Skip to comments.With Brown out, GOP mulls Romney energy
Posted on 02/02/2013 4:59:15 AM PST by Diogenesis
With Brown out, GOP mulls Romney energy
(He's back; Mr. RomneyCARE and family for MA Senate))
"Massachusetts Republicans are desperately scrambling to find
a strong Senate candidate to replace Scott Brown,
with some even trying to persuade Mitt Romneys wife or son
to jump into the race to avert another electoral disaster.
... Other GOP leaders also raised the prospect of Mitts eldest son, Tagg,
launching a surprise Senate campaign.
Tagg Romney was a close campaign adviser
and surrogate for his father and is a successful businessman living in Belmont."
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
Liberal is liberal. Doesn't matter the party. You can keep your liberals, of either party.
You aren't a conservative.
Because we never faced hard hitting Marxists like Pelosi,Reid,Axlelrod,Jarrett and Obama before. This is not the time for ideological litmus tests. This is ti.e to cobble up an army that can win. You fight with the army you have.
What if there are Democrats who are more conservative
Which would YOU support.
Only in the minds of cainbots.
I certainly know. Liberals of ANY party are my enemy. As is anyone that advocates voting for a liberal of ANY party.
Would you vote for a person you consider to be a RINO or a Democrat? That’s what I’m trying to point out. It’s not always possible to have the best candidates we’d like so sometimes, in order to get rid of Democrats, we’re going to have to use the best we can get at the time. To not use every opportunity to get rid of a Democrats is to allow them to get further and further entrenched to where we have too deep a hold from which to ever hope to eliminate.
Having fifty one Republicans is always better than having fifty one Democrats!!
Do you think it’s better to have a Republican majority than a Democrat majority?
OK, fine and Democrats love you.
Not relevant because the Democrat is NEVER more conservative than the Republican.
Party labels don't mean nearly as much as actual conservatism.
A republican liberal is still a liberal. I don't support liberals. Of any party.
“if my choice is between a RINO or a Democrat, Ill take the RINO.”
Fine, but the RINO will still vote with the Democrat!! So you have a majority on paper, but not in action. Let’s bring back Scott Brown, the Maine Sisters, Romney, anyone else of that nature you can think of until you get to 51. And what have you gained? A fake majority R, because they vote D.
Put up Mrs. Romney and maybe she’ll show the electorate her Tramp Stamp.
We have to put up conservatives at every level and support them. We need to stick together and not whimp out when we hear the very liberal MSM try to convince us that our conservative candidate won't win.
I say to you again.....your plan has already been tried the last two elections. It has been a proven loser.
I think it's better to back conservatives in elections, no matter how much "better" the moderate's campaign may be. One of my good local republican friends told me we must back Romney because he had the best campaign, over more conservative presidential candidates.
She completely disregarded the fact that when you run a candidate who nauseates your base, all the efficient and/or effective campaigns in the world don't make a smidgen of difference.
Oh, yeah, because the rich son (or wife) of the rich guy was unpopular as governor and trounced as president is so clearly building on what enabled Scott Brown to win the seat. (eye roll)
What has the usual GOPe interested in the Romneys, no doubt, is the family propensity to dump millions into losing political campaigns.
I don’t give a damn who they elect in the People’s Republic Of Massachusetts. The entire state is a joke. They put Fauxcahontis in the senate for crying out loud!
Wonderful. You understand.
A RINO vs a liberal ====> Anticonservative for sure.
Therefore, WE WILL SUPPORT ONLY TRUE CONSERVATIVES.
You actually asked the reasonable question earlier:
In the US Senate, which members are acceptable Conservatives?
There are 26 of them. Of those 26, ZERO would break 40% in MA.
The strategy to retake the Senate and attempt to make it a quasi-conservative body is probably futile, but it will take money, moderates, and a fiscal collapse that cries for conservative Fiscal Policies.
The conservative-only strategy will never work in the Senate. Ever.
Reagan ran on a clear conservative platform despite what the Uriah Heep republicans say. After all they were trying to destroy him till it became apparent that he was winning then they attached themselves to him like a bunch of leeches.
His goal was to do the right thing, theirs was to gain power.
It was Reagan’s conservatism that won over the heavily unionized Reagan Democrats here in Michigan. I personally think that’s why Santorum was able to tie Romney in Michigan when John McCain barely got within 10 percent of Romney here in 08.
We don’t need RINOS to take the senate. In 2014, we have enough DemoRats in red states, it’ll be like open season. We’re also going to primary the hell out of some Manchurian conservatives like Lindsey Graham.
How would you know? It's never been tried. The GOP-E has seen to that.
BTW, I've never seen you on FR before. Welcome to FR.
Do you want to get rid of Democrat control?
Nonsense. You’ve still gotten rid of Majority Leader Harry Reid and you’ve also gotten rid of Obamacare.
Moderates don't vote with the Conservatives. Look at the Hagel hearings. He's a dunce! He couldn't put two words together to make a coherent sentence. He's anti-American and guess what? Our Moderates are going to put him through. Even McCain, as tough as he was at the hearing, hasn't committed to voting against him, as of this morning.
The moderates don't help us or vote with us so why elect them? Geez you are dense....or a liberal pushing a liberal agenda.
You certainly are trolling a lot today, Tagg.
I WOULD SUPPORT A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT over
any lying, liberal, backstabbing, RINO.
You are wrong. First, do you propose surrendering to Democrats? I am very much of the Wm F Buckley school of thought that we always vote for the most conservative—than can win. That means always have the goal of defeating the Democrat with the most conservative person we can get.
The real problem is these idiots who don’t care how liberal a candidate is as long as he has the right letter behind his name. Conservatives have been the ones to make all the compromises to elect moderates all along and all they can do is scream “PURIST!” at anyone who won’t cross a certain line.
Conservatives here in Michigan happily accepted very moderate Thadeus McCotter till he self destructed with the help of a few sleazy staffers. Fortunately he was replaced by a tea partier who is showing some real fight as a freshman.
I supported Pete Hoekstra despite his moderate tendencies. Unfortunately he ran a milquetoast campaign against Stabenow. Plus he was attacked by “moderates” when he commented that the 17th amendment has been a disaster (He was absolutely correct)
How do you figure that???
Suppose you're right that we don't know how the RINO will vote, the difference is that with the RINO we have the chance of them voting right where with the RAT, they will NEVER vote right. I'll take a 50 percent over a zero percent anytime.
With a liberal demoRAT you know he/she/it is going to stab you any chance they get. With a demoRat-lite repub liberal you will get stabbed when you least expect it, ala SC justice.
Mr. RomneyCARE CREATED ***himself*** both gay marriage
and ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE. And he tanked Massachusetts,
and gave Obama TWO (2) terms.
You like that, Tagg. Right?
Thank you for your reasonableness.
I would agree with your thinking of preferring a 51 seat RAT conservative senate to a 51 seat RINO Senate but do you think that is EVER going to happen?
Much of the reason we are fighting the hard left is that we supported the mushy right in the past. The only way to fight them is to state a clear alternative with no compromises. No federal funding / control of state affairs. Slash tax rates and eliminate all deductions. Trim Presidential and Congressional and Judicial branch power by adhering to the Constitution.
We cannot create middle ground to allow the left to claim that it is "right wing". We need to be right wing in reality.
You are WRONG. It doesn’t matter how conservative is a Democrat if they caucus with the Democrats. This is a matter of mathematics. There must be 51 senators with an R after their names to get rid of a Democrat majority. Those red state dims still vote Democrat and they vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader. Now if these red states DIMS would vote for a Republican for Majority Leader it would matter, but they won’t. Don’t fool yourself, there’s no such thing as a “conservative” Democrat. I know, I worked in a legislature for years and I got my fill of so-called “conservative” Dims.
I’m not saying it’s not important to get rid of Dems. But how does it help us if we have Republicans who vote with them? Look at the RINO contingent from New England and all the harm they have done over the years.
I’m with you and there’s one way to get rid of Republican liberals and that is through primaries BUT we must be careful because the ultiimate goal is to get rid of Democrats first.
Great. Name one. The problem is that the theory doesn't bear out in reality. Are there any democrats willing to stand up for the Second Amendment ("shall not be infringed")?
There are, but they are rare. You wish to tie us to the R party that stands for nothing. That is a losing strategy. We simply need to promote conservatism and support conservative candidates. We need to make sure there are conservative choices in the primaries (both parties) and support them.
Of course Hagel is a dunce, so what? That doesn't mean all Republicans are dunces.
If we expect perfection, we're creating unrealistic expectations--we go for the best we can get.
We chose Scott Brown to get rid of Obamacare but got a lot of crappy votes in return: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/18919/scott-brown#.UQ0120ITusM He had lots of votes for pork which sustains the problem. The problem is specifically big government which pushes liberalism.
First, we MUST have a majority. The party in the majority controls the whole agenda--they get to appoint the committee heads and control the leadership.
There is no substitute for a majority--NONE--we must have the majority or we have Democrats running rough shod over us.
Realistically, what can we expect when RATS control the US Senate and we have this Marxis/Muslim in the WH?
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.