Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins
I saw (and met) Breitbart 3 weeks before he died.

It was when Newt was ascending, and looked like the nominee. The group assembled was from all wings of the right, each one had their pet candidate, and was shilling for them.

He looked at everyone there (this was waaaaay before Romney won, no way anyone thought he would win back then), and said to work like Hell for the candidate you want now, but whoever wins, whoever wins, you have to coalesce around that candidate because: If you don't, you will be responsible for allowing the most monstrous, anti-everything you claim to love administration ever to have another term effectively destroying America.

I understood immediately that he was right. I was for Newt (after Palin didn't run), and would have accepted heartily the ones you mention, even though I didn't think they were as good as Newt. Romney was barely my second to last choice behind Ron Paul.

Now that the 2% have gotten what they want, Breitbart was correct, they are responsible for each week's travesty the monster will do. Anyone who actually believed the Axelrodian invention that Romney was as bad as the Kenyan and stayed home or voted third party as a result, they're the ones at fault for each new disaster.

Sorry, it's simply true.

33 posted on 01/16/2013 7:41:49 AM PST by Lakeshark (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Lakeshark

Saying the 2% lost the election is the same as saying that Romney failed at reaching out to the 2%.

It is evident now that the numbers of voters were down across the board. It’s also evident that Romney maxed out on those who did go to vote. He did NOT get blacks, Hispanics, the “he doesn’t care about me” vote.

So, all his efforts to win liberals & moderates were to no avail. They figured, “Why vote for lite when you can have the real thing?”

In sum, Romney lost because he refused to reach out to conservatives. Instead he made stupid remarks about gay couples adopting, about health of the mother abortions, about bi-partisan gun legislation being the kind he likes. He refused to engage over Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and the Arab Spring.

He lost enough conservatives in doing so that suggests he could have won if he’d simply backtracked and reached out.

Given Romney’s past comments on guns, I’ve no doubt he’d be leading the charge at Sandy Hook to ban guns. It’s just the kind of squish that he was.


36 posted on 01/16/2013 7:53:12 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Lakeshark

Key thinking there, for sure! We shall unlock no doors but with a single key! Not five.

Without a drop dead date ESTABLISHED in ADVANCE for coalescing, we cannibalize our candidates ourselves.


37 posted on 01/16/2013 7:54:11 AM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson