(PS .. don't try to tell me that "staying home" will get Obama re-elected ... do you think I haven't heard that one? I'm saying this to the "Republicans" ... if you nominate this guy, you are on your own.)
Posted on 11/19/2011 3:29:54 AM PST by sheikdetailfeather
How much will be made of Mittens executive order instituting gay marriage or including government funding for abortion in Romneycare? Or his consistent inconsistentcy? I still prefer Cain and/or Newt. If Mittens is the nominee, I will vote for him but I’ll need a long hot shower and several whiskey bin Ladens.
We have a thread winner!
Newt had to wait because on policy, he's not much different from Romney. Both supported a mandate. Both sit down with liberals. Newt is the last refuge of the Tea Party. And when Newt fails, it's over. Romney wins.
Exactly.
Just like John McCain. The media loved him because he was considered a weak candidate who would lose to Obama. They wanted him to get the Republican nomination. Then they pulled out all the stops.
Put another way, the conservatives/Tea Party has failed to field a viable candidate, and so we’re now stuck choosing from the establishment pile. Newt is substantively about the same as Romney, but he’s a face-saver for those who say they’ll never vote for Romney.
Huckabee on Fox&Friends this morning made two observations regarding Limbaugh’s commentary:
1. Romney was vetted in 2008.
2. Limbaugh supported Romney in 2008.
==
Huckabee’s defense sounded much like he is supporting Romney this time around. In 2008, he supported McCain and played interference to keep Romney from getting momentum, however.
Romney was vetting in 2008. That was 2008. The voters have the right to requestion Romney on all the issues relevant to the current election. Romney, especially, deserves ‘revetting’ as many of his position frequently are ‘revised’ for current audiences/times.
Limbaugh did endorse Romney, but, listeners will remember that that endorsement was more anti-Yosemite Sam than pro-Romney when the race was down to two contenders and the Hucka-hander-on.
==
If we have learned anything from the various straw and preference polls it is that they are meaningless.
First, polls can be commissioned — and designed for desired results. No wonder polls of out Iowa or NH or SC or FL, etc., show the leader as Romney, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, etc.
Second, polls can be downright wrong, as we do not have a President Guiliani or President Hillary, both of whom led their respective party nominations at this stage of the 2008 cycle and both of whom were expected to win in November 2008.
Third, Thompson [who?] won nearly every FR poll, until his bandwagon crashed. He did get one Electoral Vote, IIRC.
I look forward getting to the day where Newt is the candidate. We must not let the MSM decide who our candidate is. We are political elites - we make decisions based on the good of the country - not just our pocketbook. Unfortunately there is about 20% (wild ass guess) of the voters that will take whatever candidate the MSM tells them to vote for.
But the following is fairly true...
Obama will pull 40% - 45% - there are liberals that may be fed up with Obama - but refuse to vote Republican.
Right now, I feel like any Republican candidate can get 30% - so the 20% idiots need to be convinced that ObamaII is not the answer.
It is up to us to spread the word - because if we don't - the MSM will.
(PS .. don't try to tell me that "staying home" will get Obama re-elected ... do you think I haven't heard that one? I'm saying this to the "Republicans" ... if you nominate this guy, you are on your own.)
Of course he is right. The media and GOP establishment have been trying to give us Mitt Romney since the last choice they maneuvered to the nomination, John McCain, lost.
And there are a lot of useful idiots running around tearing down the anti-Romney candidates.
Understand something, people...
We could nominate JESUS CHRIST, and today’s mainstream media would paint him as a mentally unstable Radical Right-Wing, gay-hating Fascist.
The Daily Show and SNL would be running skits about how stupid using a loaf of bread and a fish to feed the masses simply wasn’t possible, and MSNBC would be running non-stop with video recreations of Christ at the Temple as proof that Christ was unfit to be President.
E! and 60 Minutes would be running articles questioning Christ’s fidelity, while the Crazy Left would be dogging Mary Magdeline.
The View would be mocking Christ as a pansy in a dress who would take away a woman’s right to abortion.
Until you understand what we are up against, you don’t understand the problem.
Clueless Huckabee was just on foxnews saying Rush changed over his last primary supporting Romney. No Huck, last time Romney only had the best economic plan of all the candidates including Democrats.
I have thought this since, a week or so ago, I heard a clip from a Biden speech on the radio; it was just a brief clip in the 5-minute news break, but Joe was saying how awful it was that some wouldn't vote for Mitt because of his religious beliefs. I naturally concluded that all the Obama-friendly networks were -- even as he spoke -- preparing devastating anti-Mormon "documentaries" for use when Mitt got the nomination, leaving Obama and Biden free to deplore religious discrimination while their minions did the dirty work.
If all goes as planned, maybe we can look forward to a remake of the Thirty Years' War, this time in the US and featuring Mormonism. I'm sure Obama would consider it a small price to pay (of course, he considers practically anything a small price, as long as he's not the one who has to pay it!).
My predictions:
Will Romney continue with low 20’s?
No, when the not-currently-paying-attention people finally vote, Romney’s numbers will be in the mid 30s.
Will Santorum pull upsets?
No.
Will Bachmann surprise the field of contenders?
No.
Will Perry turn out to be the most preferential go-to guy?
No.
Will there be a muddle and no one gets enough momentum to be the decisive nominee
No. Romney will win with numbers in the mid 30s, with Newt and Cain splitting the tea party vote, Perry and Bachmann splitting the also-ran vote, and Paul getting 8-10%.
Something like this:
Romney: 34%
Newt: 21%
Cain: 18%
Paul: 10%
Perry: 8%
Bachmann: 4%
Other: 5%
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
Yup. Not sure why Rush is making something more of it. Movement conservatives and Tea Party folks are looking for an anti-Romney to coalesce around and the others either didn't run or are fatally flawed and can't win. Now people are giving Newt a second look and we will see if he can hold up.
Newt is the last refuge of the Tea Party. And when Newt fails, it's over. Romney wins.
Well, I hope you are wrong and Newt can withstand the scrutiny and become a stronger candidate. But yeah, if he folds and his baggage is too much to overcome then Mitt will be the last man left standing. As of now I do suspect you are right and Romney the chameleon will be the nominee. It's not that he's a strong candidate, it's just the field is so exceptionally weak this year.
I'm supporting Newt, but really only because the alternatives are unelectable or just plain terrible. I'd hoped Perry could do well, but the man can't communicate well enough for the job. I am just hoping Newt can grow into the role of an effective candidate over the course of the primary season and at least give us a shot at winning the general election.
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.