Posted on 03/10/2010 6:18:25 PM PST by GVnana
Mitt Romney's new book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness," will debut on top of the New York Times bestseller list due out March 21, a source tells me.
Romney's book tour has, so far, attracted pretty large crowds, serving -- along with the book sales -- to reassure his supporters that, though he may not draw Sarah Palin style hordes, he's a figure of genuine popular interest.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
The Rove book is #1 on Amazon. I checked an hour ago.
Looking forward to reading it.
Romney sells a million books?
Toilet paper shortage. Only reason I can think of.
“Romney is a very solid conservative ...”
No he is not.
No conservative of any stripe would have supported Romneycare.
Just one of many reasons why Romney is no conservative.
“I can’t wait to watch you geniuses have to choose between a Mormon and a guy with some roots in Islam. Priceless.”
Even if the Republicans are foolish enough to run Romney there are still other choices. The election is not an either /or choice, even though the results usually are.
You are also a liar.
Anyone here can check your posting history and see that you are anti-Palin. It seems that you are not "open to all candidates during primaries".
What is funny is that you signed up pushing Romney, labeling freepers as religious "fanatics" and attacking primary challengers to Mitt Romney, all in your first hours here on December 3rd 2007.
You bashed all of Mitt's challengers, all of them, and as a polytheist yourself like Romney, you seemed to have a special dislike for the more practicing Christian candidates as you do now with Governor Palin.
You aren't big on the social issues, money is your big issue isn't it, more important than say, abortion, or guns and such?
All the old Romneybots drift back to their old ways.
“We need to nominate people who can win”
Who is we? Republicans?
Last I knew this wasn’t a Republican site.
Here is a novel idea: We need to get CONSERVATIVES who can win on the Republican ticket. THAT should be the goal.
Nope, not anti-anybody, just pro-anybody-who-can-win-in-General-election.
As for Palin, NOTHING in her agenda bothers me one bit.
What bothers me about Palin is Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live with their humongous audience of political neophytes.
You are definitely against Governor Palin, you are just an old Romneybot from way back, they were calling you a Romney troll within days of you signing up in 2007.
What do you think of Romney doing such a lousy job as Governor and leaving office with 34% approval?
Also, are you going to explain why you thought the fact that Obama voters like Mitt Romney is a good thing?
So we should drop the abortion stand that costs us 50% of the vote?
Don’t drop it if you want to lose the election.
I don’t get you, do we drop it, or not drop it?
Should we fight for only strongly anti abortion candidates?
Just observe and learn.
McCain & Palin were both anti-abortion.
Obama was 100% for ALL abortions.
Obama won.
That tells me anti-abortion does not guarantee a win.
Abortion is a personal issue. There has not been a single abortion in my family going back several generations. And
personally I consider abortion very cruel and vile especially when the fetus can survive on it’s own outside the mother’s body. However if a woman was violently raped, she should have the option of aborting IN A SHORT TIME. Not when the fetus is developed enough to survive on it’s own.
But again it is a personal choice and not to be forced by big government and laws.
I was raised by my parents to be a winner. I hate losing.
I want a republican candidate who can win in general election. If he/she is pro or anti abortion does not bother me. If they agree with at least 4 of my positions listed in post above, I will support them.
What if a candidate doesn’t want prayer in schools or is not pro gun, or wants to let gays marry and go into the navy should we let him represent us?
If the candidate is for restrictions in gun ownership he/she flunks one of my requirements.
I am against gay marriage mainly because I believe it takes a father and a mother to properly raise children. If 2 gays want to live together and be able to pass on estate to each other similar to married couples without death tax, I am not bothered by that.
I prefer prayer be done at home or church/synagogue/temple/mosque. However prayer in school is a non-issue with me. OK either way.
I am for DADT in military and separation of sexes in combat situations. I certainly would not relish serving with an openly gay man.
So we can do all that and get away with becoming pro-choice?
Becoming pro-choice benefits the party?
I never said that. Again, repeating, it should not be made an issue one way or the other. Leave it as a personal issue for each person to deal with and with their God.
However I would like to see severe restrictions on late term abortions.
To do that then we have to remove the anti abortion position from the party platform, should we do that?
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.