Posted on 11/10/2009 1:04:08 AM PST by rabscuttle385
(snip)
Although some in the party believe that it should be tilting right in whom to support in future elections, he said, "I will be by and large supporting conservative Republicans" but would not rule out backing some moderates, referencing former President Reagan.
"He was the one who coined the term 'the big tent.' He also said that you don't build something by subtraction. So we welcome people who agree with us on most issues. Some will be very conservative on some issues. Some will be less so on others. We welcome you into the party."
(snip)
"We have a plan in Massachusetts that is working pretty well. It has flaws. It's not perfect, but it is making a difference here," he said. "We found a way to get everybody insured in the state, and we did that without a public option -- no government insurance and without the need of raising taxes."
At the same time, he is trying to use his experience on the issue as a way to attack the Obama administration.
There has been "no interest in [the] part of the administration to speak with me or come and really analyze what is really good about this system or what is really bad. Instead they have their own plan without input from Republicans, and I think that is very different from what people expected from this president."
Romney called Obama a nice guy and said there are some areas they agree on, such as the president's trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, to lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago, Illinois. But "he's just wrong on most big issues," the former head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics said of the president.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Well, you need to look at the bigger picture.
The country is going to Hell and General McCrystal in Afghanistan haven't talked to the President since April, at the time. But Obama has time to play Chicago politics by shilling for the stupid Olympic Games.
It just makes Romney look bad to conservatives, who don't want to be Obama's "buddy," and sure as Hell don't think he's "cool."
If Romney is the GOP nominee, I will vote 3rd party.
If Huckabee is the nominee, I will find a follower of the Christ to vote for.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Agreed, I will fight this guy with every ounce of my body, this guy is no heir to Reagan, and for him to try to sell himself as one is no less slimy than Fauxbama or Pelosi lying about their actions.
This guy is not a conservative, he can talk pretty rhetoric all he wants, but his actions prove otherwise.
No conservative, none can put forth a law that basically taxes you for breathing such as Romneycare does, and claim to be a conservative.
If the democrats were to pick our nominee, this would be the guy they’d chose. His actions do not match his rhetoric, and never will.
-—”.....You captured exactly why I want Rudy. He wouldn’t schmooze Congress. And he’s not afraid of the media. He laughs at them!......”-—
“Rudy for President” is the battle cry of the RINO. You are SOOOOO at the wrong site for pushing Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee in 2012.
Rudy Giuliani as the GOP nominee would be the only imaginable scenario in which I would find myself forced to vote for, and pavement walk for, Barack Obama. Hell, I’d take a week’s vacation to volunteer for Obama in a swing state.
As the non-GOP nominee, there are many things I like about Rudy. But the day he becomes our Presidential nominee is the day the GOP leaves me. This is a party of issues, not a cult of personality. I would rather lose an election to save the Conservative movement than sacrifice the movement to win one election.
If I have to choose between two liberals, I’ll just pick the one who’ll give me “free” stuff. Rudy is a fun character, and a brass knuckles guy who could teach the image-conscious GOP some lessons about handling the press. But he is not Presidential material, and would be the death knell of the Conservative movement as we know it.
Defending obama is hardly going to get him the nomination. We cannot allow them to pick our candidate again. Too much at stake.
Bump!
You’re welcome to your preference, I to mine.
Do you have any idea how irksome it is to say I’m “at the wrong site”? I was here long before you joined. And I must say I enjoyed FR a lot more before the “purification” started. I guess I’m just not into group-think.
I respect your right to a different viewpoint, but “purification” is a bit of a herring in this particular case
“Purification” makes for a nice pious plea, but you have to understand the difference between having no room for any differences at any level (”Newt Gingrich is a RINO!” “I’ll never vote for Charlie Crist for Senate!”), and not being willing to support for PRESIDENT a candidate who has been so very consistent an enemy of so very many key Conservative issues as Rudy Giuliani. Such opposition is hardly the unreasonable demands of a puritan grassroots.
I get a lot of flack for supporting the idea of Moderate Republicans in deep blue states (hell, I’d support Rudy for Senator of NY), and objecting to the purging of the center. But my gosh, man, there wouldn’t even be a POINT to the GOP anymore if Rudy Giuliani were the GOP nominee for PRESIDENT. No point whatsoever.
Very different from “purification.”
Romney wastes his time. He is a loser.
To calculate: determine how much money Mittens has, divided by the burn rate, then multiply by the weight of his massive ego.
OK. Truce.
I thought you were saying I didn’t belong here when you referred to my being at the wrong site.
Peace, bro.
As I said, I am not a Romney supporter. I was merely asking where in the article it said that Romney was defending President Obama - as was added to the title of the article. There is plenty to slam Romney on, without resorting to mis-characterizing what he says.
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.