kissing sheep around here. I am wise enough to know that we are at a crossroads and Romney *IS* the candidate nominated by the republican party. If you wanted another, more conservative candidate to be nominated by one of the two major parties, then, YOU should have worked much harder to do just that.
But now FreeRepublic is JUST an Anti Romney site? Well then, I guess there’s not much difference between here and the liberal websites now, is there? Both exist to bash Mitt Romney. Make sure that’s on the front page (before I’m *GASP* banned from the bash Romney at all cost website).
You all continue your bashing, this place is an utter disgrace. You have the worst president in our lifetime running around the world telling us that a slaughtered Ambassador is just a “bump in the road”, and all you want to do is bash Mitt Romney who is THE one who called him out on that?
I’ll continue to work to hopefully educate the morons among us. I’ll have the back of Romney and Ryan, you can post on a website.
Incredibly dishonest, and I love the part about the Libertarian party, the libertarians here would love to see you accusing me of being a Libertarian since I am one of the most anti-Libertarian posters on FR.
Your incredibly dishonest claims share nothing with my actual post.
You are relatively new here, you dont realize that freerepublic has been the most anti-Romney site around since 2006.
This is not a republican site, it is a conservative site.
You probably shouldn'tt ask people who were here a half decade before you, why they choose this site to post on.
If there were only 2 choices in elections, then freerepublic would probably become a republican site, instead of an independent site.
172 posted on Mon Sep 24 2012 12:25:47 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by ansel12
Thats the problem, theyre unable to sell him, here and elsewhere. Certainly, you wont sell your candidate with insults, personal attacks and refusal to discuss facts, proposals, strategies, or even the article above. Just vote for our guy, coz (in big red fonts!): who are you gonna vote for?!
Exactly right. The essential problem, as I see it, is that Willard is having a very hard time selling himself with solid and specific ideas and programs. It’s not enough to *not be* Obama. People want a reason to vote FOR you.
Take last night...Willard says going to the emergency room is his ‘new’ answer to health care? Oh my. That sounds like a wonderful idea. Just the most expensive health care around. Which, of course, Willard is on tape saying that the ER is NOT a good option. :::sigh::: I’ve gotta believe that Willard has a better idea than that...and no not Romneycare. Willard must know THAT’s not the right answer. But then last week Willard said he was happy to be known as the grandfather of Obamacare. :::face palm::::
As for the discussion here on FR...I just tune out the yellers. Give me some solid...specifics...and we can have a discussion. Scream at me, swear at me and ask WHO are YOU voting for? That is not an effective selling tool or a way to convince others...well, at least it’s never worked for me.
I live in WA state. Willard will not win this state. But I sure as heck can work to get other conservative (as conservative as you can be in WA) folks elected. If that’s not enough for the Willard lovers...well, can’t be helped.
Good post, thank you.
I’m a native of CA, and I remember the good days when CA wasn’t an automatic win for the democrat and very sadly those days are long gone.
You’re right on every count about Obamacare, although employer mandates must have already been written in, since “exceptions” have been granted to unions and other favored companies, like Jeffrey Immelt’s G.E. Of course, employers have that option of paying the fine, which then throws their employees into Obamacare.
The last I heard, the IRS said their agents were not going to enforce the “fines”, come 2014 or 2016 (whichever it is).
For me, it’s imperative to stop Obama. Chief Justice was the last straw regarding Obamacare. I hope Romney makes that case during one of his debates.
I haven’t changed my mind on Romney. Still don’t like or trust him. I just know that Obama hates America and is hell bent on burning down our Republic and likely the free, non Muslim world as well.
Ha! You’re a mess!
You may have discombobulated the entire forum. ;o)
Mittens’ campaign just took a big hit yesterday. His VP candidate, Paul Ryan, says the military is gay forever now - - law of the land - - and trying to go back to DADT would be “the wrong direction”. Turns out Ryan is a pandering coward, too, and has no problem with a sodomized military. It makes you wonder if they are truly serious about repealing Obamacare - - another law of the land.
>> It makes you wonder if they are truly serious about repealing Obamacare
Doubtful. I think with a Romney/Ryan Admin, financial policy will take priority to the social and Constitutional concerns. Weak direction but a stark improvement over the current Marxist regime.
Ryan has been relatively silent while he’s been getting schooled in the “proper” answers.
Personally, I thought Clinton’s DADT was a terrible policy. The original said, “no homosexuals.” That’s the correct policy. But that’s not what Ryan appears to be recommending.
The loyalty of a homosexual is to other homosexuals in the same way the affinity of an idolater is to other idolaters. Those who believe in the unnatural are much more comfortable around other unnaturals.
What does this mean? It means the eventual takeover of the military by the “pink” movement, in the same way the democratic party was taken over, and the republican taken over, and denominations taken over.
The unnaturals support one another before they support any flag any system. And being given to rationalizing unnatural things, they can rationalize anything, to include betrayal.
This is how one takes over the military from the inside, how one imposes slavery upon a formerly free people.
Well said by you both.
Thanks for the pings.
I have always wondered why a vice presidential nominee feels compelled to mimic the policies of the presidential nominee when, in fact, they already have the nomination and they should feel free to campaign on their own ideas and not those of the presidential nominee.
When we consider a presidential ticket, do we only need to consider the views and policies of the presidential nominee without regard to how the vice presidential nominee feels? Why does the vice presidential nominee need to be muzzled in a campaign where he is already been given the nomination?
Ryan was a solid social conservative before he got the nomination, and now he’s a solid RINO on social policies. What the hell happened to him?
Apparently, he and Faust have a lot in common.
Thanks for the post!!
Thanks for the ping!!
OF COURSE DADT is never getting repealed. Just like Obamacare isn’t. We can’t even stop the gestapo TSA from doing “freeze” exercises and expanding their “powers” to highways, bus stops and rail.
This is all kabuki theatre and the REAL tell is the “pension bailout” for the states that spent being placed on the backs of frugal states like Texas. We are SCREWED. Bank on it.