or unapologetic backstabbing Mitt -- dog abuser.
Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus
Posted on 11/22/2010 7:01:21 AM PST by Bigtigermike
Mitt Romney hasn't changed a bit, and carries even more damning baggage.
The serious rumblings are already out there. Undaunted by the failure of one of the most expensive presidential primary runs in history, Mitt Romney apparently wants to take another shot at getting the GOP’s nomination. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch is “quite sure” Romney will run, and has said that the former Massachusetts governor “would be my preference.”
Sadly, there’s a hoary tradition in the GOP that certain establishment-favored candidates, even though they’re not the best available, have somehow earned “their turn.” That belief has usually led the party straight to the presidential political graveyard, which includes the campaign corpses of John McCain (2008) and Bob Dole (1996). Following that tradition this time around would mean that the party’s “it’s my turn” nominees would have moved from a somewhat conservative and usually credible war hero (Dole), to an occasionally conservative and all too often not credible war hero (McCain), to a decidedly not conservative and not credible guy who didn’t serve (Romney). There’s a reason why the GOP is often called the Stupid Party.
Perhaps the most potent portent that Romney’s 2012 aspirations are serious lies in an attempt by some to explain away his 2008 defeat as supposedly the result of his membership in and the public’s bigotry against the Mormon religion. In a pair of presentations on the program at the Mormon Media Studies Symposium earlier this month, a trio of Brigham Young University professors attempted to “prove” this claim. According to the Salt Lake City Deseret News:
[BYU prof John] Gee cited examples of counter-cult activity by the John McCain and Mike Huckabee campaigns. These politicians would slip false information about Mormons into a casual message.
… “[The media] need to know some of these things that have been going on that haven’t been covered, the way the coded language and off-hand remarks can be inserted in,” Gee said.
… “Mitt Romney will not be able to overcome half a century of hate and bigotry, but I would love to be proven wrong,” he said. “The media has to get the story correct, and it’s too much to ask for.”
Cry me a river. As far as I know, and I followed the GOP primaries very closely, the only evidence that anyone attempted to use Mitt Romney’s religion against him was one alleged early-December 2007 push poll in Iowa. Oddly enough, the only people who came forward to claim they had received the offensive phone calls were Romney campaign operatives, who “somehow” forgot to tell the press that they were on the candidate’s payroll.
The alleged push poll gave Romney, whose Hawkeye State campaign was already in serious trouble, an excuse to garner national attention with his “Faith in America” speech. Patrick Ruffini, who was blogging at the site of Romney cheerleader Hugh Hewitt at the time, observed:
This is relatively unexpected. Romney’s Mormon faith, though ever-present, has not been as big an issue as could have been expected earlier in the year. Questions still linger as to whether the most recent Mormon “controversy” (the push polls) actually reflected any real concerted anti-Romney strategy.
Apparently Professor Gee won’t let the lack of real evidence of a “concerted anti-Romney strategy” based on Mormonism get in the way of a historically revisionist fable.
The fact is that Mitt Romney lost in 2008 for a huge collection of reasons having absolutely nothing to do with his religious affiliation. Here’s the short list:
• His heinous betrayals of social conservatives in Massachusetts when he was governor. On Romney’s watch, abortion became a legislated, subsidized, state-sponsored “benefit” for the first time. Regarding same-sex “marriage,” Romney broke his sworn oath to uphold the state’s constitution by implementing the Goodridge decision before the Bay State’s legislature enacted the enabling law the court’s ruling required (to my knowledge, the legislature still has not done this).
• His proactive pursuit of state-controlled health care legislation in Massachusetts, signed with the late Ted Kennedy standing behind him approvingly. By late 2007, it was already clear, despite sympathetic media attempts to portray it as “pioneering” and a “grand experiment,” that Commonwealth Care (aka RomneyCare) was turning into a coercive, failing statist monstrosity. Despite its self-evident flaws, RomneyCare was often cited by leftists as the prototype for ObamaCare.
• A host of life story and resume inconsistencies, including but not limited to: his antiabortion “epiphany,” after which he signed the abortion-enabling Commonwealth Care law; his assertion, having hunted twice, that he was a “lifelong hunter”; and a completely disproven contention that his father George “marched with Martin Luther King” in Michigan.
On the ground, the real reason why Mitt Romney lost is that a few brave conservative activists whom Romney abandoned while governor banded together to get the truth out to a legion of sympathizers and then to the electorate — first in Iowa, then in New Hampshire, and finally on Super Tuesday. There’s your “conspiracy,” Professor Gee.
There are even more reasons why, if he chooses to run this time, Mitt Romney should again be summarily rejected. Among the new ones are at least these two biggies:
• At crunch time in March 2009, when the Obama administration was orchestrating a statist boardroom coup at General Motors, Romney went on CNN and applauded the president for his “backbone.” Seriously.
• After all these years, Romney refuses to concede that creating Commonwealth Care was a mistake. In March, he even called its imposition of an individual mandate to purchase insurance “the ultimate conservative plan.”
The majority of the USA’s population, which Frank Luntz recently found is sensible, constitution-loving, and conservative, cannot and will not abide Mitt Romney receiving the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012. We’ve had more than enough of this Mitt.
The honest truth is that I’m baffled by the whole Olympics thing. If he truly saved it—and it sounds as if he probably did—then where was that Romney when he was governor? He didn’t cut the bloated, corrupt MA hackerama even marginally. He did nothing to relieve taxpayers or increase state government efficiency. [Somebody told me once he made the DMV more efficient, but I did not find that to be the case in my first hand dealing with it.] He didn’t even take a serious stand against gay marriage until it was too late to matter.
Ultimately, all he did was add to the crushing financial burden MA taxpayers were already staggering under, and then he pranced off to run for the highest office in the land. Honestly, none of this makes sense to me.
Exactly wgat happened in 2008...Huckabee was McCain's conservative stalking horse, and sadly I think Fred Thompson may have played the role too.
What’s the over/under of Romney winning the Utah primary?
Oh yeah, we are not allowed to say anything respectful or nice about this person. Only personal insults and gratuitous slanders are allowed...I have to go.
Good point, MBB1984. And scary.
That’s why we have to work, as conservatives, not to split our vote.
That means eliminating people from consideration who are not true conservatives:
Romney (of course)
Huckabee (need reasons? I’ll give them to you)
Newt (anybody who thinks he’s a conservative needs an intervention)
Others?
How is this guy even around? His failure on healthcare served as a springboard for an even bigger failure on healthcare. Where does this guy get the scenario that he could scrape up a vote from anyone but he most die-hard fence-sitting indecisives?
The fascists will use any angle they can, especially religion.
IMO a mormon is far better than someone like John Kerry. Who professes to have a mainstream religious belief but then says it doesn’t impact his policy decision.
How can you have a strong religious belief and not let it impact your policy decisions?
I think you may be correct. He would obtain more votes from across the aisle and the repub machine than Palin because he IS a RINO and a good ole boy. Meg Whitman lost in CA because it was CA, an enormous risk and expense for any republican. The repub party is in wait-and-see mode (chaos) as are the pundits. This being said, I would still vote for Palin all the way.
Nooooo more Mitt!
They're actually playing a liberal victim card? That's not going to get sympathy. We don't want Romney because he isn't even close to being a conservative. I tuned him out the moment he bragged about not raising taxes, when he had instead raised fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. Standard politician truth that's really a lie.
I don't care about his religion, I've been voting for people who have a religion that I don't for years. If I did care about his religion it'd be a plus, because so far I've never met a Mormon who I didn't like.
Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus
I’m for the most conservative candidate who is most likely to unite the party to achieve victory. I see both Romney and Palin as unlikely to unite the party, although I see Palin as having a better shot at that than Romney. Having said that, Palin is unlikely to take any New England state. She probably would not take any northeastern state unless the country sees some disasters. Bush took no northesatern states in 2004. So Palin could win without the northeast. But I’m not rooting for disasters.
I live in New England (Vermont). I am a fiscal and social conservative. Having said that, it is hard for me to vote for anyone. But I do it. Conservatives in the mode of Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, or Mike Pence rarely appear on my ballot. When they do, they get beat 70-30%. Until the new Congress convenes, we will have 4 GOP senators from NE, and zero US representatives from New England. NH did elect two GOP’s to the House on Nov. 2. Of those four senators, only Judd Gregg of NH could be called a centrist. His replacement, Kelly Ayotte, is also a GOP centrist. The RINO twins of Maine, and Scott Brown from Mass., are not conservatives. Living in Vermont, I often vote for RINO’s because the alternative is even more horrible. Does this mean I agree with the RINO’s? No. But neither is any candidate or office holder going to please me 100% of the time.
So if you want to be purists who would never vote for a Romney or a Guiliani or other RINO’s, that is your business. I never vote for RINO’s because I like them. I vote for some RINO’s because I am a realist, and there are some I did not and will never vote for (Jim Jeffords). Neither Romney nor Guiliani will ever be my favorite. God forbid either become the nominee, but if they did, I would vote for either to get the radical Obama out.
If I had to pick a favorite right now, I would point to Chris Christie as the most electable conservative candidate. But he is not running.
The Mitt-bots on FR keep throwing up (ahem) Mitt’s name for another pres run. Other than that, and the musings of some media talking heads, I’ve neither seen nor heard anything from the man himself. One would have thought he would have had something to say about this past mid-term round. Silence. I guess he’s hoping we’ll all forget about his Masscare fiasco and the lowsy RINO campaign he ran in ‘08.
And it won’t be Mitt.
The majority of the USA’s population, which Frank Luntz recently found is sensible, constitution-loving, and conservative, cannot and will not abide Mitt Romney receiving the GOP’s presidential nomination in 2012. We’ve had more than enough of this Mitt.”
I do not care a whit what or who Orrin Hatch is supporting.
Hatch will nor be re-elected in 2012.
Hatch is also one of the co-sponsors of S-510, which would damage our food chain beyond repair.
IMO, part of the reason we are being hammered for eating such large portions is because there are far more people being born every day than new acreage of tillable & productive land is being created in the USA.
In order to ‘feed the prople’, each of us MUST consume less—according to the Feds.
The only way they can get this under their control is to ban all small farms & all home gardens & orchards.
This bill- S-510—is not one little bit about having safer food....
It is about controlling what food you get & how much of it you get. PERIOD.
What food could be safer than what you grow yourself? The E-coli outbreaks are NOT coming from the home gardens.
They are coming from the large Agri-business fields where illegals & ignorant workers are dropping trousers anywhere they please instead of using the porta-potties that are provided in each & every field.
Food being raised in Mexico- Chile-Peru-Argentina has nowhere near the inspections during the growth period or the harvesting & packaging periods compared to the USA.
CALL YOUR SENATORS. STOP THIS BILL.
But, but, but he saved the Olympics”
Then nominate him to run the Olympic Committee.
Men have not voted for a Democrat for President 70 years.
Quit spreading BS about sex and voting.
1964 was the first time that women voted more Democrat than men.
Women voted Republican in 1960, and Democrat in 1964, while men voted Democrat in BOTH of those elections.
Eisenhower won 6% more approval from female voters than males in both of his elections.
Quit spreading BS about sex and voting. Men voted Democrat in 1960 and 1964, and that is without looking at 1940 and 1944 or 1948.
1964 was the first time that women voted more Democrat than men.
Women voted Republican in 1960, and Democrat in 1964, while men voted Democrat in BOTH of those elections.
Eisenhower won 6% more approval from female voters than males in both of his elections.
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.