Skip to comments.Romney picks up Shultz, Rice, Huckabee and Nancy Reagan Endorsements
Posted on 06/01/2012 8:08:28 AM PDT by Jeff Head
Over the last few days, since Romney clinched the GOP nomination for President by going over the 1,144 committed delegates needed with his win in the Texas Primary on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, a number of new endorsements have come in for Romney's bid for the Presidency.
These include George Shultz, former Secretary of State; Condoliza Rice, former Secretrary of State and National Security Advisor; Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate; and Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan. Here's what each of them had to say on the date they endorsed Romney:
|NANCY REAGAN endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012)
I offer my firm endorsement of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. Ronnie would have liked Gov. Romney's business background and his strong principles, and I have to say I do too. I believe Mitt Romney has the experience and leadership skills that our country so desperately needs, and I look forward to seeing him elected president in November.
|MIKE HUCKABEE endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012)
I was very careful and deliberate in not wanting to get involved in the process prior to somebody securing the nomination, largely because I play on both radio and television. I didnt feel it was appropriate for me to pick a Republican candidate. I dont think anyone doubted that I was going to support the Republican. But Mitt Romney has now earned it and I use that term very specifically. He worked hard to get it and therefore I think all Republicans and all conservatives need to rally around Gov. Romney.
|CONDOLIZA RICE endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012)
"We care about the future of this country, and the future of our world and Im delighted to join so many friends here in supporting, and in my case, endorsing, Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States. If America is going to rebuild its strength at home, rebuild its sense of who we are, it needs a leader that also understands how really exceptional the United States of America is, and is not afraid to lead on the basis of that exceptionalism. America's leadership is craved in this world, its understood in this world. The only thing the American people dislike more than weak leadership, is no leadership at all. And Governor Romney, you can bring it back."
|GEORGE SHULTZ endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012)
"What Mitt has done at Bain Capital has been a major contribution to the American economy. He has learned and instinctively can feel what it takes to get this huge amount of money that is sitting on the sidelines of our economy to move forward and be invested."
I found Huckabee's statement interesting, and compelling, given the history.
CLICK HERE ON THIS LINK to see what each of the following names on the list below had to say (and when they said it) in endorsing Romney:
George W. Bush
A long and impressive list of very recognizable names that brings together every portion of the GOP...from the very conservative, to moderates (which he will have to have to win, as sad as it is to include some of their views), which will and is also attracting a majority of the independents...which he will also have to garner.
...but let’s get rid of the Marxist, that will be enough in the beginning.
Amen to that!
Right, he could be Ambassador to China again, under an (R) administration this time. /sarc
Huntsman proved his worthlessness by carrying water for Obama. Bilderbergs might want him for SoS but I don't see Romney being tied to influence of the Euro-bankers/power brokers the same way Bush-Clinton-Obama's have been enough to pick him for that position on their say so.
Huntsman is attending the Bilderberger conference in VA this week and would be an important link for the powers working for a world governance.
I appreciate where you are coming from but Euro solvency is of more concern this time around, I think. Obama can't be counted on by Bilderberg to deliver, and they are regrouping. A QE4 to prop up the Euro won't fly. Fed has no money, China is slowing, so no artificially propped-up yuan from them this time around either.
In fact if US is gonna prop them up we need to generate the revenue to do it, and that might only come by getting Obama out and Romney in where US goes gang busters with our deregulated energy sector, deregulation of business and privatization of public lands.
If the rising tide lifts all boats, then fine. US supremacy and freedom again rule the day like post-WWII, and if that makes bankers happy because they get their money in the end, I am fine with that. If it's they are making money ONLY BECAUSE we are making money, I am fine with that, too. They need us more than we need them, and we can put them on a leash to a certain extent. America back in the world driver's seat suits me fine all the way around.
It has been in the interest of world bankers to weaken the US for a time (at least since 2008). They pulled $5T out of our economy in one day on Sept 16, 2008, didn't they?
The US is an undervalued asset today, and lots of bargains have been created here as a result. Businesses have billions on the side awaiting and investment climate. A Romney presidency is just that environment.
Remember, Bretton Woods (1944) predates the 1st Bilderberg in 1954. It was a precursor to Biderberg, in fact. It was in their interest to have the stability of the US pegging a $-value to gold.
Remember this too, they wanted Bush in 1980 and only got him for VP under Reagan. Bilderbergs don't always get their way.
There's no telling what those f*#%ers are up to this time, but we might be surprised what they think is in their best interests this time around.
Dick Cheney is not well enough with his new heart to do the CIA directorship.
Bill Casey wasn't the picture of health under Reagan either. I wouldn't necessarily count Cheney out.
The Congressman from South Carolina who is stomping on Holder every time he has the floor of the F&F hearings would be an ideal head of CIA or Attorney General. Gowdy is the sort of no nonsense man a squishy moderate like Milt needs to give gravitas to his administration.
Well, his Congressional office was broken into with in the last two weeks for some reason, so you might be right. I like Gowdy. Also like Bachmann.
The installing of Sarah to run energy and EPA would cause enough liberal head explosion for that reason alone to appoint her!
As the song goes, "I can dream, can't I?" :-)
I like the idea of revealing some of his cabinet now and sending them into the fray, but to reveal all of them now would only give the lying media more room to falsely accuse individuals and tie them to Milt.
My point is the media and DNC couldn't keep up with the onslaught. They'd be overwhelmed by them. And they'd be the inspirational knockdown drag-outs that Romney seems caple of and inclined at this point to go brass knuckles on.
sides, little barry bastard commie isnt going to be the demoncrap nominee in November if things continue to unravel in his fraudulent lifestory.
If so, all the more reason to send the "cabinet-in-waiting" out there to take out Barry O'bastard's appointees, and then let Romney finish off what's left of Biden and that foot he's still got stuck up Obama's gay ass!
Carry on with your fantasies then. It’s all Romney Republicans have got.
Amen EV! George Washington, in his farewell address also discussed at length the problems of aligning oneself with political party’s. All his predictions have come true. It is where we are stuck. The good news is that some constitutional conservatives have made the choice to exercise their voting rights by not supporting the major two political party’s; Demicans and Republiocrats! I won’t live to see the party system changed, but I don’t have to play by their rules any longer.
>>Given the choice between a bullet to the heart or a bullet to the head, I choose neither. Thanks.<<
This is not a game of analogies here. This is real life with real consequences. Real decisions made by real people. It’s a war and not a battle. In the end, you choose or someone else chooses for you.
But the consequences are all yours.
Oh you NEED to share that. Great Job!
1. Hates America. Check
2. Hates free enterprise. Check
3. Loves extremely stupid ideas. Check.
4. The dumbest president ever. Check.
5. The first gay president. Check.
6. The most job destroying president ever. Check
6. The most pro-muzzie president ever. Check.
7. The most pro-choice pro-culture of death president ever. Check
8. The most divisive president ever. Check
9. The biggest spending president ever. Check.
10. The most wealth devaluating president ever. Check.
11. The most incompetent president ever. Check.
12. The most unqualified president ever. Check.
And above all, let’s make sure we don’t vote for Romney...........:-)
Maybe some FReepers. ;)
Sorry. You don't win the battle for conservatism by supporting pro-choice democrat socialists. No matter how much you lie to yourself about it.
For the Newt supporters (of which I was one): http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/01/gingrich-im-excited-about-romney-because-hes-not-obama/
I read your lengthy post. A lot of effort was put into it.
The only problem I really have with it is that this is not a GOP forum. Never has been, and as long as Jim Robinson owns it, never will be.
I have not been a Republican since 1998. I vote as a non-aligned citizen. Who I vote for and why are very dear to me.
As I tell the polling folks that call from GOP auspices, I am not, repeat NOT, a member of the GOP so please take me off your calling list. I then thank them for their time and wish the God's Blessings.
So thanks again for all your time, but please take me off your ping list.
God Bless you and yours,
I don't take offense. It's all strategy.
If you want Obama out you need the base motivated. That's it. That's the only way they get to the polls -- if they are motivated.
Mine is a motivational strategy and I proposed a way to make that happen. If Romney's smart (and I believe he is), he'll take my advice.
All the anti-Romney "sit-it-outs" around here are de-motivational for voters on our side who are inclined to vote. They clearly do not understand how elections are won.
They don't realize that in order for you to get the conservatism they supposedly claim for every "righteous" reason they want, you first have to WIN.
And you have to be able to be directly credited with the politician's win to best position your voice to be listened to when the guy finally gets in office.
That's the way our system works, not all the apocalyptic, "God 'll get you," stuff: assorted Jeremiad's and whimperings of poor-sport hopelessness and cringing spectres of failure belching defeatist bilge from their camps 24-7.
I will continue to oppose and vivisect their high-horse arguments on this Board all the way to election day.
...but let's not put any expectations on him that aren't real.
Our expectations are real. We put our expectations on him and either he meets them or we get rid of him too.
He's a tool. We use him. I don't have to make friends with him. Our interests have to be in line with each other, our motivations can be different. Our basic goals, though not necessarily all goals, must be the same.
Either he moves conservatism forward or we find someone better who is both willing and able (and electable) to do so.
>>You don’t win the battle for conservatism by supporting pro-choice democrat socialists. No matter how much you lie to yourself about it. <<
YOU call it supporting. It’s your perception of my thoughts. I don’t support MR. I can’t stand the guy. But when your country is gone and the constitution is ripped up the war is over. Conservatism is lost along with it.
There will be no battle for conservatism, because there will be the Obama government and NOTHING else.
Who are you supporting then?
Anyone who can win against Obama.
That’s no answer.
This is Groundhog Day all over again.
Because of endorsements, because of VP selections, because of hinted cabinet members, because of potential justices, conservatives should vote to go backward in the hope that they’ll go forward.
As someone has said, Romney is a “consensus builder”. So, if a majority can be found only with conservative votes, then Romney will make a conservative decision.
The flip side: If a majority can be found with a combination of liberal democrat and rino votes, then Romney, a liberal by DNA, will “consensus” himself to exactly where he wants to end up.
So, ask yourself this simple question, “Will libs and rinos be willing to agree on a liberal direction?”
Does a wild bear.....
>>Thats no answer.<<
What exactly do you want me to say?
I’m not sure you understand how dangerous BO is to this country. I said it before and I’ll say it again, I would vote for a lunchbag if said lunchbag could beat Barack Obama.
Well, I try very hard not to prognosticate. I don’t own a crystal ball, and I’m no prophet.
But, more than twenty years of political experience tells me that a candidate whose own supporters can’t stand him, some of them so much that they won’t even admit they’re supporting him even when they’re supporting him, doesn’t stand much of a chance.
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.