Skip to comments.
Romney veep pick? A heavy hitter
Jewish World Review ^
| April 7, 2012
| George Will
Posted on 04/09/2012 5:16:17 PM PDT by TJA
Barack Obama's intellectual sociopathy -- his often breezy and sometimes loutish indifference to truth -- should no longer startle. It should, however, influence Mitt Romney's choice of a running mate.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012veep; bobbyjindal; jindal; paulryan; romney2012; ryan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: TheRobb7
Well, Mitt does have a track record of picking a pro-choice woman to be his running mate.
21
posted on
04/09/2012 5:55:21 PM PDT
by
jeltz25
To: jeltz25
if it has to be mitt...why not mitt-newt!
22
posted on
04/09/2012 6:01:45 PM PDT
by
ldish
(Looking forward to Independence Day)
To: DTogo
two words; John McCain
He proved that even with a GREAT VP choice you can still blow it. Sarah Palin was an unstoppable selection but McCain screwed up with his grand standing "I am going to suspend my run" stunt.
He successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. So even with West, Mittly can loose the race and send obama back to office for another term.
Or has that been the plan all along?
23
posted on
04/09/2012 6:02:01 PM PDT
by
JSteff
((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
To: jeltz25
if it has to be mitt...why not mitt-newt!
24
posted on
04/09/2012 6:02:54 PM PDT
by
ldish
(Looking forward to Independence Day)
To: TJA
BULL-PUCKY... There is NOT ONE VP PICK, no matter how conservative or brilliant, that will somehow make Romney electable.
Romney and the GOP have handed themselves sure defeat in November, and the most despicable president ever, certain re-election.
25
posted on
04/09/2012 6:04:10 PM PDT
by
Ron C.
To: DTogo
To: TJA
No matter what toppings you put on a manure sandwich, it’s still a manure sandwich.
27
posted on
04/09/2012 6:06:11 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You can't be both. Pick one.)
To: Longbow1969
is a union tool that sponsored and voted for Card Check
Gee, sort of sounds like Rick Santorum.
28
posted on
04/09/2012 6:06:25 PM PDT
by
JSteff
((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
To: rogue yam
To me Paul Ryan is the obvious choice and Bobby Jindal is the bold choice. I would be delighted with either. Me too
29
posted on
04/09/2012 6:10:42 PM PDT
by
TJA
To: TJA
I would never vote for Romney, not even if he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. No Romney. Never.
30
posted on
04/09/2012 6:13:50 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: TJA
31
posted on
04/09/2012 6:14:11 PM PDT
by
JimWayne
To: cumbo78
Been waiting for you to chime in. Howd your candidate do and how comfortable are you with Romney? The bottom line is that McCotter is better versed in poicy than ANY of the proposed VPs. Oh yeah.....did you have a problem with Reagan being the PRESIDENT of a union?My first choice was Perry till it became clear he didn't have the communication skills for a national campaign, and Newt, my second choice, obviously didn't make it either.
Romney sucks, but it is what it is. He's the nominee and there isn't anything we can do about it now. At the end of the day, I'm ABO.
Yes, Reagan was the president of the SAG, but he was certainly no friend of labor unions by the time he ran for President. Right now the issue of out of control collective bargaining agreements is front and center. Conservatives are trying to break the alliance between government unions and the Democrat party. Now is not the time to nominate a pro union guy for VP - especially not one that supported something as odious as Card Check.
To: cumbo78
From Wiki.
The work of Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg is a classic study of Reagan Democrats. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960, but 66 percent for Reagan in 1980. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their working class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others: the very poor, feminists, the unemployed, African Americans, Latinos, and other groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the period of economic prosperity that coincided with the Reagan administration following the "malaise" of the Carter administration. They also supported Reagan's strong stance on national security and opposed the 1980s Democratic Party on such issues as pornography, crime, and high taxes.
Reagan never had any major issues with the private sector unions outside the air traffic controllers and was bright enough to recognize that they weren't all ideological lock steppers. Lord knows, growing up in Michigan means you'll be in a union at some point and anyone who thinks that automatically makes you a liberal is a moron at best.
There's a growing conservative movement within the unions in Michigan but there are few with the man parts to acknowledge it.
33
posted on
04/09/2012 6:31:16 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: doggieboy
One word....Condi. A pro-choice defender of Obama policies whose sexual orientation is at the very least questionable. Yeah, that's the ticket.
34
posted on
04/09/2012 6:42:08 PM PDT
by
arasina
(So there.)
To: TJA
He truly needs a Sarah Palin, but she won’t be interested and I don’t blame her one iota!
He, and his minions with unlimited $$$$$ joined forces with the dems to destroy her personally and publicly!
If he wins, he loses and so does the USA!
35
posted on
04/09/2012 6:42:20 PM PDT
by
Randy Larsen
(I hate Rinos and Romney is one of the worse Rinos ever!)
To: cripplecreek
But Reagan attracted union voters, the so called Reagan Democrats. Look, we went through this when Cong. McCotter was a candidate. You HATE unions. I get it. McCotter explained his card check vote, and declared it a mistake. So what’s the problem with putting someone on the ticket that might attract these voters.
And Rick Perry? A nice guy and a good American, but he could NEVER get up to snuff on policy issues to enagage in a far reaching debate. McCotter would DESTROY any Democrat in a debate and he could operate as the attack dog.
PS: It can’t be two Governors. No foreign policy experience. Never gonna happen
36
posted on
04/09/2012 6:43:00 PM PDT
by
cumbo78
To: cumbo78
You need to read what I wrote. While I didn’t support McCotter, it was because he’s an unknown. Aside from that I agree with you.
37
posted on
04/09/2012 6:47:45 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
To: TJA
How can anybody get excited here for a person who will spend four years doing state funerals while Willard runs wild on our personal liberties?
38
posted on
04/09/2012 6:49:01 PM PDT
by
Sybeck1
(RIP Tea Party 2009-2012)
To: TJA
Romney veep pick? A heavy hitter Romney veep pick? Who cares?
39
posted on
04/09/2012 6:51:35 PM PDT
by
Colonel_Flagg
(There will be no vote for Myth Romney in my house. Period.)
To: TJA
Like those people would include anything that the people want.
I have never seen such sissy poltical correct men running the party in my entire life. Maybe they can call it a new name.
40
posted on
04/09/2012 7:04:11 PM PDT
by
Christie at the beach
(I like Newt and would love to see political dead bodies on the floor.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson