Posted on 02/09/2008 1:36:43 PM PST by loreldan
Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Wondering if they may decide he'll be McC's running mate, if McC gets the nod.
With McC strong on defense and Romney strong on economics - that would be plus no. one.
Given the fact that McCain, with his health and age, probably wouldn't make it 8 years, we'd have a VP that has, essentially, already been 'vetted' by the people and could step in -keeping the WH for us for a good long time - long enough for hitlery and gang to become obsolete.
Let me guess. You haven't worked very deep in politics??
McCain will get TOLD who his running mate will be. He will be allowed to announce it - but the nominee doesn't get to pick the VP arbitrarily.
The last person JFK wanted for VP was Johnson. They hated one another with a passion.
The party honchos will have the say...
Let me guess. You haven't worked very deep in politics??
McCain will get TOLD who his running mate will be. He will be allowed to announce it - but the nominee doesn't get topick the VP arbitrarily.
The last person JFK wanted for VP was Johnson. They hated one another with a passion.
The party honchos will have the say...
Excuse me if I think the straw poll voters at CPAC had it right giving Romney the win, as well as 50 strong leaders who met with Romney. I think I’ll sit with Keene and Weyrich over your opinions.
Sorry that is just fact, he is not a national candidate.
I've seen your videos ad naseum. That's all you Romney haters got... a little one sentence snippet of something from 20 years ago taken out of context.
The NRA generally supported Romney, so he wasn't this big gun grabber you claim.
Despite my thoughts or yours regarding guns, many conservatives thought there was a some good to come from the gun legislation Romney signed in Massachusetts.
Also, Romney didn't "raise" income taxes, or sales taxes, or any other of the more confiscatory taxes in Massachusetts or anywhere else.
He did what EVERY single Governor in America does (did) occasionally, even the most hard right conservative.
They update the fees charged for various things... drivers licenses, fees for filing paperwork, permit fees.... to keep in line with inflation and make them commensurate with technology and productivity.
"aligned with CFR" .. that's a new one, and what the heck does it mean. That he doesn't hate the group passionately like you? Another meaningless platitude of Romney hatred based on your perception with no facts to back it up.
And lastly, Romney's health care proposal does give me some pause, although it is NOT government run healthcare like Romney haters claim.
It basically had the state negotiate with private health care companies to provide group rates and bulk rates to individuals ... so the average person could buy catastrophic health insurance at a much reduced price.
Yes, there is a fee or penalty for those who don't have insurance, just like mandated automobile insurance.
Atill, the state doesn't run the health plans like MediCaid or MediCare.... which by the way are government run health plans supported and funded by every single conservative in America.
In fact, the research so far are showing that there are LESS freeloaders in Massachusetts NOW dumping their emergency room and catastrophic health care bills on MediCaid, like had been happening prior to this bill.
Whether you want to believe it or not, many many middle and upper class people refuse to buy health care insurance.... but then have NO RELUCTANCE to dump their big hospital bills on MediCare rather than give up their savings or stock accounts.
I see it here in Pennsylvania all the time. People simply transfer their assets to a family member or whomever, and claim they are too poor to pay.
My former in laws did it.... and it drove me nuts.
They said.. "oh, the state can afford to pay for my kids health insurance. What's the big deal?"
As for the Democrat judges, that is also meaningless unless you provide specifics. Most judges are cross-filed both Rep and Dem, and many Republicans are liberals and many Dems are conservatives.
Do you really think that Limbaugh, Tancredo, Coulter, Weyrich, DeMint, Santorum, Dobson and the hundreds of other rock solid conservatives are hallucinating in their support of Romney, and that YOU are the only one with insider truth?
I think not, my friend.
Like the “adamantly pro choice” bit which is an extreme distortion of Reagan’s position since it implies advocacy of the pro choice position, they take “Reaganism" and fit it to Mitt’s flaws. They are so in love with him and you can read in their posts that logic is right out.
Sad that they want to take a flawed candidate and try again in 4 years. Mitt Romney will never win the nomination unless he is the only one running and he will never turn out enough of the stanch conservatives and those who are leery of his religion to put him over the top in a General Election. His defeats in this run have proved that. Despite out spending everyone he still lost to Candidates that a man of his resumed statute should have eaten for lunch.
As far as his sycophants here and else where trying to make him the heir to Reagan, I can't decide if it is more comical or disgusting.
Your attempts to paint Romney as this big pro-abortion funder due to some ‘seven degrees of separation” logic just falls flat.
A caused B which resulted in C and thus D felt compelled to raise the limit for co-pay abortions.
If Romney was this big abortion advocate like you and others claim, he would have included 100% abortion funding. He certainly could have, considering that 85% of the state legislature were Democrat PRO-abortion types.
But he didn’t.
Like it or not, abortion is currently legal, and many politicians are conflicted in their attempts to do good ... even when some of the money in comprehensive bills and omnibus legislation goes indirectly for abortions.
Unfortunately, the abortion funding can’t always be extracted from every bill. ProLife legislators often find themselves voting affirmative for bills in order to satisfy the ‘greater good’.
Romney also passed a number of laws in Massachusetts that were very ProLife... and subsequently ticked off the pro-abortion feminists.
Romney was the “conservative” candidate by default. He lasted long enough for conservatives to rally around him as the stop-McCain candidate.
Since your asking questions, how about answering this one:
How is it “conservative” on Mitt Romney’s part to promise a bailout to the auto industry and to promise federal hurricane insurance to Florida?
I have yet to get an answer to that from the Romney sheeple.
Oh Dear, Mao se tung’s best bud is the face of the conservative party? Will he be outsourcing for conservatives?
I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh ages ago, because he is a Bush/Rockefeller Republican. I lost respect for Tancredo when he endorsed Flip. And I don't care what Coulter says anymore, just the other day she gave Hillary all sorts of compliments. Most of those people are establishment Republicans. Unlike you apparently, I'm not very happy with the establishment/status-quo.
If you can ignore all that AND (which you failed to discuss) his character problems, then obviously you've convinced yourself and nothing will change your mind. Oh well, some people need to learn things the hard way.
Mark Sanford, for instance?
He was as successful as any candidate in raising money from other people, too, so he still could have run a decent campaign.
Decent? Yes. I’ll agree with that. He did raise a boatload of money from donors. More than any other Republican candidate. But his personal wealth bailed him out after he lost Iowa and New Hampshire. Just look at Florida. He ran something like 10 times the number of TV commercials as McCain in the week leading up to the vote and that money was his own from all accounts that I’ve read. The money, both his own and the funds he raised, was the only thing keeping the campaign going as they suffered setback after setback.
Actually his poor performance even in states where he far outspent his opponents could demonstrate that money is far less a factor in this race than many people assume. It helped him reach the top tier, but once he got there he (and the other leading candidates) got enough free media attention that money became less important.
It’s hard to say how he would have done without his own money, but I’m guessing he wouldn’t have been too far behind where he ended up.
~”He was never a first choice.. so why now?”~
He’s never been a first choice -for you.- He’s been a first choice for quite a lot of other people for quite some time. Members of Free Republic are not a representative sample of conservative sentiment.
Believe it or not, you’re outnumbered on this one.
Was Romney moving rightward when he promised Michigan billions of dollars and to insure Florida for hurricanes? Is that conservatism?
>>Right wants Romney as standard-bearer<<
Well then they are in pretty bad shape. Romney made a fantastic concession speech. And although I don’t agree with them, I understand those who preferred Romney out of the last the Republican candidates.
But with a field of all the people in the world, to want Romney as standard bearer? You’ve got to be kidding.
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.