Posted on 08/03/2014 6:36:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Mitt Romney loyalists are trying to gin up the narrative that Republicans just can't get enough of Romney.
“Democrats don’t want to be associated with Barack Obama right now, but Republicans are dying to be associated with Mitt Romney,” Spencer Zwick, "a longtime Romney confidant who chaired his national finance council," claimed to the Washington Post. The Chamber of Commerce, which has vowed to wage war on the Tea Party and push through amnesty legislation, glowingly praised Romney, alleging he would be in a "commanding position" if he entered the 2016 race.
Romney is reportedly set to make trips to West Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, Colorado, and Virginia to campaign for Republicans. Yet besides the media, most of the people clamoring for another Romney "comeback" are his loyalists and closest advisers, who defied all statistical models to lose an election many thought should never have been lost.
In a July article for Politico Magazine, Emil Henry, who "served in multiple roles in the 2012 campaign, including adviser to the economic team, television surrogate and fundraiser," laughingly alleged that "Romney is re-emerging as the de facto leader of the Republican Party."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Here's what you don't get, if someone like Romney wins, the Democrats win too because he's basically one of them.
Here is what Romney is responsible for:
1. Romneycare was the prototype for Obamacare. Romney the liberal "Republican" achieved socialized medicine which the Democrats had been attempting for decades.
2. Same-sex "marriage" was something the Democrats had been thinking about for years, but were too afraid to try because of public backlash. So, Romney stepped up and paved the way for them.
3. Romney even saw to it that Romneycare paid for abortion, something that the Democrats had wanted since Reagan. Romney did this because he is and always has been pro-abortion.
In the end, there's not a damn bit of difference between Romney, Obama and Hillary (Bill Clinton, at least when he was president, was probably slightly to the right of Romney).
Thank you, wags.
Repeat your snark much, mom? Jeez.
You slam this site, you mock it's posters/members....even on your homepage...why are you here? To spread your love of all things McRomney/RINO? No thanks.
You've told the owner he can ban you. If you don't like this "premier conservative website" and the "main characters" (and others) who post here, why don't you do yourself a favor and ban yourself?
this (former) premiere conservative website has become a total joke. It’s run by a few foul mouthed fake conservatives who want nothing other than to elect democrats. They get together and attack en masse and they have called Rick Santorum a liberal, Cruz a liberal, Sarah Palin? She’s a liberal. Rick Perry? he’s really a liberal.
They just use this forum in order to attack each other. It’s a circular firing squad.
Which leads to some questions.....
Just WHY are you here?
Does that include you, since you are also posting here?
So, IBTZ!!!
Because trolls have much more credibility on the anti-FReeper sites if they get zotted. We saw it with the Bug Zapper thread seven years ago.
Holy cow.
How pathetic is that?
It’s too bad they don’t have a life that that is what they live for.
I believe the term that they are using is "I wouldn't be caught dead associating with him." Easy mistake to make.
FReepers have NEVER supported Romney. There was some lukewarm resignation about voting for him in 2012, but it was far from supportive.
I don't think Romney really wanted to win as evidenced by the fact that he never attacked Obama the way he attacked the other Republican candidates for the nomination, I'm pretty sure he just wanted to make sure a conservative didn't win.
I don’t know about that. There’s a lot of buyer’s remorse out there over not electing Romney in ‘12, with polls showing that in a do-over he’d beat Obama by close to 10 points.
That’s something that GOP candidates can, should, and hopefully are leveraging this year to build upon their electoral bases.
That doesn’t mean that Romney is the best or right candidate for 2016. He’s not. He won’t be running against Obama but against someone else (possibly Hillary) in a completly different environment. So running on 2012 buyer’s remorse won’t be effective. Assuming that the eventual Dem candidate will effectively separate themself from Obama, it might even be a detriment.
But that doesn’t mean that we should turn our backs on an effective way to turn out additional pro-GOP votes this year just because we don’t like the guy and hate the idea of him running again.
If Romney is the Republican nominee in 2016, he will lose. It’s as simple as that.
This one is definitely yearning for the Z.
Oh, I think he wanted to win. I think the issue was that he believed he was going to win. So he kicked back and tried to coast to the finish line.
Which is a seriously dumb thing to do, given the stakes.
He did a pretty good job in the first debate, then he just sat back and listened to Karl Rove (I never did get Rove's appeal).
Yup, he crushed Obama in the first debate. Had he repeated that in the second and third one he’d be President.
I also think that being attacked directly by Candy Crowley tripped him up pretty badly and he never recovered, which killed his debate performance from then on out. I did a lot of highschool and college forensics, and can really sympathize with him on that. It’s hard to absorb, but harder to recover from.
Hopefully future presidential GOP debate prep will include a lot of emphasis on what to do after getting sandbagged by the “moderator”. ...
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.