Posted on 11/16/2009 7:22:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
After the New England Patriots disasterous decision Sunday night not to punt on fourth down with the ball on the Indianapolis Colts' 28-yard line, former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, had every right to be ticked off. Especially considering that the Pats had the lead with little more than 2 minutes left in the game. Is it possible that the team's supposedly brilliant coach, Bill Belichick, got confused and thought the Manning brother waiting patiently on the opposing sidelines was Eli and not Peyton? Whatever the case, the Colts went on to win the game with 13 seconds left in the game.
But that fit of pique can't compare with the frustration Romney must feel watching the "All Sarah, all the time" frenzy in advance of the official launch date of Going Rogue, Sarah Palin's tell-all account of the 2008 presidential campaign. On paper, it should be a no-brainer. Here's Romney, with that ponderously impressive resume - CEO of the management consultancy Bain & Company, co-founder of private equity investment firm Bain Capital, CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics and governor of the Bay State from 2003 to 2007 - and yet he can't get the time of day. Maybe that will change by next year, but for the moment, north to south, east to west, the Republican faithful only have eyes for the Thriller from Wasilla.
Which is all the more fascinating because a bevy of new polls suggest that Palin's guaranteed to lose if she becomes the Republican Party's nominee in 2012. A CBS poll found that just 23% of Americans now hold a favorable view of the former Alaska Governor and two in three Americans would not like to see Palin run for president against Barack Obama.(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
...Especially since a field-goal wins the game.
If that were true them Mitt would be president. People do not vote for religious sectarian candidates, regardless of what anyone says , that's a fact. Half the country may be religious, but they are not all the same religion. And so they don't vote for those who make religious practice a matter of personal record to compare with another ‘less religious’ candidate. The topic is a losing proposition. The fact is that Romney wasn't strong enough to avoid the issue and allowed himself to get sucked into it, at the mistaken advice of his RINO advisers.
Notice what Obama did. If he had gotten sucked into the religion issue and began making bleeding heart talks on national TV, do you think he could have been elected? Likely not, Hillery would have won.
And this is not revisionist history. The liberal press pounded Romney on the issue, and they will pound any Republican who has a strong religious background, because they know if they can get the candidate to do the bleeding heart religious soliloquy , its death to that candidate.
Romney and Huckabee had some horrible advice, and they made short term gains , but over the long haul it soured most voters.Its another case of RINO style progressive thinking that was out of touch with the electorate.They thought that times had changed, but they were dead wrong.
So a candidate who is a religious person learns to avoid the issue and just continues on,regardless of how much it is raised.Too bad the press didn't pound Obama as hard on his religious community, but that's just how the cookie crumbles these days.
Romney and Huckabee are finished because of what they did on the issue, no matter how hard the Country Club Republicans push them forward and fund them.Its a waste.
Its time for a whole new group of Republicans to step forward and take the party clearly into the right of the political spectrum, which neither Huckabee or Romney are capable of doing because of their advertised religiosity,
and they are fighting against a rightward shift.Their appeal can never be broad enough to succeed.
Bwahahaha ! And, of course, we ALL know Slick Willard would NEVER lie. I’m sure his boyfriend Sean could barely keep from sniggering. Keep on spinning, Bronkie.
For all those anti Fred Thompson MITBOTS, by the time 2012 rolls around, just like you said about Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney will be to old... he will be 65 ...... just a reminder for those those who said Fred Thompson was “ TO OLD “ and a reminder of your hypocrisy if you say that Mitt Romney will not be to old at 65 in 2012.
Dozens of people did that....and it came Belicheck's descions came out on top every time. Here are a few...
Dozens of people did that....and it came Belicheck's descions came out on top every time. Here are a few...
See the above post.
Mitt Romney will be to old... he will be 65 .......................... Hey kid, who are you calling old? 65 is the new 50. You wouldn’t want to mess around with the 65 yr old bikers we have down here in FL. Besides, how old was Reagan? He wasn’t that bad of a President for his age, and neither was IKE.
Mitt Romney will be to old... he will be 65 .......................... Hey kid, who are you calling old? 65 is the new 50. You wouldn’t want to mess around with the 65 yr old bikers we have down here in FL. Besides, how old was Reagan? He wasn’t that bad of a President for his age, and neither was IKE. What has age got to do with it? Mitt is a political slickster, forget his age.
Mitt's got deeper pockets. If there's one service that Sarah has performed this country, it's outing sleazeballs like Schmidt and Wallace.
Palin may be a deeply religious person, but she keeops it pretty much seperate from her politics, and she will continue to. The values which descend from her religion are what make her popular, and most Americans share them, by a large majority, whether they are “religious” or not.
I am a religious person for example, but my personal theology is a long way from Palins. I support her 110%.
.
Now that’s irony there Billy...
Real big heapin’ spoon full of it.
Now that’s irony there Billy...
Real big heapin’ spoon full of it.
“Dozens of people did that....and it came Belicheck’s descions came out on top every time. Here are a few...”
You should check out posts 58 and 59. I pretty much reversed myself once I looked at it from another angle. I think the Pats made the right call. Where they screwed up was on the play-call (did he have to catch the ball that close to the line?), burning their timeouts so that they couldn’t challenge the call, and not letting the Colts score quicker (wasted a full minute stopping them on the one-yard line).
After mentioning T-Paw and Huckabee first.
In the one I heard, Romney was asked about the Republican bench strength, looking ahead to 2012 to challenge Obama.
He mentioned T-Paw first, then Huckabee; then when asked about Palin damned her with faint praise.
Cheers!
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.