Skip to comments.Romney: "I look forward to bringing back the Churchill Bust to the WH"
Posted on 07/26/2012 5:43:34 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote
At an event in London, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said, "I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again."
Mitt Romney at London fundraiser: "I'm looking forward to the bust of Winston Churchill being in the Oval Office again." #watersedge?
Kasie Hunt (@kasie) July 26, 2012
President Obama famously sent Churchill's bust back to Britain soon after coming into office. As the Telegraph reported then:
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
At least a future Romney White House will find a special spot for the Churchill bust.
Gaybama sending the Churchill bust back to the UK on day 1 signaled to me we were in serious if not fatal trouble.
The ABMR crowd is making me sick. We need to get rid of Obama and hold Romney to task.
Sorry, did not see it.
You were second.
“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and by gosh if they won’t leave, we’ll walk in a drag Obama and Michelle out of the White House with hay hooks.”
I consider Churchill one of the most important people of the 20th century. I was insulted, I could imagine the English. Churchill made many unpopular decisions, but thank God he was right.
if they wont leave, well walk in a drag Obama and Michelle out of the White House with hay hooks.
We might have to do that :)
Me too. I have a t shirt of Churchill I wear.
The Muslims were allied with the Nazis ,and Churchill was their enemy.
Mitt, Good start!
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Another great Churchill quote.
“I have a t shirt of Churchill I wear.”
I’ve read a couple of books about Churchill. Time to read another. :)
Romney doing this is awesome.
All gifts to the White House are not for personal use, a special request is needed to take out items that are given personally to presidents leaving....I don’t know how he got away with sending back an item that belong to the White house and not him....
And yet Willard is a great champion of Socialism...
If you are interested There is a website which has links to his speeches and many of them will literally raise the hairs on the back of your neck. Churchill was one of the greatest leaders who ever lived.
“And yet Willard is a great champion of Socialism...”
Romney has disconcerting RINO-like tendencies but that is simply not an accurate assertion. Exactly what initiatives and policies has he championed that would promote the ecomomic objectives of socialism (i.e., social ownership over the means of production and economic planning)? Socialists perceive capitalism as a system that exploits the working class and it seeks to redistribute wealth. If he was a great champion of socialism he would be praised by Dems, the MSM and liberals everywhere. They detest him for his success at Bain Capital.
You’ve been here 12 years, for which about half of that time has been spent reviewing this man’s record. Were you hiding under a rock during this period ? It borders on the ludicrous to make a statement that claims he is anything but a believer in big and invasive government. Set aside everything else that is repugnant about him, his gleefully pushing through Socialist healthcare in MA, which enabled and inspired ZeroCare, is the single disqualifier that he possesses in any way legitimacy to downsize government in any way, be it at the state or federal level.
I merely define socialism and you accuse me of living under a rock. Suggest you lighten up a little bit. I don’t like big government either but, strictly speaking its not exactly the same thing as socialism. You may disagree, but that was my point.
Nearly all presidents going back to WWII have promoted increasingly larger and invasive national government. Do you consider all of them to be socialists? If Romney is elected I agree there won’t be much downsizing but it won’t be anything like the unchecked expansion we’d see from the idiologue currently occupying the White House. Think rule by executive order which is truely frightening stuff to those of us who value representative government.
Romney may be far from the ideal candidate (from a concervative view) but the stark reality is that the next election is really a choice between electing a president (who can be replaced in four short years) or coronating a dictator who will detroy what’s left of this country’s freedom, economic vitality and greatness. You may not like the choice, but that’s pretty much where we are unfortunately. What other candidate do you have in mind who actually has a realistic political chance of ousting Obama?
I strongly dislike Obamacare but I belive in federalism and personally don’t care what individual states do, as long as they pay for their own policies themselves. I haven’t lived under a rock and am very much aware that there is a long list of states that do and permit wacky things the rest of us would never tolerate. The point is, lots of governors do things in their own states they wouldn’t do in national office. Let’s hope that turns out to be the case with Romney.
I merely asked where you were during the years we’ve spent vetting the man in question. I think you’re also confusing the end result of Socialism (Communism). What is the drastic expansion of government over the course of the 20th century but a movement towards that end ? Of course, Socialism and Communism in practice is a hypocrisy, anyway (Marxism should be the absence of government, which it certainly isn’t).
Yes, an argument could be made that many of the Presidents of the 20th century were Socialists (and I would include Hoover and Theodore Roosevelt in that assessment, since both were “Progressives”). I’ve stated that the Republican Party today (at least the establishment) is Socialist, since they are clearly uncomfortable with making drastic changes to roll back the size and scope of government across the board (which will have to be done, regardless of how they feel about it, or the money will simply run out - or value of the money).
I’ve also stated many times I prefer to replace Willard at the convention with a candidate who possesses the record of accomplishment and unwavering support of the base from coast to coast, that being WI Gov. Scott Walker. Willard is, simply put, a thorough failure. There was nothing he did while in office that contributed to changing (in a positive way) the political culture in Massachusetts, and indeed, he left it in far worse shape than he inherited. To say he could be easily replaced in 4 years is absurd. In the GOP, it simply isn’t done (you’d have to go back to Chester Arthur in 1884, but he never won the Presidential nomination 4 years earlier, only the VP slot). The internal damage it would cause in removing a cancer like Willard would result in the Democrats reclaiming the office in 2016 (if he remained, he would lose, if he were removed, he’d make sure the GOP lost — just as he did in 2008 when he was denied the VP slot).
Lastly, the government needs to get completely out of the business of healthcare (just for starters, nevermind a whole other laundry list of issues). They only serve to make things worse, drive up costs and lower the quality of care. Also, I’ve heard the excuse many times about Governors doing things in their states they’d never do in national office. That merely gives them cover to act like full-on leftists in their states. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t cut the mustard. If you’re not doing the “right” thing while as Governor (or any other particular office), you cannot be trusted to do the right thing as a President.
I like and admire Walker as well. In fact, I donated money to him on more than one occasion. But, he’s simply not going to be the nominee or even VP no matter how much you and I would like that to be the case. That leaves us with the reality of current political dynamics, and what constitutes electibility to the vast number of people across what’s left of this once great country. We’re down to less than 100 days and Romney, despite his flaws, will be the GOP nominee. The stark reality is he is our only chance to avoid the inevitable political, economic and social disaster that could be be less than six months away.
You may vote for him to your heart’s content, if your conscience so dictates. I will not vote for an individual wholly unqualified and unfit for the office, whose values are thoroughly antithetical and repugnant to mine and millions of other Conservatives. I’m not voting for Zero, either.
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.