Posted on 03/20/2012 9:49:42 AM PDT by lowbridge
When Gov. Romney threw his hat into the ring, I was thrilled with him --a born leader, eminently prepared to be president, ideally qualified to handle the problems America faces, impeccable character and a proven conservative. Yet I am amazed how often I have been asked how a conservative like me could be with Romney.
I let them all know that I not only support Mitt, but I do so enthusiastically. And I’ll tell you why:
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Big whoop!
Romney was a businessman. So was Friedrich Engels.
Last night I accidentally tuned in to C-Span and caught Romney giving a speech at Univ of Chicago’s International House. I actually have lived in International House when I arrived in Chicago in search of a job, found one within a week and continued to stay there for a few months. I kept an open mind and listened to his whole speech. I do not know if Mittens had practiced this speech, because he spoke without teleprompters and was speaking without hesitation. Romney described in detail his economic plan. He did not have any attack lines on Santorum or Newt. His attacks were focused on the president. At the end of speech, he received a long applause but no standing O’.
Right after that C-Span switched to Santorum rally in Dixon, Illinois. His speech was also without teleprompters and was received with enthusiasm by the crowd. It was clear to me that Santorum supporters have more energy than Mitt supporters. Dixon has connection to Ronald Reagan. So Santorum tried to convince the crowd he was the most Reaganesque runing for president.
It’s not that stupid. Romney is capable of pandering to the progressives in Massachusetts if he sees an advantage in it.
Peter points out that the man is a liar and panderer, and ups the ante by suggesting that he’ll distort his position and restate his history in ANY venue, not just trying to convince me he’s a conservative.
He tried to convince Massachusetts that he was more liberal than Ted Kennedy! (and lost)
There is only one possible way for Romney to defeat Obama and that is high gas prices all the way till elections day. However in this case even a ham sandwich would defeat Obama. Other than that Obama would crush Romeny…
Peter: “— The fact is that Romney is a conservative and dumbed himself down for voters here in MA ... —”
Romney has some conservative positions, but is not a conservative. He’s pandered in both directions.
Cboldt: “I don’t want an intelligent weasel for president.”
All politicians are weasels of some sort.
Better a conservative than a moderate for our nominee.
Better a moderate weasel than a liberal socialist one.
Bay Buchanan: “It’s time for conservatives to give Mitt Romney a long hard second look. As president he will repeal ObamaCare; cut spending; balance the budget without raising taxes; appoint strict constitutionalists to the bench; secure the border; enforce immigration laws; and defund Planned Parenthood. And he can defeat Barack Obama. “
If Romney is the nominee, these are good enough reasons to support him. But RomneyCare is enough reason to not want him as nominee.
This what Peter has on his profile...
“Mitt Romney raised by FID fee by 400%. But wait! Instead of a liftime FID I now have to renew it every four years for the rest of my life. A 400% increase every four years. Thanks Mitt!”
For the rest of the readers, “Firearm Identification Card” and Peter says Mitt is a Conservative. Keep in mind Mitt signed the assault weapon ban in MA.
Why “because the legislator would have vetoed it”
Mitt has NO PRINCIPALS
This what Peter has on his profile...
“Mitt Romney raised by FID fee by 400%. But wait! Instead of a liftime FID I now have to renew it every four years for the rest of my life. A 400% increase every four years. Thanks Mitt!”
For the rest of the readers, “Firearm Identification Card” and Peter says Mitt is a Conservative. Keep in mind Mitt signed the assault weapon ban in MA.
Why “because the legislator would have vetoed it”
Mitt has NO PRINCIPALS
A “born leader”!?!
Nope! He’s a “born liar,” a “born progressive,” a “born flip-flopper,” a “born arrogant prick,” and “a born nasty SOB”. But a “born leader” he ain’t!
So basically you are saying Mitt Romney will say anything to an electorate to try and win their vote - including running to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion.
So tell us, then, exactly why should we trust anything he's telling us now? He's already shown what kind of candidate he's about - namely, he's about himself.
If Romney is the nominee, these are good enough reasons to support him. But RomneyCare is enough reason to not want him as nominee.
If I could believe any of that I'd be happy to vote for Romney. But how can anyone know what to believe about the man? He's promised to support abortion rights but now claims to be pro-life. He's appointed flaming liberals to the MA courts and now claims he wants to appoint strict constructionists, he signed romenycare into law, all the while proclaiming his love for mandates because " they work'! but now promises to repeal obamacare.
Romney is too, too eager. Too ambitious. He WANTS to be President too badly...so badly that he'll do anything, say anything and promise anything to anyone to get elected. No thanks. I want a conservative. A real, principled conservative. A man with a core who can be trusted. That's not Mitt.
The woman is deceived.
Again.
Anyone who might defeat Romney is zotted by the press. it’s hard to campaign when the entire MSM is doing opposition research on you and spreading rumors.
>Where are Palin, Barbour, Daniels, Ryan, DeMint etc who would not be losing to Mittens!
Good question, though there are answers to some:
Palin- people who think she could have been elected are fooling themselves. She lacks experience, and was too thoroughly trashed in the last election. I like her, but I am realistic. She was realistic as well and didn’t run.
Barbour- not sure why he didn’t run
Daniels- he opted out because he didn’t want to expose some family issues to the world. His wife ran away for a while but eventually came back, and he decided this wasn’t something he wanted on the national stage. He would have been my pick hands down.
Ryan- he has stated clearly that he thinks he can do more good chairing the budget committee. I think he’s right. He is presentable and speaks well, but still is not a national figure. Going from a House seat to president is a heck of a leap, especially for someone so young.
DeMint- again, not sure why he didn’t run. Maybe he prefers to be the power behind the throne.
I could speculate as to why some aren’t in the game. As I understand it, the level of fundraising required, and the restrictions in place have made amassing a war chest a very full time job that takes years. Could be Barbour and DeMint are both familiar enough with the process to hate the idea of tackling it on the national scale.
Truth be told, the most compelling reason Romney is doing well is that he never stopped running from 2008 so has continued to raise money and work on his ground organization in all the states. This has been clearly demonstrated in several states where the competition didn’t get properly registered (VA, OH, etc). If it weren’t for that advantage I suspect someone would have cleaned his clock properly by now.
Barbour??? He was good until he let all those felons including murderers loose on the streets of Mississippi.
>Barbour??? He was good until he let all those felons including murderers loose on the streets of Mississippi.
Don’t know the story. Maybe it could explain things.
“After he joined the pro-life cause,...” Seriously, that is about as vacuous as it gets. Why did he join the “pro-life” cause? Did he come to appreciate the value of human life from a moral/spiritual/intellectual perspective or a political perspective? I understand that this is a short essay, and not given to detailed explanations, but given Romney’s past history on this issue, some explaining is warranted. Causes come an go, but the taking of innocent, human life is always wrong and evil, regardless of what it is called, or how men choose to convolute morality. Short of that, I would accept that Romney maybe has come to fully appreciate the Rule of Law, and the pursuit of “life,” liberty and happiness, and the importance of those values in a liberal democracy. Please tell me Romney’s conversion amounts to more than joining a cause.
Sorry, Bay. Not buying it. I can’t stand the sight of Romney.
[ a born leader, eminently prepared to be president, ideally qualified to handle the problems America faces, impeccable character and a proven conservative. ]
Pity that he’s OWNED by the Unions..
You know the Unions that support fund and strengthen Obama!!!..
Willard must be Plan “B” of Obama’s..
Just in case America wakes up for awhile to see they are being “hustled”..
You know.. Bamboozled, flummoxed, ripped off, anally penetrated.. etc. etc...
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.