Romney Vaults into Lead -- and That's Before the Real Obama Emerged in Roanoke

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | July 19, 2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[fhayek]

Obama is doing a desperate Hail Mary on his left flank. He is pulling out the stops in hope that he can gin up the disenfrancised and the malcontent. It’s all he has got. He ain’t got no record to be proud of. Romney in a landslide. You heard it here first.

[going hot]

Yes

[Kazan]

He ain’t got no record to be proud of.

Neither does Romney. That's why it will remain a close race. A conservative nominee would have a double digit lead over Obama. Romney is one of the few Republicans that could lose to Obama.

[Rennes Templar]

Right, and Rush has said Romney can win in a landslide.

[oyez]

"We need to invest in education,"

Educators used to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". We really need to invest in whatever makes horses thirsty.

[roadcat]

Neither does Romney. That's why it will remain a close race. A conservative nominee would have a double digit lead over Obama. Romney is one of the few Republicans that could lose to Obama.

That's why some of us are thinking the White House is lost either way. Go vote and take the Senate and House - that's the way to make a difference.

[fhayek]

I’m not Romneybot, believe me. Romney would not have cracked my top ten list. BUT, he DOES have a better record. First, he IS an American, in every sense of the word. He has run things. He has had success in running things. He understands what made America successful. Is he Ronald Reagan? No. But put him next to Barack Obama, and, well Obama would look quite small. Flame me if you must, but this really is a no-brainer. (I still pine for Newt, though).

[roadcat]

Educators used to say, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". We really need to invest in whatever makes horses thirsty.

We need to make the liberals stop force-feeding crap to the horses - that's why they're thirsty.

[Kaslin]

Like I have said many times before, that arrogant lazy, lying pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is counting on the ignorant to reelect him, btw Nancy Pelosi is counting on the ignorant to make her Speaker of the House again and dingy Harry Reid is counting on them to keep the rat party in charge.

I say we got news for them

[wayoverontheright]

Obviously, people who own businesses are livid over the Roanoke speech.

The reason this thing has legs is that people instinctively know there’s more to it.

Perhaps the ones who should feel most damaged are those who aspire to succeed by someday owning their own business.

Imagine if you’ve studied, saved, sacrificed, learned, toiled and worked your butt off to become successful, and now the President of the United States tells you that if you make it, not only will you not deserve your success, you will become the declared enemy of the state.

The Roanoke speech was the attempt to squash the American Dream. It was an attempt to drive a wedge between employees and employers. Obama knew he was in a right to work state, this was his way of exhorting employees to adopt an us versus them attitude.

The side effects if many who heard his words heed them? Utter devastation of the work ethic. Might as well just go and play the lottery. Everything you told your kid about self-reliance and not making excuses-out the window.

This is the hidden message and the real tragedy of the Roanoke speech.

[jimsin]

'He ain’t got no record to be proud of. Neither does Romney. That's why it will remain a close race. A conservative nominee would have a double digit lead over Obama. Romney is one of the few Republicans that could lose to Obama.'

HUH? SURLEY YOU JEST, JOKER...

A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being "likable" or that he doesn't "relate well" to people. Frankly, I struggled to understand why. So after much research, I have come up with a Top Ten List to explain this "unlikablility."

Top Ten Reasons To Dislike Mitt Romney:

1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike aura. Looks like every central casting's #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can't speak in a fake, southern, "black preacher voice" when necessary.

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School...and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn't smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today's America?

7. Represents an America of "yesterday", where people believed in God, went to Church, didn't screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons....and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that "choice" deserves America's scorn.

9. Oh yes.....he's a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point.....dumb asses say because of his wealth, he can't relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that's because he made that money HIMSELF.....as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn't understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you unrelatable to Americans.

[Jim Scott]

I've been saying since January that it wouldn't matter who gets the Republican nomination, Obama will still lose. Sure, I wanted it to be Sarah Palin, then Herman Cain, then Rick Santorum. But when it came down to Romney I was disappointed but knew that the election would be his to lose.

Mitt Romney certainly has his shortcomings but he can defeat Obama and right now, that is the primary goal. Once in office, we'll need a conservative majority in the House and the senate to keep Romney's liberal proclivities in check but, despite the constant criticism on FR, Romney will be 1000 times better for America (and the economy) than Obama.

[Jeff Vader]

considering how the communist in chief ignores the senate and congress I’d say it’s vital we win the White House

[Kaslin]

Herman Cain was my first choice, but I voted for Rick Santorum in the Super Tuesday Primary and now my vote will go to our next President Mitt RomneyHe definitely will be 1000 times better then that arrogant pos we have now

[fhayek]

considering how the communist in chief ignores the senate and congress I’d say it’s vital we win the White House

Not to mention the U.S. Constitution.

[Cyber Liberty]

Whoa! Long transcript, Kaslin-babe!

So, Rush, you don’t know why they hate America? See my tagline.

[No Socialist]

The whole stupid argument about roads and bridges has been circulating around the whacky liberal circles for sometime. I was stunned the first time I heard that stupid argument. So those liberal morons don’t want roads and bridges?? It’s not like they don’t drive their little electric cars on the roads and bridges or they don’t consume products or visit businesses.

It never ceases to amaze me that the liberal whackos constantly complain about the greedy rich who want to keep more of their own money. They never see there constant grab to get their hands on as much of other people’s money as they can as greedy.

Shock treatments might work, but it’s doubtful. Time to fire up the tasers for the upcoming civil war when Obama loses in November.

[Kaslin]

Great post

[CyberAnt]

“... take the Senate and House, that’s the way to make a difference ...”

REALLY ..????? And .. every piece of legislation will be VETOED by the president ..?? That doesn’t seem like a very good plan to me.

And .. IIRC, the very same thing was being said by people (NOT) supporting Bush.

And .. IIRC, we learned during 2000 and 2004 that the dems and their allies were oversampling dems and independents who leaned dem - by 14-16% in 2000 and 18% in 2004.

Remember, the dems believe that if the poll score is 45% or above - that person is the winner .. GEEEEEEE .... is that why we always see the president with 45% ..?? Also, they always show Romney below 45% - supposedly proving he is losing .. while other polls show that 64% of the public believes we’re going in the wrong direction. Those numbers do not compute.

If people are expecting Romney to be like Christie - they’re way off base. Romney is not like that .. but that doesn’t mean he’s not tough or unable to do the job. Shouting like an attack dog is fine .. but not everybody is wired that way.

If you don’t like Romney .. that’s fine with me .. but to come on here and spread rumors and imply it’s better to win the house and senate is just beyond the pale - I’m at puke already!!