Posted on 12/02/2011 10:16:59 AM PST by Steelfish
Absolutely the worst candidates in my lifetime.
LLS
I have as much enthusiasm for the front runners for the GOP nomination for president, that have any chance of being nominated, as I do for having a root canal done on half my teeth.
I do not like pundits and the media deciding who will be the nominee, but I guess that is how it works now.
Everyone I agree with has been eliminated without a chance for anyone to vote for them.
I am truly frightened by what is happening to this country.
SCREW THIS: I NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY!
I am with you 100%.
LLS
Two reasons.
1. McCain is (and is still) so bad
2. We have been able to more precisely evaluate the bitter fruits of romneycare over the past 3-4 years.
And this is why we should go to “War” against the Republican establishment!
And this is why we should go to “War” against the Republican establishment!
The top 3 contenders were Romney, McCain and Huckabee as the primaries wound down. The choices were worse than they are now.
I may hurl after reading that mush. Yet another reason I never visit National Review Online anymore.
Romney dropped out behind Huckabee.
Don’t forget that.
“Gingrich has flipped flopped as much or more as Romney, and I cannot stand his family/moral values — that stated, I would still vote for him in the general over The One)”
That sums up my view, as well.
I don’t remember Rush coming out behind anyone.
His thesis is complete crap. Given the selection, either the huckster or mitt the twit were preferable to McLame.
the other choices were Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain and Fred Thompson (proving once again how utterly broken the GOP nominating process is)
I voted for Romney in the primary in 2008. Why? Because it was the only hope of keeping the primary open, and hopefully have the choice made at the convention. It was 100%, pure, anti-McCain.
Isn’t this a non-story? Levin only acknowledges who he supported in 2008, and why he did so. McCain was doomed as a candiate against the current freakshow-in-chief. Personal take is that Romney would have only done slightly better than McCain, but still lost. We just didn’t have the right candidate in 2012.
I can say I wouldn’t vote for Newt if it came down to that, but I will be holding my nose. He’s a creep, and a serial abuser of his past wives. Let’s just pray his current wife and former mistress, doesn’t get sick or she’s toast.
I can say I wouldn’t vote for Newt if it came down to that, but I will be holding my nose. He’s a creep, and a serial abuser of his past wives. Let’s just pray his current wife and former mistress, doesn’t get sick or she’s toast.
“I have come to expect such from NR.”
In Buckley’s day it was a magnificent thing. Now . . .
Weakly standard.
First, who cares that Rush & Levin preferred Romney over McCain & Huckabee in 2008? Nearing the end of the 2008 GOP primary season, Romney was the preference of most non-Southern conservatives. Mitt was the candidate that group disliked the least.
That will not be the case in 2012...unless Huntsman or Ron Paul are the only other remaining choices.
Second, Romney's major stumbleblock - Romneycare - was less objectionable in 2008. Romney declared he was opposed to national health care. Back then, that was sufficient for many conservatives. The fact that he screwed Massachusetts with a bad program didn't have any adverse direct personal impact on individual conservatives in 49 other states in 2008.
But in 2012, Romney's opening of Pandora's box in Massachusetts and the very real horrors of the Obamacare Romney helped spawn are devastating to conservatives everywhere. Any chance that most conservatives might "forgive" him and lend Romney support evaporated with Romney's defiant refusal to repudiate Romneycare.
Third, in 2008 the GOP establishment pushed McCain. So Romney, despite his warts, became more attractive to the GOP rank and file simply because he could be perceived as...gulp...an "outsider." For southern conservatives, their "outsider" preference was Huckabee.
In 2012, Romney is the establishment candidate. While Ramesh & NR may deem it logical to repeat their 2008 support for Romney, for most conservatives who resent the moderate RINO wing of the party, any Romney endorsement by Ramesh, National Review, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, Ann Coulter or others seems like a sell-out.
I personally don't think Ramesh, NR, Steyn, Krauthammer or Coulter are RINO's. They think they have principled justifications for repeating their 2008 Romney support. But to the GOP rank & file, they are mistakenly carrying the banner and leading the messaging of the RINO establishment wing.
For argument's sake, let's play a hypothetical game. What if Obama's signature legislative achievement in his first term was Amnesty and Obama's plan was as devastating to our economy as Obamacare is and will be. And let's say that John McCain chose to run again in 2012. McCain would again be the establishment candidate in the current primary field. Would Ramesh & NR be promoting McCain as the inevitable nominee?
No, they would repeat their 2008 endorsement of Romney. And here's the funny thing of this scenario, most of the conservative base could embrace Romney as their "outsider" candidate!
But 2012 is not 2008. Obamacare changes everything. If Romney will NOT offer even the slightest repudiation or acknowledgement of his partial culpability for Obamacare, then Mitt Romney is utterly disqualified to be the GOP nominee.
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.