Posted on 06/10/2012 8:04:12 PM PDT by Rennes Templar
ROSEMONT, Ill. (AP) — Republicans riding high from a string of breaks in their favor are increasingly optimistic about Mitt Romney's chances to claim the White House in November, even among conservatives who had qualms about making him the party's nominee.
The bullish take is reflected in interviews with party strategists and activists, including people who supported Romney rivals during the primary season. Mood matters because it can fuel fundraising and volunteer hustle. But some of those GOP players stress that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has little room for error if he expects to topple an incumbent president.
The chest-thumping follows a GOP victory in last week's Wisconsin recall election that saved Gov. Scott Walker's job. The race galvanized Republicans who saw it as an early 2012 referendum on conservative fiscal principles in an election that was likely to hinge on the shape of the economy.
Even Rick Santorum, who spent a primary season casting doubt on Romney's ability to succeed in a general election, says things are looking up for Romney. "I can tell you, I feel a little bit better about that election since what happened on Tuesday up in Wisconsin," Santorum said Friday at a Conservative Political Action Conference in Chicago.
-snip-
"Let's be honest about it, at the presidential level, the Democrats took the Republicans out behind the woodshed a little bit in 2008. By the sheer number of electoral votes Barack Obama won last time, clearly we have our work cut out for us," said Gregg Keller, executive director of the American Conservative Union. "It's a tough map for us and no one should think this is going to be a walk in the park. It's going to be a tough race. But Republicans and conservatives believe this is an eminently winnable race."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“Pure bullshit.
Lower taxes, repeal of obamacare, drilling and mining of the natural resources, less regulation, lefty indeed?
BTW are you the one that kilt his brother?”
If you know anything about how he governed in Mass., you would realize that you are more hopey-changey than the Obots were in 2008.
You guys are stuck in a Republican Vs Democrat game where, depending on who the President is, determines the rhetoric of the party. During the Bush years, we had Santorum defending the deficit, and he even said that deficits were a good thing as they made him weigh each vote more thoroughly. Obama, at that time, and the Libs, were all counting each penny on the deficit. Now Obama is President, and the roles are reversed.
Mitt Romney does not have a legitimate platform. There are no significant changes he is proposing for any of the real problems facing the country. The deficit will only continue to grow, and you guys can sit around and fight Hannity and Colmes style as nothing is resolved.
Go praise Mitt-wit, jump on his bandwagon, and when you get done whoring yourself to him, you’ll come back home to realize nothing has changed.
“Your statement is irrational (as well as racist). The next president will likely nominate three Supreme Court Justices. If Obama, they will all be Marxists. Romney will NOT nominate Marxist justices. In addition, the skin color of the president is irrelevant.”
Yaaawn.
Yawnnnnnn
“The precedent for assuming that Obama can win is that Roosevelt, who had progressively worse economic records, won THREE MORE TIMES!!!”
Not really true, the economy grew under Roosevelt’s first term, going from the depths of the depression and 25% unemployment to merely a rotten economy.
“We are running a guy who has yet to prove he can hold the Republican base.”
Polls are already showing that to be untrue.
“That’s why we need to operate under the assumption that Obama has to lose 15% of the vote he had last time, has to lose 15% of the vote he had last time,”
Which he will. Just a portion of the 25 million long-term unemployed and he is toast.
“The man acted to create public financed abortion in Massachusetts.”
That was created in the 1980s, check your history.
They paid for abortions via medicaid since then. You must be talking about Dukakis.
“The details are not that important ~ we have been winning fewer votes each recent election. “
What’s your excuse for being so wrong? You slept through 2010?
And Walker won by more last week than he did in 2010.
Now, about 2010, do you have 59 million voters, total in 2010?
Add 'em up.
Don't ever imagine you've got a "gotcha" with me. I don't play that game, and if you try it YOU WILL LOSE.
Roosevelt had more than one recession. I know folks who lived through the Great Depression and it was more than a rotten economy.
RaisingCain, if you are unable to grasp the importance of “The next president will likely nominate three Supreme Court Justices” then you are a fool. Your use of the Alinsky tactic of ridicule and name calling while not making any attempt to rebut norwaypinesavage's point is the action of someone actively working to get Obama reelected. Is that your actual goal? Are you just here to stir up trouble?
If you want to be taken seriously... you are going to have to learn to be civil at least part of the time.
Unfortunately, your entire post is spot on. However, the thought of four more years of the Marxist Usurper sitting in the oval office naming Supreme Court Justices and squandering our children's and grand children’s futures is more than I personally can stand. The system needs to be reformed especially here in Washington, but the battle at hand right now is sweeping Obama and as many of his minions as possible out of office.
Is that use of Alinsky tactics just fine in your opinion?
You seem to be pretty selective in who you deem to lecture about protocol.
As far as Supreme Court Justices, show some type of evidence that Romney is likely to appoint a conservative, or it is just grasping at straws.
Thanks for the backup. I received some advice, though, over the weekend that seems appropriate in some of these instances: “Don’t feed the trolls”
You notice that I sand that Obama would appoint more Marxist judges. Yet, you asked about conservative judges. Don't you understand the difference?
You were given notice only as a courtesy because your hateful rhetoric was addressed.
Now you can get back to trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
That’s scary—aren’t the conservative justices relatively young? I don’t see Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts retiring anytime soon, won’t he just be replacing liberals like Breyer and Ginsburg, who are old and sick? Am I wrong about this?
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.