Posted on 08/31/2009 8:38:40 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
The fact that McCain with no money and no organization managed to easily beat the Romney money machine purely because Romney is so phony and unlikable is not exactly a selling point for your guy.
Bringing that up makes people want to go back to his one shot at political leadership and look at his reelection chances in the state polls, it turns out that Romney could not have been reelected by the people that got to see him in office. They didn’t like him or trust him.
LOL, you are in full romneybot mode tonight, There is a reason why Romney had zero connection to conservatism before he started the 2008 race, he is a liberal and the first 59 years of his life proves it.
The man was doing democrat fundraising in 1992 and Planned Parenthood fund raising in 1994.
He always was actively anti conservative.
He should go screw up the democrat party as he follows most of their creed!
As near as I could figure out McCain is he had the “good ‘ol boy, country club syndrome”. Saw a lot of that during my service. Officer (A) would never speak badly about another Officer (B) no matter how big of a screw-up Officer (B) is. That also seemed to permeate the Senate in the past. He thought he would get points for taking the high-road.
Too bad for McCain that Obama decided to play his own game and not by Gentleman's rules...
“The “Anybody but Mitts” cost us the last one.”
The only difference between the two is color!
Sorry Mitt, but you are the equivalent to John McLame- a RINO with no hope in (where Ted Kennedy is).
Yea sure.
McCain didn’t need money or organization, because the Dems and the media supported him.
McCain has never shown political leadership. He specializes in surrenduring to the opposition.
McCain is the most phony Republican there is.
McCain has continually been stabbing his party in the back. That’s likable?
McCain wanted to be thought of as a maverick. A maverick is someone doing what comon sese tells them they should not do.
That’s McCain.
So what exactly is McCain’s selling point.
He had only ONE. He was not Romney.
So the Repubs got what they wanted.
And Romney is not my guy.
I just assess imperfect situations differently than other people.
When the race boiled down to three, I would have gone with the least imperfect of the lot.
I think too many others were so obsessed with taking Romney out, they let the media and the dems pick the candidate for them.
I look at what is going on now, and I think it is the same thing all over again.
The "R" next to Romney's name isn't magical. It doesn't transform Romney into a conservative.
It simply means that no one in the GOP has the guts to kick Romney's liberal behind out on the street where it belongs.
Romney started at around a 20% acceptance rate, and when it was all over, and he'd spent tens of millions of his own dollars (since not many others supported him), he ended at around 20%. Huckabee (who I did not support) got much higher numbers in a much shorter period of time, with a small fraction of the money.
If you sincerely believe that it is the fault of the "anybody but Mitts", I suggest you not support Romney next time. Since regardless of how much time or how many of his own piggy banks he smashes to fund his campaign, he doesn't seem to be able to rise above 20%, it would seem that Romney himself is preparing to personally hand the next election to the Democrats.
Are you so much more interested in supporting Mitt Romney's next exercise in narcissistic vanity that you're willing to see the next election go down in flames so that Mitt can buy himself another day in the sun?
We would have lost even bigger had Mitt won the primary.
That fact that everyone would rather have had McCain shows you just who is on the bottom of the barrel.
Nope, I gave you Palin.
The easiest way to blow holes in peoples arguments is to assume the person in question did just the opposite of what they are being criticied for. Would they still be criticized?
If Romney didn’t invest in himself, what would people say?
They would say he didn’t even believe in himself, so why should we?
In other words, you are putting words down, but they don’t mean anything.
Mitt Romney is a non-starter for me. Nice man, nice family, but no thanks.
Exactly. And we lost.
So it doesn’t prove the decision was right.
Palin wasn’t running for president, as I remember.
An evasive answer.
The only reason you signed up here two years ago was to push Romney, It was three days before you made a single non Romney post and that was just one, and then it was more than two weeks of posting before you made two non Romney posts and then you went back to Romney and Mormonism, it is what you do.
freerepublic is full of two things from you, threads of you pushing Mitt Romney and denials that you are doing it, two years of it.
All he lacks is genuine conservative values. He could be winning anywhere in the US as a conservative if he would renounce his anti-American globalism hang-up, outsourcing, open borders, big government socialism, corrupt crony corporatism, and other RINO bad habits.
It's his choice. Be pro-American or be gone.
“Tell Romney to round up those 5 loser sons of hios and march them down to the recruiters...”
Jump off a cliff. There a plenty of ways to be successful in life outside of serving in the military. Matter of factly, I’ve not served a day in the US military, but I take care of plenty of vets on a daily basis.
Why should one be a loser for not serving in the military? There are how many hundred thousand in the US military? Out of how many million Americans?
“Did he ever do ANYTHING worthwhile or for his country ???”
Sure, let’s let everyone in the business world quit, pack up the economy, and let’s all go to war.
*rolls eyes*
There comes a point when your vindictive hatred makes no sense whatsoever. You’re completely off your rocker here, and you know it.
Part of being an American is having the freedom to choose one’s own path—or should be. And it’s certainly part of being a conservative.
Kids who go off to school, raise their own families, stay closely knit to their own families, and live clean lives are not losers. Not by any stretch of the imagination. By your standards, the kid who takes over the family farm is a loser who should be wearing camo and is better off tilling the sand in Iraq than the land that raised his family for generations.
I find that idea completely absurd.
I think they are both bottom of the barrel..Mitt has fairly good hair, its smarter than he is....shave his head and send the bag of hair on the campaign trail...
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.