Posted on 07/21/2011 8:13:32 AM PDT by markomalley
(snip)
So what does Romney say to these big money donors to make them fork over their cash and convince them he's going to be the one to face off against President Obama in the general election?
(snip)
But his pitch also veers away from what he says on the stump. When Romney gets into the room with potential donors trying to lure them to his campaign, he's consistently asked how he's going to win. According to several donors, Romney tells the crowd that his strategy will work: they will win New Hampshire and Nevada and are hoping to "get lucky" in Iowa and South Carolina. They believe if they win 3 out of those 4 contests they will sail to the nomination. If they only win two they believe they will be one of two candidates left in the race...
The same fundraiser says the campaign calls it the “Bob Dole playbook” referring to Bob Dole’s 1996 campaign where he was able to defeat Pat Buchanan. Like in that campaign, the Romney team sees the primary coming down to Romney and an “unelectable hard right counterweight,” which would enable Romney to be victorious.
(snip)
Although Romney swamped his Republican opponents in the 2nd quarter fundraising totals, this same donor did acknowledge that his supporters "certainly wanted him to raise more," especially with the expectation that he could raise close to $50 million the last quarter before primary voting begins. But they believe with Mitch Daniels out, Gingrich "imploding," Pawlenty "not getting any traction," Michele Bachmann being "unelectable" that the "whole thing is breaking our way," he said. Romney may not want to take his rivals on yet publicly, but behind closed doors the strategy is being made clear to those raising money for him.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
I will repeat again what I promised myself, with a vomit filled mouth, when I voted in 2008: Never again will I vote for a RINO. I don't care if it means we lose. I will not violate my personal principles again for the purpose of expediency. McLame was the last time.
Considering that Dole lost against a vulnerable Democrat President, I concur that Romney is the Dole of 2012. Yet another reason he shouldn’t be the nominee.
Sure that makes sense, because Obama is so much better than McCain, or Romney.
Wouldn’t the world be wonderful if we only got what we wanted?
You know, I don’t like my job... I don’t think I’m gonna go there anymore.
As far as I can see, both Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are "unelectable" principally because the Republican base really likes them.
Which says a lot about the GOP establishment.
Get over it. With a McLame or a Mittens, the train is still going in the same direction as Øbummer. Maybe a few mph slower, but the same direction.
What I remember best about Dole was his utter lack of a message or a program. It was “where’s the outrage?” and “vote for me, I’m a dear sweet old war hero”.
Had he presented a solid, conservative agenda and promoted it vigorously, he would have wiped the floor with Clinton. But his campaign was a zombie tour.
Even then, Dole probably would have won without the Perot effect.
Please list specifically how Romney would be better than Obama.
I'm getting real sick of these few states picking my candidate every time. I might just Go Rogue and FURNC.
“Please list specifically how Romney would be better than Obama.”
Seriously? You come to this site, I have to assume you read some, and you have to ask that question?!
Ok, I’ll humor you. Obama is a committed, ideologue. A hard core Marxist. To take a current example... the debt ceiling negotiations. Obama doesn’t want to cut spending in any way shape or form. He will lie and produce smoke and mirror cuts to get the increase. Obama’s economic policies indicate that he is either an incompetent ideologue who will crash the economy with his naievete or, that he wants to crash it on purpose to further the role of the state in people’s lives.
While I don’t support Romney, and will not vote for him in a primary, I don’t believe Romney wants to crash the economy, and I don’t think Romney was raised by dope smoking communists.
In a general election I will vote for anyone BUT Obama.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
We are assuredly in the most desperate of times, for our nation and for the world.
The very LAST thing we need is to propose as our leader someone who represents the very essence of the political establishment.
It is the political establishment, aided and abetted by billionaire businessmen, that took away our freedom, piece by piece.
Romney is the consummate slick politician and, as such, he is totally malleable. This is what makes him the darling of those who profit either by being able to influence such a man or by being able to get access, enabling them to get in on the ground floor for potentially lucrative public policy initiatives (e.g. Jeff Immelt and the current administration’s bought-and-paid-for “alternative energy” emphasis).
Take a good look people. The vapid smile, the perfect hair, the expensive suit, the zingers that are all too choreographed (and fall flat most of the time), the flip-flops...
Romney has a different letter behind his name, but he still represents the same old/same old.
Take a hike, Karl Rove and all you fat cats. We want someone who carries a burning sword.
Picking any one of them is like picking your slave master. Some may whip you less, nut you are still a slave.
Romney will keep those fed checks flowing to the investment bankers. Wall Street loves him.
That pretty much says it all right there. Republican Establishment: Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory since 1996.
You have stated exactly how I feel.
Mitt would do NOTHING to reduce the power and size of government. Because of his certain inaction, a serious collapse would likely happen during his one pathetic term. It would be blamed on ALL conservatives.
Mitt would be just a placeholder until the next Marxist takes power.
If our Republic is to be destroyed, let it be with a real Socialist, not some fraud like Mitt.
P.S. Sarah is going to crush Mitt in a big way, so we shouldn't worry.
prag·mat·ic Adjective
Dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
you are naive beyond words. Don't you realize that Mitt will do absolutely nothing to reduce the power and size of government??????? By doing such, he will further propagate the goals of the hard left.
I can't believe how so many people still think by electing some placeholder things can turn around.
Our Republic will ONLY be saved by having a President and Congress ready from day one to cut and slash government in a significant manner.
We are at a point where, "anybody but Obama" will not do.
Wait I got this one...
“We are at a point where, “anybody but Obama” will not do.”
So, if Romney is the nominee, you’re saying that an American who loves power is much worse than a muslim sympathizer who was raised by dope smoking communists?
Clear thinking there.
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.