Posted on 02/28/2010 12:48:36 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Edited on 02/28/2010 1:01:26 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
What is it Thunderbird or Boone’s Farm?
As far as I see, you’ve called three to four FReepers liars
in this thread, but on examination, only you deviate
from the truth.
If you can’t share your paranoid claim, why don’t you
just keep up your insults, which are projections given
your ... problem.
Prove it.
I still consider myself the exiled leader of the anti-Romney coalition in southwestern New Hampshire.
the reluctant leader.
But nobody gave me a Mittster ping.
I vividly recall 2 Romney events I attended in fall ‘07, one in Claremont area, one in Keene. Baffling. Attendees were like movie extras that were there just so the cameras were able to show a crowd. A very cold atmosphere. At least McCain knew how to hold an old-fashioned populist rural campaign rally. Even at age 71.
New Hampshire 2012 must be Romney’s Waterloo, to use an overused cliche.
Aww, sorry, dude. You’re now on the anti-Slick Willard ping list. ;-D
Har!
I must be stoned too
I think I just read Romney was the frontrunner for the nomination
I theorize that getting the nomination in ‘12 is a 2-step process:
1. Defeat Romney completely (so that he is out of consideration.)
2. The race is now opened up for the Republican rank n’ file to choose a candidate.
The parallel race to look at is Dole 1996. Dole was on the ropes, but never knocked out. He need to be DEFEATED first, for the race to genuinely be opened up. All his opponents in the party failed on step 1.
Therefore, in NHampshire, I will likely support whomever is in a position to defeat SlickWillard in his must-win state. Assuming Willard is still a serious threat come autumn ‘11. The situation will differ in each state. But recklessly getting behind your favorite candidate without regard to the situation in your specific state is the knucklehead approach.
Re: Dole ‘96. I’m going to admit that I supported his nomination that year. I tend to be troubled when I see bashing of him for a number of reasons. At that time, I personally wanted someone with the necessary maturity (so dreadfully lacking in Clinton), the war experience as a veteran, and the political experience in dealing with the thugs on the hill. It was one reason why as long ago as 1988, I preferred Dole to GHW Bush (albeit that year I was too young to cast a vote). Dole may not have been sexy, but I think he would’ve done a decent job as President.
As for Dole’s opponents in ‘96, I just plain didn’t care for them. Lamar! for obvious reasons of RINOcity. Forbes because he lacked political experience. He needed to start by running for NJ Governor as his father had (albeit Malcolm lost). And as for Pat Buchanan... yeah, don’t think I have to explain that. It is rather astonishing more serious candidates never entered, especially on the Gubernatorial side.
I still can’t believe how poorly a general election race he ran. I wouldn’t outright accuse him of deliberately losing (as McCain can be forcefully accused of), only that he didn’t go to the fullest extent that he should have in trying to win. In some aspects, he took it all TOO seriously, and the public saw an old, humorless guy, rather than one who can be quite witty and personable, who could’ve put the latter to good use as a nice starting point and then segueing into why we needed grown-up leadership. I would’ve advised him to show off more of that personable side of him (if I recall, after the election was over, he went and appeared on Leno, fairly loosened up and the like, had the crowd entertained, and I believe Leno blurted out, “Wow, if I had known you were this (entertaining), I’d have voted for you.” The election was close enough in a lot of states that with a bit more of a push, and getting the Perot people, Dole could’ve turned it into a narrow win.
Me? A Romneybot? LOL.
What sort of drugs are you on tonight, Dio?
That is what he objected to, Diogenesis.
Good points about Dole. But it is true that his opponents in the grassroots forgot that they first needed to defeat him ... look at how fractured the opposition was in NH, AZ, SC primaries. If that happens vs. Romney, he will survive and then be unstoppable.
So, if you ask me who I would support in Iowa, I would say: most likely the candidate who is in a position to beat SlickWillardRomney. Same in NH, same in SC, same in FLA.
I would have liked Gramm in ‘96. I didn’t know anything about him at the time though, I was 12-13, most of what I recall first hand from that that race is from SNL, where I remember RINO Lamar! Alexander appeared. Norm MacDonald was awesome as Dole. Thank goodness Colin Powell didn’t run, he may have won and become a RINO disaster President.
Gramm didn’t get very far though, it was over for him when Buchanan beat him the Louisiana caucus.
Dole was the best remaining option I guess. I like Forbes but didn’t he run as a social liberal then? Dole may been not have been great but I think he would have been better than either Bush, I wish he had won in ‘88.
And I wish the GOP Governors anointed someone besides W Bush in 2000. Tommy Thompson maybe, he was the senior Governor and had a good record.
rabscuttle385 "That is what he objected to, Diogenesis."
Right..... Too bad for you, that you both are again shown
to throw ad hominem, and change the subject, while not telling the truth.
Because the truth is:
big'ol_freeper (post #71): "You state that conservatives won’t
support a guy you admit is NOT A CONSERVATIVE because he is a Mormon."
That was the first mention of Romney's religion on this thread.
First, not the second.
So keep on lying about what was said, and "objected to",
because this thread shows the truth.
Oh, is that so? Let's go to the video tape back to the post that started the discussion and see. #52:
Romney will not be the nominee.
Uncomfortable truth, his religion is the impediment.
52 posted on Sun Feb 28 16:25:42 2010 by onyx (BE A MONTHLY DONOR - I AM) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
Thanks for that correction.
Romney might be the nominee (if the GOP wants to lose),
but he will not be the President because of RomneyCARE,
his BIG-DIG coverup, his array of dirty tricks and
backstabbing, and his imposition of gay marriage
by usurping the Massachusetts Constitution.
As for his religion, it only his supporters and himself
who endlessly bring it up as some sort of excuse to
overcome his real problems.
First, I like him. He lives in my town in the summer, and he seems like a nice guy.
Second, he's brilliant. If I needed a brilliant guy to do something for me that required a high IQ, I'd pick him.
Third, he's only a so-so politician. Politicians have to work comfortably with idiots and scumbags, he doesn't really do that well. He thinks politics is just another type of management, but the two domains are really different.
Fourth, and most important to what we're discussing, he disdains ideology. He's a Dole-ite in this regard ("nominate me and I can be whatever you want").
In conclusion, it is possible that, if the circumstances seem to actually require it AND the electorate demands it, he could function as a conservative President. But he has no anchor to windward, and given the titanic forces that will be in play as the welfare state finally dies, he'd be very likely to get rolled.
No way ...
Leftist media played this game last time around, with their early flacking for Rudy Giuliani.
I see nothing that indicates brilliance. Above average IQ, perhaps, but IQ and wisdom are worlds apart.
One reason Gramm was a non-starter was a superficial one, his looks would’ve lost him the election. The public has an aversion to electing unattractive people as President. That’s why I also thought Hillary might lose based on her rapidly-aging looks.
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.