Posted on 02/25/2009 8:25:01 AM PST by restornu
WASHINGTON - From a Lexington office complex, Mitt Romney's political action committee has ensured the former presidential candidate's omnipresence on cable news shows, ....
But for the next year and a half, the center of Romney's political universe will shift west to Sacramento, where key parts of his operation have reassembled on behalf of Meg Whitman, a longtime friend and former business colleague ....
The former eBay CEO is still readying her headquarters, but it has already become something of a campaign-in-exile for Romney's ambitions, which could include another presidential run in 2012....
"Mitt's going to be involved in dozens and dozens of races, but one that he's particularly excited about is the race for governor of California," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman....
A Whitman victory could deliver Romney a valuable foothold in a state that will likely be a big, early prize on the Republican nominating calendar. Her 2010 campaign will also offer a...
Romney and Whitman both harshly criticized the $787 billion stimulus package championed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, saying it includes too much bloated spending and not enough tax cuts. Whitman is also railing against the plan, signed into law yesterday, of tax increases and spending cuts to plug California's $42 billion budget deficit, saying in a statement it "will kill jobs, hurt families, and make future deficits worse."
The parallel careers of Romney and Whitman - ...
Yet Romney is the only one of the three considered a possible 2012 presidential candidate, ...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Good luck with that..
And I don't recall calling anyone naive or stupid, you are getting confused...
Guess you had a rough childhood. You have my sympathy.
Instead of posting silly juvenile replies, how about posting the evidence you have to back up your off the wall assertions made at post #44. That is something you’re either unwilling or unable to do. Frankly, I think its the latter.
One can always hope.
Whitman also said she would have voted against Proposition 187 had she lived in California when it passed in 1994. The measure ... was intended to deny education, healthcare and other public services to undocumented immigrants. "I would not have been prepared to strip all of those services away from children"She also supported Barbara Boxer in her 2003 reelection.
As to Arnie's Global Warming legislation, she seems to think that we should spend billions to fight it, but at a federal level. (Give the rights to States?) Whew!
"I would have said, 'Hey listen, let's keep one standard for the country as a whole today; if the economy gets better then let's give those rights to states,' " she said.
Of the three liberals(R) who are predicted to run for Governor, she's quickly emerging at the BOTTOM of my list.
Stop right there, that is the issue, nothing else matters.
Stated positions and actual actions are two seperate things. The talk had to match the walk. Mitt's hasn't and with this Whitman endorsement it seems to still be the case.
Interesting that you would even try and state such after a paragraph where you say we who opposed him were deceitful or dishonest...
>>>>>>A quarter of a million posts going back to 1998 ....
That is 250K, right? Right!
ROFL!
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what you think. I’m okay with how the thread portrays me and you.
Mitt...
What a big cry baby.
Can’t back up what you post, so you whine. LMAO
Stupidity speaks for itself. ;^)
Also don’t mix in anything about Mitt’s religion here. You don't want to open that can of worms. This is about his POLITICS.
You can't have it both ways.
I understand you are desperate for attention. You got it.
Indeed, that is the “we have been beaten yet again” fall back position” for all Romney supporters here...
Not at all. I'm desperate for some factual truth from you. I'll give you a couple hours. Lets see what you come up with.
The problem is that liberal Republicans are all too quick to throw out the fundamental principles of the party and enable the very liberalism that we should be fighting. Why even bother when some are so willing to give in to the leftists by offering up RINOs as the only solution?
I'm so sick of those who run around alleging that "A conservative can't win" or calling others "single issue voters" who won't aid in electing more liberals.
It sounds like the same campaign nonsense spewed in the 1960s against Reagan. Thankfully, people didn't listen or we wouldn't have had a Governor Reagan, nor a President Reagan. It is an old and tired mantra:
"You need a Republican who can win the confidence of the minorities and who also understands the big business of California.
"Anyone who is tied up with one segment of the political spectrum can't make it.
"It can't be done, it's an impossible task; if a man has this image the party is going to waste a lot of money all for naught.
-- George Christopher, 1965, during his campaign against Ronald Reagan for Governor of California
(source: "George Christopher Will Run as Matter of Principle" Los Angeles Times, June 21, 1965; p.3)
:-)
We hate Mitt because of his religion.
So by that logic, may I assume, as a “Conservative” that you feel that government should interfere in our health care system, that we should be lenient in support for abortion and that you believe there should be certain limits on Second Amendment rights?
I find there to be a certain amount of magic involved there, in the fact that simply because one is a Mormon those positions on what were once Conservative bedrock ideas can so easily be changed.
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.