Sometimes our Presidents hang out with bad guys.
Posted on 08/15/2008 4:04:09 PM PDT by Plutarch
On the day Mitt Romney bowed out of the presidential race last February, his supporters latched onto something of a consolation prize that appeared to bode well for his political future: the warm embrace of hundreds of conservatives whose seal of approval he had long sought.
The enthusiastic ovations Mr. Romney received before and after his speech ending his campaign at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington seemed to signal that Mr. Romney had finally overcome doubts about his conservative credentials, as conservatives embraced him as a bona fide standard-bearer for the movement.
Yet as Mr. Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, is said to have emerged as a top contender to be Senator John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, a vocal segment of conservative leaders and grass-roots activists have mobilized against him, with some going out of their way to block his path to the Republican ticket.
It is unclear just how large the group of Romney detractors is and how representative it is of the broader conservative movement. Many are evangelicals who flocked to one of Mr. Romney’s rivals in the Republican primaries, Mike Huckabee, the Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor whose own hopes for making a repeat presidential run in 2012 or 2016 could suffer if Mr. Romney were named to the ticket.
Indeed, Mr. Huckabee himself aimed a few jabs at Mr. Romney this week, arguing that he would make an unacceptable vice-presidential pick because of his shifting positions on several issues...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
FWIW, President Bush doesn’t seem to have a problem hanging around with him. They are together in China now. Both rooting for the USA. :-)
You're right. He toyed with the idea of going to the dark side for months, and tried to become Kerry's running mate. But he backed off on the idea.
“In fact, the more I consider it, I think he absolutely detests the Republican party from a pathological standpoint for his father having been denied the Presidential nomination”
That’s QUITE a complex he has then! ;-)
Not condusive to success.
Sometimes our Presidents hang out with bad guys.
“He toyed with the idea of going to the dark side for months, and tried to become Kerry’s running mate.”
There is no ironclad proof of that.
But he was a success. The Republican party is now entirely non-competitive in Massachusetts. It’s like the GOP in post-Jim Crow Deep South states. A non-entity.
If Romney were such a charlatan Bush would not want to be around him. Teddy on the other hand was a necessary power player. If he weren’t in the senate, Reagan would’ve never been near him. Remember: “SCRAM”?
Years in the making. The same could be said of Weld and Swift easily. Besides why would anyone after living through 12 years of Dukakis and all the havoc he reached want to become a sleeper operative for that party in the state, much less nationwide?
Dubya is not always a good judge of character.
I don’t absolve Weld, I include him in the “cancers.” Slick Willard never intended to hang around in MA long, his goal was national. That’s why he must be stopped at all costs.
But why the Democrats? He lived under Dukakis as you know. That is hardly something to inspire one to work for them as a sleeper.
You have freepmail, FRiend.
Reno232: “Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you feel he could accomplished as a conservative w/ a legislature & populace that was OVERWHELMINGLY liberal? Who do you feel could have done better & why?”
Excellent questions.
If Mitt said and did whatever it took to govern in an overwhelmingly liberal state, what did he really gain for conservatism? Either way, big government was advanced.
You see, conservatives don’t just go along with what’s popular. Conservatives move public opinion to the right just like Reagan did.
What if 60% of the people in your state supported abortion on demand at any time for any reason. What should a conservative do? Should they try to speak eloquently against abortion to shift the public opinion, or should they give in since most people want it.
Does it really matter if you win a small tax cut here or there if you go along to get along on all the big issues???
As for who could have done better, I think it would be better to let people elect real liberals rather than conservatives who act and govern as liberals. Maybe there isn’t any conservative right now who could win in an overwhelmingly liberal state, but there eventually will be when the liberals muck it all up.
Of course, that assumes a state is overwhelmingly liberal. I still believe it’s possible to energize enough conservatives and shift enough voters to the right to win just about any state. You don’t do that by adopting the other party’s platform. You do that by standing up for conservatism.
You know, I’m not a conservative because I like Ann Coulter. I’m a conservative because I honestly believe conservative principles are best for this country. Most people, I believe, still want government off their backs and out of the way. And, even if there’s only a small minority of us left, I’ll still stand up for what I think is right.
Thanks, your ^personal^ webpage really epitomizes values of true conservatism.
Norman Bates: “Sometimes just holding the tide in the face of overwhelming onslaught is enough.”
Conservative leaders have been doing mostly that for the past 60 years, and you can see where that has gotten us.
Let me put it this way. Defense is almost always a loser’s game. That’s just fact. All the liberals have to do is win an occasional victory while we try to hold the line, and the country moves left. It may be small steps or big steps, but we still lose.
Well, most of our guys are on defense. If any of them truly believe in conservatism, they aren’t articulating it well or fighting hard to advance it. Most of them are just holding the line, but why? What has it gotten us? Not much.
EV: “I guess he lied massively to the people of Massachusetts, then, didn’t he.”
What a damning link that was. Thanks, EV.
Of course he claims to have had a conversion since then. Isn’t that convenient now that he doesn’t actually have to do anything to prove his opposition to abortion.
Even if Mitt is pro-life now, wouldn’t it be wiser to pick someone who was consistently pro-life.
Why? In this case he was governing Massachusetts, that’s why. For better or worse it’s the nature of conservatism to conserve not to revolt. What we need are more reformist conservatives. I’d say the way Romney tackled his business ventures and the Olympics that he very well may be one of them.
You have an answer.
I like attractive females. Just because I like someone attractive doesn’t mean I’ll follow them like a lemming to the voting booth. ;-)
And you have another FReepmail!
Norman Bates: “David Keene endorsed Romney. Bork. You name it. I may not see eye to eye but you got to respect their opinions.”
I do respect their opinions but I’ve yet to read a compelling defense of Mitt Romney’s performance as governor. Saying he had to act like a liberal to get elected doesn’t cut it. BTW, if it was an act, I’ll happily admit he’s a fine actor.
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.