Posted on 11/13/2007 8:08:22 AM PST by Spiff
Fred pulled a STRATEGIC blunder by waiting until September to announce, while all other candidates were out there fighting, organizing, fundraising, etc.
That sealed the idea in people's minds that Fred (and I love the guy) is a lazy "hands-off I'm-not-really-sure-I-want-this" kinda guy.
I love Fred.
But his campaign slogan should read:
HEY, I"M NOT REALLY SURE I WANT THIS THING:
WADDA YOU THINK?
Nothing wrong with Romney.
He is super smart. He is charming, which goes a looong way toward neutralizing negative attacks (which the lib-Dems will launch real soon)
He out-wits and out the zings the shark-infested national media all the time (after 8 years of GWB, that will be a blessing, believe me)
He has come out with very good conservative position papers on taxes, abortion, the war-on-terror, illegal immigration, judges -- everything.
And his family is one of the MOST photogenic and calming in the entire US of A -- which also speaks hugely as to what kind of character he has.
One only has to look at the Clinton gene pool, and Guliani's sordid personal life and you realize that Romney has a built-in ad campaign family -- just in the first tier of sons and daughters.
Much of the Republican base realizes that a winning candidate needs a certain kind of charm in order to attract high percentages of voters.
Hunter is fabulous, and I love the guy. He just doesn't have that indefinable likability that is so essential to winning the US Presidency.
Is that fair? No -- but it is reality.
Ronald Reagan once signed into law (in 1967 California) the most sweeping pro-abortion law in the nation.
Reagan also proposed and passed the biggest Social Security tax increase in history, in 1983.
Reagan also proposed and passed the biggest AMNESTY for illegals law in history.
Yet, most people, including me, still love the man and consider him a great conservative.
Romney has certainly made some dumb statements he probably wishes he could take back.
But he HAS governed from the right on almost all issues, regardless of the dumb comments.
Lastly, I too was once a dumbster who had liberal thoughts. Yet by 30-years old I had turned into one of the most ultra conservatives.
I still think the national pollsters overpoll people from NYC and California -- most of whom are brainwashed daily by the Dem-loving national media.
I firmly believe that people had a vision of Fred based on his "Law and Order" personality, which of course uses makeup, scripted lines, etc.
When Fred failed to live up to that 'take-no-prisoners' attitude, people were disappointed.
Also, I believe his ongoing medical thing (cancer?) has weighed heavily on his mind, and that of his staff and supporters.
Thus, his turtle paced performance.
I have no problem voting for ANY Republican who wins the primary. And if the ‘base’ is ‘nauseous’ with any of them, you better think long and hard about the possibly fatal damage a Hillary presidency will do to this nation.
When you build up someone to the degree that was done (basically that Thompson was the second coming of Reagan), there is no where for them to go but down if they aren't the real deal. The MSM knows this and applies this pattern repeatedly - built up, tear down, repeat.
Your right...
It’s just a little matter...That was brought up here ad nauseum..
I always enjoyed your posts.
Preaching to the choir. That's one reason why I don't understand how Giuliani's "security" image has held up. I suspect much of his actual support comes from two camps. First, the Joe Lieberman Dems and centrists, who want all the Dem social programs and domestic policy, but aggressive foreign policy. Second, those who have bought into the myth that only he can beat Hillary, despite the fact that he dropped out last time he ran against her.
I usually did not think that a candidate had to start so darn early, but I guess its true now. Usually candidates started around one year out seriously getting ready to run. Maybe its just the effect of a 24x7 news cycle or the fact that democrats spent 18 months campaigning for the 2004 election.
And I certainliy don't look at ANY of our candidates, except the nutjob Ron Paul, as "a lesser of two evils." I see all of them as infinitely superior to Hillary, PERIOD.
Well, remember that 30 years ago, the candidates didn’t even announce until the spring of the election year. That got pushed ahead by almost a year. Then came the earlier primaries. We could always go back to “King Caucus,” and forget the nominating conventions altogether.
Sure, I’ll accept coverts.
But Romney is a two-weeks-before-running-suddently-joined-the-NRA convert.
Listen to Romney’s 2002 impassioned story about why he was pro-abortion -— replete with a yarn bout family friend dying in back-alley abortion -— Romney was on FIRE, very convincing.
Assuming Romney was acting in 2002 when he told the back-alley story, he would have had to have a Road-to-Damascus experience, which he admits he lacks.
In short, Romney’s sudden recent coversion is transparently false.
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.