Posted on 01/22/2011 12:55:22 PM PST by Bigtigermike
The leaders of the New Hampshire Republican Party have spoken, and they have given Mitt Romney the early presidential lead in the Granite State. In the first-of-its-kind straw poll of members of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, Romney drew 35% of the total vote. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) came in second with 11%.
The straw poll was conducted in Derry, NH and was sponsored by ABC News and WMUR-TV.
ABC News political director Amy Walter tweeted the results of the poll this afternoon:
Mitt Romney 35.14%
Ron Paul 10.51%
Tim Pawlenty 7.61%
Sarah Palin 6.88%
Michele Bachmann 5.07%
(Excerpt) Read more at tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ...
These threads are not nearly as much fun as they used to be.
Nary a single Mitt Bott to beat up.
We may not agree with him but he’s electable?
That’s your argument?
GO AWAY.
I would guess that's entirely up to Texas.
No surprise here. Romney will probably win the NH primary...so what??
He is a legacy ivy-league, sliver spoon, conceited, empty suite, spoiled rotten, blow with the wind, big government ring kisser, decades long Washington insider with no more of a principled foundation or care for the people of this country than my goldfish.
Other than that..yea..he can run.
Ahh. Do not like the other side of the argument. You are almost as bad as the liberals. Will not listen. You sound like one of the conservatives that did not vote in 2008 because “we will teach the public what it is like to have a liberal in office”. Well we know and it is a nightmare and will be a continuing nightmare if we do not bring the moderates into the party. Simple.....
As to your insulting statement that I “GO AWAY”, I have been on this site for years and enjoy the discussions. I discuss the issue, not insult someone because I disagree with him/her.
Romney is electable. With a Republican Senate and the Presidency we can get what we want. The free market and a conservative Supreme Court.
lol
I listen all day, every day. I disagree. JR generally runs the Mittbots like you off this site. That's where my GO AWAY comes from. If you have been on this site for so long 1) you would know that mitt supporters are not welcome here and 2) there are very solid, conservative policy reasons behind it that have been stated again and again.
I just chose to sum up the FR stance in two words:
GO AWAY.
Alright enough of the name calling but you need some more information. He is a businessman. Has been one and this country needs one in the WH.
As to a legacy ivy-league? I can not find where George Romney was part of the ivy-league???? Yes Mitt went to Harvard (which I count as a stike against him) but his undergraduate was BYU and Sanford. Would not call that ivy league.
Yes, when he was approx. 15 his father became governor of Michigan but you completely discount Mitt Romney’s business experience with Bain Capital (Staples) and the 2002 Olympics.
Yes there is a problem with his health care system in Taxachuttes. This can be mitigated by a strong VP.
One last point: Decades long insider????? No federal post ever.... Did not work in Washington.... insider please get facts straight. Anyone that runs against the Kennedy’s can not be all wrong.
Hey budd, keep it civil. I bet I have been on longer than you have. I agree with most of what is discussed on this site but you need to make your arguments and see which one wins. Not simply say that you should take credit for other people’s arguments.
On another posting I made a good argument for Romney. I am not happy about it. But we need to know that if BO gets another term, our country is doomed. It is that simple.
Though I don't necessarily agree with all your other points, I understand them.
This one, however, has me puzzled. How does a strong VP mitigate the fact of --and his support for -- Romneycare?
Personally, I submit that Romneycare is as big a black mark against Romney as Campaign Finance Reform and Amnesty were against McCain. There are some things a conservative just doesn't do! And I can't imagine how the VP choice would mitigate against that.
The following is an excellent website to spend time looking around regarding national elections. The have a lot of data layed out in differing formats about elections. The following link is to a section on the upcoming GOP primaries which aren't set in stone for 2012 as of yet.
We began this by my saying that your argument was "We disagree with Romney but he's electable so we should support him." Well, the same argument can be made for 0bama. It's a stupid argument.
FR is not a debating society, no matter how long you've been here.
Truth, honesty and accuracy are paramount. Civility can take care of itself. That's what I practice. Read back over my posts and you'll see that I stick to simple declarative sentences. So if you want to continue whining, which you have been since my first statement about your weak and pointless argument, help yourself. I'm not impressed. No matter how long you've been here. Seniority is a virtue to liberals, not to merit-based conservatives.
For Romney to get the nomination he must promise to let someone else take responsibility for health care. Let Rubio take it and solve it.
Actually, you helped my point that McCain could get past amnesty and Romney can get past the stupid health care boondoggle in Taxachuttes.
He doesn't have a prayer here in Tea Party South Carolina and without us he is toast (unless he can get the Huckster to help by flim flamming the social conservatives again).
Truth and honesty???? Your words were “GO AWAY”. Just like a liberal, insult someone first and then deflect the argument by stating that the other person has done something wrong. You need to make the argument as to why it is a stupid argument. I see that others have started to make this argument that you did not want to make.
Merit based on a discussion website? Get real. I would bet my conservative creds are much higher than yours in the real life. I have spent my life arguing the conservative slant from high school and for the last 30 + years thereafter.
You haven't read a word I've written, starting with the first line of my first post.
I tend not to get into these fights. Jim Robinson has stated OVER and OVER that liberal/RINO debates like the one you're trying to engage in are pointless and not to be encouraged. And if you've been around here much (I doubt it) you have seen the extreme lack of support for RINO Romney's positions. His campaign will not be supported here on FR.
So, I'll go away instead. Goodbye.
Enjoy your stay on FR.
Thank you for making an argument.
I do have evidence that he is electable and Ann Coulter agrees with me. She has stated that Romney has convinced liberals-moderates to vote for him before and will do it again. She is right.
1976 any Republican would have lost. Ford did not lose because he was a moderate but lost because of Watergate etc....
1992 Bush would have won except for Perot who took 20% of the vote. All pundits say that. Bush did not lose because he was a moderate but because Perot took the votes away. BTW: Reagan was gone by 1988 and there were no coattails to be used.
1996 Clinton had done a good job convincing the public that he was the moderate in that race. Dole was outclassed and he knew it.
2008: McCain. He was “Bushed”. He did not win because he ran a horrible campaign (should have attacked BO instead of coddling him) and he was outspent.
You glossed over the fact that GWB won twice in much more recent history and he was a moderate when compared to this group. You should have seen the arguments from the conservatives in 2004. GWB is a liberal etc....
Again thank you for at least making the argument...
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.