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 ...
Bingo! that’s hittin in on the head. He was never a first choice.. so why now? It’s more of the pack mentality.
“Bobby Jindal could be the next Ronald Reagan.” ~ Rush Limbaugh 02/08/2008
Do NOT miss reading this interview:
Limbaugh Letter December 2007 Issue Rush’s interview with Bobby Jindal: http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/LimbaughLetter_BobbyJindal_Interview.pdf
Romney belongs with McCain
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Saturday, February 09, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=dd40b0a9-36fc-4c25-bc80-03960813ef60&k=24902
John McCain’s best running mate would be Mitt Romney, and a closer analysis of the primary results shows why.
Romney, not Mike Huckabee, shores up McCain’s two vulnerabilities: his admitted lack of knowledge about economics and business, as well as his agea concern to many.
On Thursday, Romney nobly stepped aside and established Iraq as the centrepiece issue for the fall presidential election. To further this, he asked anti-McCain Republicans and conservatives to join him in unity behind front-runner McCain.
It was a non-endorsement endorsement, because McCain’s name was not invoked. Then President Bush did the exact same thing and called yesterday for unity to preserve “peace and prosperity.”
This is very smart, especially in the face of what is developing as a nasty, non-uniting scrap between Obama and the Clintonites.
(Hillary’s biggest mistake before Super Tuesday was to try and raise the “swiftboat” issue and that Obama would not be able to stand the Republicans’ withering attacks should he become the candidate. This merely raised the issue that there is more dirt against the Clintons to come witness Obama’s call yesterday for them to release their tax returns and a statement of their income sources.)
Slick Willy has been freelancing all over the place since leaving the presidency, both socially and financially. So stay tuned. The Republicans will have a feeding frenzy if the Clintons are on the ticket, even as vice-president.
Meanwhile, Romney’s withdrawal accomplished four objectives:
-Romney finessed his fierce combativeness and attacks against McCain in the past few months by talking about the greater good of fighting “evil” terrorists. Candidates have supporters who develop very strong dislikes for opponents, and by saying that the cause trumps their dislike for McCain he helps keep his people on his side for future purposes.
-He saved face by presenting himself as a “sacrifice.”
-He has begun the uniting efforts for the party behind McCain.
-He trumps Huckabee as a potential running mate.
Yesterday, McCain hinted at this, saying he was “looking forward to meeting with Governor Romney.”
Romney may not have personal appeal, but he would strengthen a ticket because he is a hugely successful businessman who understands the nuances of the economy and business.
He also looks and acts the part and is young enough to put to rest concerns about McCain’s age. At 71, with some health concerns in the past, McCain may be a one-termer, which makes the vice-presidential position more enticing than usual.
An analysis of results also shows Romney’s value, or a Romney-endorsed running mate, for McCain: Romney beat McCain in Michigan, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Alaska, Utah and Massachusetts. Republicans need help in Michigan, Minnesota and Massachusetts, which voted Democrat in the past two contests.
Meanwhile, Huckabee won Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia and West Virginia, but these always vote Republican and except for Arkansas (Huckabee’s state) the combined McCain-Romney vote added up to more than Huckabee’s percentages.
See Diane’s take on The Clinton Factor on her blog: financialpost.com/ dianefrancis
16 posted on 02/09/2008 2:47:16 PM EST by Matchett-PI (Romney or Jindal will get the VP nod if I have anything to do with it.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1967729/posts?page=16#16
You make absolutely no sense.
There was a virtual media blackout on Romney for the entire year that he was campaigning. No wonder most people only knew the sound bites that the DBM chose to repeat over and over.
I don’t think McCain will pick Romney, because Romney is not from the south and he didn’t win any southern states.
ROMNEY? Egads. Now I know the world’s gone mad.
Romney is not a Goldwater conservative...
Goldwater would not have promised Michigan billions to bail them out...
if you can be fooled by a rino that talks conservative all the sudden, then that is your problem.
IOTW, he should get the hell out of politics.
Those in question can speak for themselves. Willard didn’t get a majority of conservative votes in any competitive Republican primary because many conservatives know he is flip-flopping Massachusetts liberal that can’t be trusted.
So were these:
Governor Mitt Romney's Religious Liberty Address November 6, 2007
*
I didn’t like him at first because I was for Hunter and frankly didn’t look elsewhere. I like Fred but never went for him because he was slow to enter and then didn’t appear to have his heart in it. I was frankly disappointed. That’s when I started looking and read more and went to Romney. I believe he would have made and will someday yet (2012) make a great President.
There are far better candidates than Willard that didn't run.
We need an articulate, upstanding squeeky-clean conservative spokesman like Romney who sets a good family-man example for others.
I totally agree with Coulter that Romney, in his private family life, is a strong morals-based conservative who raised his kids and runs his business in a conservative no non-sense way that would make all right wingers and Freepers proud.
He got into trouble politically in 2008 because in the past he felt the need to say "accepting" things in public to prove he was not this 'monster' homo-hating, woman-dissing, minority-hating, domineering male bigot like the press makes conservatives out to be.
I have fallen into that trap myself.
For example, I am SO ADAMANT in my right wing beliefs that at work I occasionally feel the need to publicaly admit that I have "respect" and "acceptance" of feminists and homo's and others with whom I vigorously disagree ...... just to prove how human and "compassionate" I am.
Romney, I truly believe, made pandering statements during that 1994 debate just to convince the Massachusetts voters that he wasn't this uber-white male who only accepts other uber-white Judeo-Christian males.
Unfortunately, by trying to prove how "tolerant" he was, Romney opened himself up to attacks by these take-no-prisoners hard right-wingers who demand 100% purity from a candidate going back decades.
4 years as a governor of a very liberal state. Huck was a liberal governor of a conservatie state. Who did a better job of prodding his state a little to the right?
I’m not defnding Huck. He ain’t th estandard bearer either.
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.