Posted on 01/07/2019 2:21:55 PM PST by Kaslin
It seems Republican Sen. Mitt Romney has short-term memory loss. This week he wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post in which he blasted President Trump for his leadership style. He opined that the president has not risen to the “mantle of the office.” Through the piece, Romney continually hit at Trump naming off each offense one-by-one. The article was a critique of Trump’s character, but a brief look at history shows that Romney’s has some flaws as well.
In 2012, Trump made a run for the presidential nomination but did not climb high enough in approval to continue, so he dropped out. After Trump stepped out of the race, Romney accepted Trump’s endorsement. In 2016, Romney tweeted that he would not have taken Trump’s support in 2012 based on some of the things Trump said on the 2016 campaign trail. It seems that Romney has forgotten his principles and tweets.
In February of 2018, Romney announced his senatorial run to replace now retired Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Soon after his announcement, Trump tweeted his endorsement of Romney. After saying in 2016 he would not accept Trump’s endorsement, Romney took Trump’s endorsement a mere two years later. It was a strange acceptance for someone who prides himself on character and being so principled, especially against Trump.
For a man who claims to have so many values, he seemed to need the president. Romney felt his character, reputation, and public policy was strong, but he accepted the endorsement. If Romney was a man of his words, he would have declined it and ran on his principles, but he did not.
One is left wondering if Romney’s beliefs are real, or is his desire to be in politics more important. There seems to be a character issue here.
Romney’s article focused on Trump’s character. He blamed Trump for the division in the country, but America began to divide under former President Obama. Anti-Trumpers love to blame the last two years on Trump as if Obama never existed.
Has the anti-Trump army forgotten about Obama’s IRS's purposeful suppression of conservative groups, or how Obama denigrated Christians by calling them “bitter clingers," or maybe when he lectured the police days after five Dallas officers were gunned down while protecting Black Lives Matters protestors? Apparently, to Romney and his crew, those few examples were unifiers and brought “comity” to the nation.
Either Romney does not understand that “civility”- also known as bowing down, spinelessness, folding, weak-minded, and fecklessness in the GOP - was what Trump’s voters hated. Trump was elected because he was the exact opposite of the Republican Party leadership and the character that Romney touts. The Republican electorate was tired of “compromise,” which in truth meant that the Democrats get what they want and the GOP gets nothing.
GOP voters made a statement. Romney said that Trump’s conduct the last two years has been unbecoming to the Office of The President; however, nothing has changed. President Trump is the same as candidate Trump and still decisively beat Hillary Clinton. If anything, Trump has been consistent while Romney flip-flops for the sake of a political office.
Obama was not some great unifier, despite what the media, Democrats and establishment Republicans say. All of this supposed Trump-driven incivility should have his approval numbers in the tank. However, at this point in his presidency, Obama was at 47%, and Trump is at 46%. So who has the character flaw here? Trump or Obama?
Yes, character matters. However, before you point out one’s character flaws, make sure you delete the tweets that contradict your op-ed. Otherwise, you will be called out as a hypocrite.
There were no divisions in this country during the Vietnam War? Or during the Clinton impeachment?
You can go back and research the hundreds of discussion threads at the time. This is common knowledge. I never implied that Willard was the SINGULAR force in destroying her, but he WAS a substantial force for the simple fact that Palin was in his way, and he never lets any Conservative get in his way.
I vehemently disagree regarding Ted Kennedy. He absolutely saw that as his entrée to being handed the ‘96 Presidential nomination. It would have happened. The party was desperate for someone seen as a winner, and toppling Ted would’ve seen him coronated. Remember, the party was going to nominate the liberal RINO Colin Powell had he chosen to run.
I didn’t imply that Willard was going to throw the election as he did in 2012 had he been nominated in 1996, he would’ve run to win, not to play ringer for Bubba. He then would’ve implemented his leftist agenda, destroyed the GOP majority by 1998 and handed the election to the Democrat in 2000. Do I believe he is that malevolent ? You bet your ass I do.
Hundreds of people can be discussing something without any knowledge about whether or not it is true. People believe what they want to believe and in this case, they didn't demand evidence before they started speculating.
After the campaign, McCain's team was blaming Palin for the loss. This became "Romney people" on McCain's campaign, and by now it's Romney people in McCain's campaign while the campaign was still going on.
Politics is a dirty business and just about anything can go on, but there's no evidence beneath all the speculation.
I wouldn't buy a bridge from Mitt Romney, either. He's a slippery character, but he's not the spider at the middle of the web responsible for everything.
About 1996, all you'd have to say is "He ran to the left of Ted Kennedy" and Romney wouldn't have gotten the nomination. His father, who had a much more substantial record couldn't do it, and it was impossible that things would have been different a generation later. Colin Powell had the advantage of being African-American and not being a politician, but he wouldn't have won either.
Revisionist history, I guess, is going to make out that the party was a lot more liberal in the days of Gingrich, but remember, Rush Limbaugh was riding high twenty years ago, and the Republican party wasn't as liberal then as some people have convinced themselves that it was.
Again, you can go back and review the discussions. Some of his most stalwart defenders here wouldn’t accept any evidence of chicanery. You could have a photo of him plunging a knife into Gov. Palin and it wouldn’t be enough.
At no point did I absolve McQueeg’s people, either. There were agendas and counter-agendas. None of these individuals were Conservatives or loyal Republicans of any sort. They were all Derp State operatives and anti-Conservative scum. Palin presented a fresh face, a reformist who took down the Alaskan RINO political machine, had enormous popularity with both parties as an outsider. That had to be destroyed, and each had their own reasons for it. Willard’s was to make sure she could never be the 2012 nominee.
I have never seen that level of hatred, derangement and sabotage of a VICE-Presidential candidate ever... and after a nomination and before the general election. You’d have to go back to 1952 to see something that personal, against Nixon, but this was a whole new level. 2008 gave us a preview of what they do to outsiders running, and not until Trump did we see it again. Again, I can understand attacks on the Presidential nominee, but not like that with a VP.
As I said before, had Willard toppled Ted the Swimmer, he was most certainly going to be the 1996 nominee. It was going to happen. Absent him, if Powell had declared, it was going to be him. Dole was a fallback, but certainly not the candidate that was going to win (at least not after the botched 1995 Government shutdown). How left-wing they were wasn’t going to supersede viability, which is what the party desperately wanted. If anyone had tried to stop Powell, they’d have been deemed a racist. Bubba would’ve had a very difficult time with him. Remember, even against Dole, he still couldn’t get 50% of the vote. Powell was so credibly worrying to the Dems who were concerned he could get 1/3rd of the Black vote. If he did, that would’ve been it for the Dems.
Not even Mitt? NOT EVEN MITT?!
The Wall Street vulture capitalist who viciously attacks genuine conservatives, but politely disagrees with any RINOpublican or DemoKKKrat?
Willard the ‘Rat [DemocRat in all but name]?
I agree Mitt is scum. I’ve always known it.
Which is one reason why I get a little tired of some of the FReeper games like when he got the nomination in 2012 and I’d say anything bad about him (like he’s scum) I’d be attacked as “wanting Obama to win”.
Just today Hannity said Romney has probably never done anything wrong in his life. In. His. Life.
Take a moment to consider that one (Hannity) who claims to be a Christian (and hence to believe in Original Sin) says that about the vulture globalist who attacks the duly-elected president.
There was no evidence. There was only speculation. It was after the election and McCain's people were blaming Palin for the defeat - pretty much the same McCain people who are on MSNBC now every week bashing Trump.
One political consultant who worked for McCain in the South Carolina primary wrote up something about Romney people in the McCain campaign bashing Palin to smash a possible 2012 campaign by her. How did he know? He didn't cite any names. He didn't produce any evidence.
Did he have any first-hand knowledge? Did he hear rumors? From whom? And what was that, second-hand? Third-hand? Or even more remote rumors? Did he find clues and put them together? Was he just deducing that this was something that Romney would do? Or did he just deliberately make the story up to make Romney look bad or McCain's team look good?
We don't know. Of course it caused a lot of discussion, but you can get a mountain of discussion out of a grain of speculation. Your version, that Romneyites in the campaign were bashing or bad-mouthing Palin all along, wasn't supported by anything at the time. It was something people concluded or assumed later on the basis of the other rumors.
You seem to be extremely suspicious, yet also naïve. Politicians and campaign operatives run the opposition down (preferably with words, not with cars, though that may have happened sometimes). That's what they do. That's what you're doing here. It's something I've done.
People speak their minds. Nobody is above criticism. But the idea that there was some massive Romney-originated subversion of Palin before the election is not proven. I suppose anything is possible, but this is something people invented based on what they think of Romney.
I don't like Romney much myself. He's a rich guy who thinks his good fortune makes him virtuous (or his virtuousness makes him wealthy). But I spent much time back then researching this rumor to find anything behind it and came up with nothing but speculation.
But it's the nature of myths and legends that one can't convince true believer that they may not be true. I'll leave it at that.
Although, Nancy Pelosi is God’s co-equal partner.
Although, Nancy Pelosi is God’s co-equal partner.
I was here then, every day. It happened. This guy amassed a record of sabotaging GOP opponents that got in his way. He sabotaged a Republican in MA, Jim Rappaport, that wanted to run WITH him for Lt Governor. He obliterated Rappaport in order to put a useless cypher on the ticket who couldn’t win an election of her own accord. Rather than depart with a strong candidate to succeed him, he left the hack Healey, who was promptly run over by Deval Patrick.
Palin was hugely in his way, and she had to be taken care of. I say again, I never absolved the McQueeg people also being in on the sabotage, albeit for different reasons, but that doesn’t mean Willard wasn’t guilty as well. Backstabbing while maintaining a phony pious façade of morality and character is his premier hallmark.
An established pattern of misconduct and sabotage is more than enough evidence for any rational person. If you require more, that’s on you. Until then, when I see a homeowner who just took out a huge insurance policy on their house standing a few feet away from some gasoline and a match, I’m gonna figure they’re not there to roast marshmallows. Guess that makes me suspicious and naïve.
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.