Posted on 02/28/2009 2:26:06 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
If the Republican Party’s conservative wing had the power to choose presidential nominees, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney would be the hands-down choice.
For the third straight year, activists attending the Conservative Political Action Conference chose Romney, a candidate in the 2008 primaries, as their future presidential favorite in a straw poll.
He won 20 percent of the straw poll vote.
A relative newcomer who has been much in the news came in second: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal was favored by 14 percent of the conservatives at the annual Washington gathering.
Third place was a tie between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin , who was the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2008 and former presidential candidate Ron Paul . Each was preferred by 13 percent of conference goers.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich placed fifth, with 10 percent of the straw poll vote.
I wonder what the % would be if it was just...
1. Romney V Governor Sarah Palin
2. Romney V Governor Bobby Jindal
and it was a Poll of just Conservatives and not liberals and Democrats paticipating also...
He said afterwards when McCain was already chosen.
TGhat’s like 1992...
Rush said one day that he “was thinking of voting for Bill Clinton”
I heard him say that LIVE...
It was so funny...
Suddenly many on hold hung up...
LOL
Now that is something I would remember. Show me the quote - please.
I always thought he was a Fred guy.
When Rush said it the first time, even I, who had listened to him since 1990, went cold and stunned...
I remember thinking “Oh, no Not you, Rush”
Good thing he kept repeating it...
ROFLMBO
RUSH: I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.
Of course, the foreign policy crowd is obviously what it is. I don’t think there’s anybody on our side who doesn’t care about national security, which is why I found it amazing that McCain gets the bulk of those, because the idea that Romney or Huckabee are going to punt national security? In Huckabee’s case, you might just say the things he’s saying about it represent an ignorance born of inexperience in the subject. I don’t think Huckabee has any deleterious intentions about the country. When it comes to the fiscal side, you cannot say — you just cannot say — that John McCain is interested. He’s even admitted he’s not interested in the social side. He’s not interested in the economic side. He said this, and when he has spoken up about it, he sides more often with liberal Democrats on fiscal issues than he does with his own side. That’s problematic. This is why I think — and why I have said — that the Republican Party, not conservatism, but the Republican Party is in big trouble if it is empowered and gets elected by attracting people who also hold liberal Democrat views simply because they like McCain because of his character, his honor, his prisoner of war story, and they don’t like Hillary or Obama.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/05/rush-limbaugh-endorses-mitt-romney/
LIMITED GOVERNMENT produces social and fiscal conservatism — not the other way around. It’s an important disctinction that I’ve only grasped in the past five years or so.
I hope Romney runs. If he spends $30 million of his own $ for a campaign, that’s $3 million less going into the coffers of the LDS church.
Looks like the ranks of folks that know Mitt is not a Conservative is growing. I am seeing names I have never seen before. Not to mention the site owner himself is no fan of Romney...
But you just keep hope alive, maybe you'll sleep better...
FEBUARY 8 2008!
So lets do a little logic here shall we. Thompson is gone, the man Rush said was the “only conservative on the platform”at the debate. Hunter was never in the spot light, and Huck was no conservative.
So my question, and it is, as always, one I put to every Mitt fan, IF Mitt WAS ALL THAT FOR CONSERVTIVES, if he was the embodiment through and through, the perfect conservative, why did we even have ANY debate, why did he not dominate FreeRepublic? Why were all these so called endorsements coming so late.
Rush's so called endorsement was after all had dropped but McCain. Hannity supporter Rudy until he dropped.
WHY WERE THESE and others NOT ON THE MITT BUS DAY ONE?!?
Answer:
Well in your heart, if you are honest and are a Conservative, you know the answer...
Based on his history, I’m not certain you can or should say that with any certainty. We had Obama’s history (such as it was) and people refused to see it and he was elected with help from people who normally would vote Republican...Bottom line is all we really have his history to go by since anyone can say anything in the heat of battle...
>It took those two, two term GOP Presidents 4 to 8 years of preparation, to win.
Which has nothing at all to do with what I wrote here.
>If your view is formed from reading FR, it will be distorted.
Fortunately, it is not.
You make me sick. Honestly.
I am a mother of an enlisted soldier who is currently in Iraq. He’s in finance, so I suppose you would denigrate what he actually does there. Little do you realize how often he is in harms way.
We've added quite a few since you came on board. We welcome you all!
Well said, FRiend.
“Which has nothing at all to do with what I wrote here.”
Sorry I misunderstood “lurching...”
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.