Posted on 01/05/2012 10:09:06 PM PST by Mozilla
In 1980, George H.W. Bush was making much the same argument against Ronald Reagan that Mitt Romney is making this year. Bush argued that he was the most electable against hapless Jimmy Carter. The big money Republican establishment was behind Bush because they feared that Reagan was too radical to win, and would carry the entire party down to historic defeat, like Goldwater did.
Reagan even lost Iowa to Bush on that argument. But Reagan carried forward the pro-growth economic message that ultimately swept him to the nomination, and then to landslide victory in the fall, his coattails handing the Republicans control of the Senate, and effective control of the House.
After two Reagan landslide wins, it took George Bush just one term to trash the Reagan coalition, crawling out of town in 1992 with just 38% of the vote, barely better than Alf Landon in 1936.
Romney assured Massachusetts voters running for the Senate in 1994 that he did not want to go back Reaganomics. He was one of the few Republicans that year to refuse to sign on to Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. He was also one of the few Republicans to lose that year.
True enough, even today he is promising not to take America back to pro-growth Reaganomics.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
..........yeah...but he has nice hair.
Romney will be our next president if he gets the GOP nomination. Obama is a one-term wonder. The economy has already beaten him.
If "Republican" primary voters take the time to read articles like this rather than listen to biased TV sound bites and Romney commercials, Mitt wouldn't have a chance. We'll be seeing the same thing this Fall as Obama rolls out $1 billion of ads.
Santorum beat Romney to a draw for 2% of the cost. This should tell Newt something.
Now THESE are the type of specific arguments that can (finally) put a dent in Romney.
I hope Santorum has a plan as bold as 999 was. Those were the days, when we were talking MASSIVE tax reform — not IF, but HOW.
Wow, that was stunning. Then Newt surged and it became, well, all about Newt.
Can we please get back to talking about massive tax reform? And, btw, in my view this looks like the ONLY thing that might actually stick and fester on Romney. The author has laid out two or three perfect, easy-to-convey and understand points as to why Romney is not good enough on the economy.
If Santorum can provide a strong contrast and bring these points into sharp play, he can ride that to the top, just like Herman Cain was riding to the top because, like it or hate it, he was the only candidate pushing BOLD and MASSIVE tax reform.
Mitt Romney put his dog on top of his car in a animal carrier.... wonder why the libs have not yelled about that ?
What is shocking about this article is that it was allowed to run in Forbes.
Well if he wins it will be without my vote. I have spent most of my adult life volunteering for the GOP: working the polls, getting the signatures, working the phone banks ...
I won’t lift a finger to help Romney the flip-flopping fraud. Better to load up on powder, brass and lead and wait out the Kenyan clown then toss aside my principles and vote for the man with the magical underpants!!
Not if I don't vote for him. The power of the local elections will be the only thing that stops this. If we (conservatively) controlled both houses, the president would be stopped. A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama-lite. It would be just another baby step to the left, and a step that would tacitly approve of socialism.
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.