Posted on 01/24/2011 7:38:42 AM PST by therightliveswithus
Mark DeMoss, a well-connected Romney supporter, released a memo recently that touted Romney as the best candidate. More notable, however, were his swipes at other Republicans who are prospective candidates for 2012.
DeMoss begins the memo, which he sent out to hundreds of major donors and pastors, outlining what he sees as needed in the upcoming campaign. He then quickly moves into listing people who "share" the same values, including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin. At the end of the list, DeMoss states that values alone cannot win, and then proceeds to list why he believes Romney is the best choice.
Amongst the reasons why DeMoss believes Romney is the best candidate is that he isn't bad at fundraising (even though he only raised 1/7 of Obama and 2/7 of McCain) and because a "poll" stated that Romney is by far the favorite candidate of Republicans. In the same poll, Sarah Palin was number five, behind Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, and John Thune...
The most obvious attack on Palin comes at the bottom of the fourth page of the memo. DeMoss not only alludes to Palin being incompetent, but he also attacks her well-known ability to energize a conservative crowd:
"A candidate for president of the United States should be capable of becoming president, and then competent to be the president.
Those who would suggest I am placing values on the back burner will be misreading me and wrong. I am only saying that a candidate’s values alone are not enough to get my vote. For example, my pastor shares my values, but I don’t want him to be my president. (By the way, “energizing a crowd” is also not enough; Justin Bieber can do that—but I don’t want him to be president either.)"
(Excerpt) Read more at punditpress.blogspot.com ...
What the heck is an anti-Palin?
A little early to go negative isn’t it Mitt?
Jerry Lewis is good at fundraising but I wouldn't want him as my president.
I will not stay home, I have a senator in Texas that I need to vote for however I WILL NOTE VOTE for Romney. I will skip that particular vote. Call me what you will.
I will not stay home, I have a senator in Texas that I need to vote for however I WILL NOTE VOTE for Romney. I will skip that particular vote. Call me what you will.
Skipping a particular vote is not nearly the same thing as “staying home”.
It was the “staying home” that I was responding to, not your lack of the ability to hold your nose firmly enough to get over the stench of a vote for Romney - as I am unsure as to my own ability to do THAT.
The problem with running a bad candidate is not just that THEY lose, but that they are a “down ballot disaster” because people stayed home while the other candidate enthused the voters, who usually vote down ballot the same way they did at the top.
Do not EVER EVER EVER “stay home” on election day.
There is a lot more to our Republic than the Presidency!
Anti-Palin: Any of a number of candidates who position themselves as a viable alternative Palin that the republican beltway elitists would love — Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty to name a few examples.
Christopher Rants op-ed: Palin Iowa victory could kill caucuses
Former Iowa House Speaker Christopher Rants has an op-ed in Sunday’s Sioux City Journal where he argues that the Republican caucus electorate’s emphasis on ideological purity could marginalize their impact going forward.
Or as the Republican from Sioux City puts it: If former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wins the 2012 Iowa caucuses, “I think that will be the end of the Iowa Caucuses as we know it.”
Rants argues what is an emerging theme in the quietly developing caucus campaign, that Republican presidential prospects more associated with their fiscal and economic profiles may be looking for a way to steer clear of the Iowa GOP caucus electorate, which Rants calls “a more conservative lot than you will find in most states.”
“We tend to push candidates for ideological purity. Unlike our coastal cousins, we have a stronger evangelical presence in the party,” Rants writes.
He adds in the post, which you can read here: “Now that’s all fine. But if you are Haley Barbour, a Mitch Daniels, a Mitt Romney, you have to ask yourself if there is a path to victory in a state like Iowa. There is no room to the right of Palin or Huckabee. And if they both run you can expect that it becomes a game of one upsmanship in terms of rhetoric.”
“Iowa has always been a ‘must play here’ state,” he adds. “But candidates may be re-evaluating that. Sure, longshots like Rick Santorum play because it’s cheaper than any other, and he gets lots of free publicity. But other candidates have to decide if there is a path to victory. If someone else goes the McCain route and bypasses us and wins the nomination, we are probably done.”
Rants’ comments are a warning. He notes that he wants to see the caucuses succeed, because of their tradition for insisting on hand-to-hand contact with activists.
While the Iowa GOP, who sent Mike Huckabee the caucus winner in 2008, will be watched for the impact on the nomination, it should also be noted that the past two presidents are caucus winners: Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and Democrat Barack Obama in 2008.
That may have begun altering the perception of the Iowa caucuses from that of a first test of viability to the highest hurdle for the nomination.
Rants argues what is an emerging theme in the quietly developing caucus campaign, that Republican presidential prospects more associated with their fiscal and economic profiles may be looking for a way to steer clear of the Iowa GOP caucus electorate, which Rants calls “a more conservative lot than you will find in most states.”
We can't be so conservative now can we?/s
So, Iowa is more conservative? Come down here to the South and say that. These republican party hacks are doing all they can to inch the party into democrat party 2 territory. They are trying to rename the RINOs "fiscal and economic" conservatives. But the fiscal and economic conservatives are the TEA Party who want no part of these half baked RINOs and socialists.
This is just the republican party elitists' way of saying let us win or we'll take are ball and go away. A veiled bribe, "Iowa, you like your standing in the election process don't you? So play our way or you'll lose it." They hate Palin with a passion. Notice they are not really complaining about Huckabee winning, they know if Palin wins Iowa, she will be validated, vindicated and all of their hard work trashing her will come to nothing. They will try to find a way to stop her by hook or by crook. Even if it means dismantling the Iowa caucuses.
Pan_Yan (RomneyBOT): "Who exactly are you referring to?"
That would be you.
Romney? Romney is NOT even in the picture.
Mittens as the nominee/candidate in 2012 will guarantee another four years of the Hussein regime.
Yes. You need to vote. But, like you, I won't vote for Romney under any circumstances. Vote for the undercard, vote for real conservative candidates wherever you can find them, because we need them now more than ever. But no more Cocktail Party Republicans running for President.
Why yes, yes he has. Romney is ignoring the Tea Party. While the other 19 candidates fight for Tea Party votes Romney will waltz through the early open primaries with the solid backing of moderates, independents and democrats. Unless Barry drops out there will not be much of a democrat primary, so they will flood the Republican primaries. He'll lock up the nominatiion without ever winning a clear majority and before most of the closed primary red states even vote.
Add to the above scenario the fact that it's probably seen as Romney's "turn" by a lot of Republicans. The only thing missing is who he'll pick as a running mate. I predict someone from the south, maybe DeMint. Romney knows that he doesn't stand a chance if Republicans from the South reject him based on his religion.
What happens after that is less clear. Hard to say if the voting public prefers their liberals to have a D or an R by their name.
Prepare to be McCained again.
I sincerely hope we're both wrong and someone else manages to capture the nomination.
I pray that if Palin doesn’t run, she won’t endorse any more RINOs- esp. Romney.
I don't think Romney will capture the nomination, but I think it's possible. We are potentially looking at a field of 20 candidates. Most voters don't know who most of those candidates are, much less know how to vet them. That's when name recognition becomes so important. The marginal primary voter (IE not political news junkies like on FR) will look at the bewildering list and pick a name they know and vaguely remember something good they heard about them. That's where Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich are scary.
if Mitt is the nominee. work for a conservative congress.
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.