Posted on 02/03/2012 3:38:32 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The Case for Romney - A president who owes you is better than one who owns you.
[BIG snip]
Let me try to offer some solace. Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you.
A President Romney would be on a very short leash. A President Gingrich would probably chew through his leash in the first ten minutes of his presidency and wander off into trouble. If elected, Romney must follow through for conservatives and honor his vows to repeal Obamacare, implement Representative Paul Ryan’s agenda, and stay true to his pro-life commitments. Moreover, Romney is not a man of vision. He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to “fix” health care in ways Massachusetts would like. He was told to fix the 2002 Olympics. He was told to create Bain Capital. He did it all. The man does his assignments.
In this light, voting for Romney isn’t a betrayal, it’s a transaction. No, that’s not very exciting or reassuring for those who’d sooner see monkeys fly out their nethers than compromise again. But such a bargain may just be necessary before judgment day comes.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
God, please help us.
Conservatives owe the Republican Party absolutely no loyalty. They should stay home, let Obama tax the rich Republicans out of their shorts in his second term, and create a new Conservative Party in the USA to start over. This nation cannot survive as it has been going the past 50 years.
Does anyone have any news on the challenge regarding the delegates awarded for SC and FL?
I am thoroughly confused. If it is NOT winner take all, for either and you are awareded based on out comes from EACH county...then Nest should actually have MORE delegates?
Secondly, I’m thinking that Santorum is going to stay in and then eventually endorse Romney. Makes no sense otherwise. He’s in it to foil Newt.
I really like Jonah but it looks like he is slipping over to the dark side.
What dream world is Goldberg living in? Has he not taken into consideration the flip flops of Romney? Romney’s associates have already said he’s not going to appeal Obamacare totally.
Newt: Brutal ad comparing Romney to Obama
This is obviously meant as a web ad as it runs over 2 minutes, but it’s brutal in it’s comparison of Obama and Romney on the issues:
http://www.therightscoop.com/newt-brutal-ad-comparing-romney-to-obama/
2+ minutes of pure campaign gold.
After I vote for Newt in the primary I am going to re-register as an Independent. The GOP is a joke. Jonah Goldberg is a sellout.
One of the really bizarre things that I keep reading about Romney (to excuse his poor speaking performance) is that he’s a businessman and not a politician. But that’s a complete lie.
Somehow, these people seem to have forgotten that he was Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years. I believe that qualifies as being a “politician.”
The interesting thing is that Romney’s career as governor has practically disappeared down the memory hole. He obviously prefers to keep the attention off of his record.
They referred to him as "the governor FROM Mass," as he was never there.
This is "good." Mitt Romney's real record in Massachusetts [1:39 video]
That’s a good one! Governor “from” Massachusetts. He’s clearly trying to put some distance between him and his record.
Do you honestly think Mittens would try that crap in the White House? Why? What would be in for him, for one thing?
And do you think the Massachussetts electorate has anything to do with how its governor governs?
If you think we have less of chance to influence a President Romney on Supreme Court nominations than President Obama, just dayum.
This article is such crap, that I had to take my hard drive out and wash it to get the stink off.
I hate to dredge this garbage up, but you really leave me no choice with your embarrassingly fangirly post. These are some of the first examples (out of many I'm sure I could come up with) that came to mind. Again, posted solely for the purpose of bringing some perspective, if not sobriety, to this discussion:
What did Gingrich mean when he said he would repeal Obamacare on Day One and then he said he would reinstate about 10% of Obamacare immediately thereafter?
What did Gingrich mean when he said, referring to Nancy Pelosi, "we do agree that our country must take action to address climate change"? And what did he mean when he said, referring to that statement, "that's the single dumbest thing I've ever done"?
What did he mean when he said "I've never favored cap and trade"? And what did he mean when he said "I think if you have mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system, much like we did with sulfur, and if you have a tax-incentive program for investing in the solutions, that there's a package there that's very, very good. And frankly, it's something I would strongly support"?
What did Gingrich mean when he called Paul Ryan's plan "right-wing social engineering"?
What did he mean when he said, "The special election for the 23rd Congressional District is an important test leading up to the mid-term 2010 elections. Our best chance to put responsible and principled leaders in Washington starts here, with Dede Scozzafava"?
And when he later said, “At the time, as a party builder and someone who has always been trying to help build the party, it struck me that she was the local nominee. She turned out to be a huge disappointment. And she turned out not to be frankly a loyal Republican.”
Your post is an example of the type of dreaming that would SINK a Gingrich presidency. Why? Because the reality of this man is very different from the platitude "Gingrich actually says what he means and is perfectly intelligible." Those who fall for that are likely to become highly disenchanted with a President Gingrich and be the FIRST to abandon him and his administration to the wolves.
Anyone who thinks ANY candidate, much less Newton Leroy Gingrich, won't need supporters to "explain" and defend him from stupid stuff that comes out of his mouth is literally drinking the Kool-aid. Sorry.
Yes. It is what it is. I’m not going to take my marbles and go home or roll over and die if Romney OR Newt get elected.
Why would I fight less to hold the President accountable than I am now, with Barack Obama?
Answer: I wouldn’t.
get = gets
ugh
Nothing you said gives any reason to conclude that Gingrich may not still need some interference run for him.
It doesn’t matter if it’s not to the extent of someone else (which is debatable).
When Gingrich shot himself in the foot endorsing Dede in NY23, it was necessary for his supporters to “explain” that — except they couldn’t, and, besides, he didn’t have any supporters at the time.
When Gingrich shot off his mouth on TV calling Paul Ryan’s plan “right-wing social engineering,” it was necessary for his supporters to “explain” that — except, again, he didn’t have any supporters at the time, his campaign went into the toilet, and he was left to try to explain “what he meant to say.”
There’s more, but I won’t go on.
Plus, there’s a difference in the degree of gaffe here. Biden gets the SF NFL team wrong and Gingrich cuts off the knees of one of the GOP’s most talented thinkers, at the precise moment his plan is beginning to get some traction.
I don’t see those as politically equivalent, regardless of which one is the more vapid gaffe. In fact, that’s the problem with Gingrich’s gaffes. They are not vapid at all; they go to real and meaningful conservative substance.
None of that, even if true, is the least bit relevant to the issue of whether or not a President Gingrich would feel the least bit beholden to the conservative base on anything, at all.
Not even my remark that he could explain himself, if given the chance?
No that his explanation would be satisfactory, e.g., on the Dede endorsement and criticism of Ryan's budget plan. Further, I'm not seeing how somebody else "running interference" on those points helps sell those positions.
My general remark is in the nature of Gingrich being more specific, direct, and precise with his positions and justification than Romney is - left to their own voices.
Put that way, I tend to agree with your general observation.
However, I still come down on Gingrich as having the potential to make the more inexplicable comments. I just don’t see any explanation for a lot of what he’s done/said — which is why I don’t trust him.
Romney, he’s got a lot to learn.
In the end, when a candidate says stupid stuff, it can’t be only he and himself who are doing the explaining and defending. His supporters must chime in with “what he meant to say” or explain why it should be shrugged off.
So my general point was simply that this is necessary for all the candidates, and claiming one guy won’t need that type of support is not founded in political reality.
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.