Posted on 07/21/2011 5:15:22 PM PDT by Kaslin
Election '12: The Republican presidential front-runner is oddly silent on Washington's momentous budget talks. Mitt Romney can run, but he can't hide his positions forever.
Massachusetts' former governor went to North Hollywood, Calif., on Wednesday with a "what else is new?" observation.
"The president's policies almost without question have caused this recession to be deeper and longer than it would have been," he said.
There's no "almost without question" about it. But it takes more to be elected president than pointing out what 14 million unemployed Americans — 6.3 million of them out of work for more than six months — feel only too well.
As Romney stood before the boarded-up windows of a foreclosed-on strip mall — an Obamaville, if you will — he said nothing of the epic confrontation taking place between the man he wants to replace and the leaders of his own party. Indeed, Romney says precious little about anything substantive as he enjoys front-runner status.
Go to the Romney for President website and you can enjoy "Mitt on the Road: North Country," a video about how his family used to "play in the streams and went to the woods" of New Hampshire. Click on "Fiscal Responsibility" and it promises, "Over the course of his campaign, Mitt will propose the specific steps he will take as president to ensure the long-term solvency of Medicare and Social Security."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Even then he's thinking about lying.
Who cares? Why wont he just leave?
Well its either a lie, or a statement he thinks will get him votes, or both.
The man cannot be trusted as far as my petite, invalid, mother could throw him.
Romney has no principles and no spine. He thinks virtue is being gentile and competent. He is a loser and will never be the Republican nominee.
Is “What’s” a contraction for both “What is” and “What does”? Just asking.
Romney is unprinicpled and spineless.
He cannot be the Republican nominee.
He thinks virtue is being gentile
- - - - - -
Its ‘genteel’ or gentle, but ‘gentile’ is really funny since he’s Mormon and they consider all non-Mormons (even Jews) “gentiles”.
Romney has the same problem as all the establishment candidates. The only answer he sees to our economic problems are Keynesian in nature and are only a few degrees off what the democrats want to do.
We need bold action that doesn’t worry about what the other side of the aisle thinks. We need permanent elimination of many federal agencies, serious tax reform, a phasing out of all but the most necessary and minimal of our safety nets.
He is waiting to be appointed “leader”. He has no clue that leaders lead and fighters fight. They don’t sit by the phone waiting for Human Resources to award them the job. And they don’t sit quiet during the fight of the century trying desperately to preserve their political capital, as if he had any.
He’s a careerist. He thinks its his turn.
Romney is a politician. He hasn't got a clue regarding the principles of libertarianism or conservatism; hell, he doesn't even have a clue regarding the founding of the country or the Constitution. A Bill Clinton with special underwear.
Who gives a damn?
LOL...not a lot of Mitt fans on this thread. And I can understand that.
But, and this is old news, I would have rather had Romney as the nominee in 08 instead of McVain. He might have actually beat Dick Obama. Which = no Obamacare and no wasted stimulus and a lot less Fed printing and spending. Mitt would have more jobs coming back by now by less spending and taxing and good business practices.
I don’t think he would have tried any sort of the so-called Romneycare but some health care reform is certainly needed.
Anyway, my point was/is that Romney > Obama.
He’s a careerist. He thinks its his turn.
- - - -
Add to that he thinks that he is the fulfillment of a prophecy from 1844, and that God will hand him the presidency.
I think that Romney would have done worse, especially down ticket, and Mitt Romney would have become the voice and the face of the Republican party, and the automatic candidate for 2012, 2010 would not have been the success that it was, and Romney would be unbeatable for the nomination this time.
, I would have rather had Romney as the nominee in 08 instead of McVain. He might have actually beat Dick Obama. Anyway, my point was/is that Romney > Obama.
- - - - -
No he couldn’t have and he can’t this time. Too much baggage.
And Romney = Obama, just more ‘white and delightsome’
Romney has promised Goldman Sachs that he’ll give them Cap and Trade if elected. And he’ll veto a repeal of ObamaCare. Top it off with amnesty for illegals and you can see why he’s following Tokyo Rove’s orders and keeping silent. Romney is a sack of scheisse and a coward.
Mittens will end up much like Rudy. No matter how much he spends.
when the polls show that Romney beats Obama then you know he’s not the right Republican candidate but the perfect DemoRat candidate. Ovomit will beat him. It’s McCain all over again.
I am SO glad this is getting some play. I’ve been waiting for it. Romney is utterly useless. He’s also a coward. At least make a point, even if it’s wrong. Take a side. But the grand flip-flopping RINO is hiding behind the trees while everyone else fights.
Reminds me of Clifford Franklin from the Replacements movie in the bar fight.
If the GOP nominates this loser ...
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.