Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mitt Romney’s legacy: No ‘Romneyists’
washingtonpost.com ^ | 11/13/2012 | Jonathan Capehart

Posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:08 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

1 posted on 11/14/2012 12:35:13 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!


2 posted on 11/14/2012 12:40:59 AM PST by ari-freedom (It's the bennies, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
but you still need to be a conservative!

Seems so damned simple and... well... obvious, doesn't it...? ;)

3 posted on 11/14/2012 12:42:42 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

It was so obvious even a political neophyte like me could see it plain as day. Not one of Rove’s finer picks.


5 posted on 11/14/2012 12:47:53 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

The Democrats tried running a massachussetts flip flopper in 2004, didn’t work out too well for them either.


6 posted on 11/14/2012 12:52:22 AM PST by Arthurio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
In their sweaty, increasingly bug-eyed and frantic desperation to win win win -- no matter how glaringly unsuitable their anointed candidate, or how poisonously anti-conservative their favored platforms and tactics -- the now wholly irrelevant CINOs have long since forgotten just why, precisely, "winning" is so important to conservatism in the first place.

The goal, plainly, isn't simply to plop any handy, available "R"-branded hindquarters into any given House or Senate seat, in and of itself; otherwise, we could just as easily nominate and run (oh, say) Justin Bieber, or Chris Hemsworth, and be virtually assured of a nice, easy victory, ten times out of every ten.

If "winning" said seat means doing so by filling it with someone who does not willingly vote and/or legislate along demonstrably conservative lines -- or who routinely needs "their feet held to the fire," in order to decently advocate for and represent conservative principles -- then: that is, by any sane and rational definition, L-O-S-I-N-G.

A large, capital letter "R" following their name in the congressional ledger, notwithstanding. ;)

7 posted on 11/14/2012 1:03:51 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Instead of riding a white horse he’s riding a horse with no name.

If he had shown half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had when he want after Newt he’d be President elect.


8 posted on 11/14/2012 1:08:19 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
But in the final paragraph, Wallace-Wells made a good observation about Romney’s lasting legacy as the GOP nominee. “[J]ust a week after Romney seemed poised to become president,” he writes, “there is no segment of the Republican Party that could be called Romneyist.” That’s part of the reason why he lost.

Hey, I mentioned "Romneyist" the other day, but I called it "Mittism"

""To this day, no one knows what Romney's politics are, and no one knows why he was obsessed with being president.

The man has been in politics since his teens and has spent the last 20 years and 55 million of his own dollars trying to get into the white house, and no one knows why, or even what his political reasons were, what his agenda is.

The man is ego driven, and has no center, no convictions, he is a salesman of Mitt, (not Mittism as in a political view, there isn't any such thing).""
111 posted on Mon Nov 12 2012 16:02:36 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by ansel12

9 posted on 11/14/2012 1:08:52 AM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Instead of riding a white horse he’s headed for the desert on a horse with no name.

If he had half the zeal for beating up on Barry that he had for beating up on Newt he’d be President elect.


10 posted on 11/14/2012 1:09:44 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

??????? duplicates, sorry


11 posted on 11/14/2012 1:10:54 AM PST by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

You run a Liberal Candidate against a Marxist and this is what happens.


12 posted on 11/14/2012 1:19:57 AM PST by Trueblackman (I would rather lose on Conservative principles than vote for a RINO candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

I couldn’t vote for him because he was a flip-flopping liberal!

If I want to vote for a liberal, I’ll vote for a Democrat!

‘Nuff said.


13 posted on 11/14/2012 1:24:58 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Romney only existed to beat Obama—forced upon us by the big bucks of the RINO GOP-e he was yet just another predictable dud like McCain and Dole.

Obama won now Romney has lost his reason to be and so he doesn't.

Dole-Fool me once shame on you.
McCain-Fool me twice shame on me.
Romney-Fool me thrice you can't fix stupid.

14 posted on 11/14/2012 1:34:06 AM PST by Happy Rain ("Old White Male Conservative and you can kiss my bleeping bleep!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter beg to differ.


15 posted on 11/14/2012 1:37:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Happy Rain

The GOP nominated the next loser in line who couldn’t beat the original loser.

That is how Karl Rove and Anne Coulter pimped on us the weakest candidate in Republican history who cost the party its chance at a Senate majority.

His weaknesses were evident all along and in Mike Pence or Scott Walker the GOP could have had a decent conservative candidate but the party leaders and conservative commentariat decided electability was more important than principle.

In the end, the GOP got the worst of all worlds.


16 posted on 11/14/2012 1:40:54 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
He banked everything on his executive experience. That’s important but you still need to be a conservative!

Bush wasn't.

17 posted on 11/14/2012 1:45:51 AM PST by Alaska Wolf (USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Hugh Hewitt and Ann Coulter

AllahPundit and Meghan McCain, with slightly better agents.

18 posted on 11/14/2012 1:57:00 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Yes ... it doies seem obvious except to those oblivious "Establishment Repoublicans" and those idiots who aren't paying attention.

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

YOU SAY [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment.""
I disagree.
I ask you again: It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.


19 posted on 11/14/2012 2:05:58 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Sorry.
You DID NOT say " [We're] "Not victims of "the Establishment."""
That was someone else, but the point needs repeating, just not to you.
20 posted on 11/14/2012 2:08:33 AM PST by Yosemitest (It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson