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 ...
“The reason Romney built up so much support - about 30% of
the Republican base - is that many people were attracted to
his ideas.”
Not ideas. Claims. All shaped by his legion of consultants
and extravagent spending and donations. I’ve read he had
a woman consultant who was hired to “shape his conservative
image”.
As an example (small, compared to all I could copy and
paste)... here is a quote from Harpers about buying
influence with conservative causes and influential
party members....
* * *
“In seeking to woo conservatives, Romney has also used his personal PAC—the Commonwealth Political Action Committee—to contribute lavishly to several national pro-life groups, the Federalist Society, the National Review, and the Heritage Foundation, among others.
===>> Notice the names of the groups he gave bucks to, who
later spoke highly of him or endorsed him <<===
“In South Carolina, Romney set up a branch of the PAC all
the way back in 2004. (He started branches in Iowa, New
Hampshire, Michigan, and Arizona at the same time.)
===>> Here we interrupt this quote to point out that Mitt
was setting up a Presidential run back AT LEAST in 2004 -
about the time he was busily changing his personal convictions
about almost every issue important to winning the Republican
primary. THIS is why so many of us called his “conversion”
to so many conservative issues fake. <<===
“Since then, the state branch—with guidance from a number of consulting firms, including DC Navigators, a top Washington-based group—has run up expenditures of roughly $518,000. Recipients in South Carolina include dozens of state representatives as well as Lieutenant Governor André Bauer ($3,500) and Attorney General Henry McMaster ($1,000). Romney has ladled $9,500 on the state Republican Party, $3,500 on the state Senate G.O.P. caucus, and $7,000 on the House caucus, and has sent tens of thousands of dollars in total to numerous county-level party committees.
[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/0081773 - btw]
===>> Apparently, money can buy 4,700,000 votes, by greasing
the sweaty palms of state Republican leaders who went on
to endorse Mitt. <<===
I’m not sure Romney had any really original ideas. He had
17 staff members writing position papers for the campaign
that would appeal to conservatives. And, I admit, many true
conservative voters believed him - just like those who hear
Hillary and believe what she says and do not look at her
history.
best,
ampu
I think people who oppose Romney are pathetic because they are incapable of recognizing a man of quality and potential. It’s not right to tell lies about good people just because one has another agenda.
me too, but I think there is alot of mormon judgementalism out their. I doubt that will change. I do see wierd things about the mormon religion for sure, but Romney hasn’t been affected by those nor most Mormons, in my opinion...they simply take the basic christian message out and don’t pay much attention to the rest of it.
Fine. Can you give me the tally of votes that Romney received as a result of all these endorsements you claim he “bought?” Didn’t work so well, did it...?
It amazes me that every endorsement Romney received had to somehow be discredited. Heck, when Limbaugh started speaking positively about Romney, I learned about Bain’s pending investment in ClearChannel ON FREE REPUBLIC. The implication being that Rush had sold out.
Frankly, after so many times crying wolf, I have a hard time believing the assertions you have listed. They’re copy-pasted from other sources, but it’s apparent that you’ve bought into the claims, even if you haven’t made them.
Sorry, I’m giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. And, I don’t have to defend that position anymore because it is of absolutely no consequence whether or not you and I agree.
~”I’m not sure Romney had any really original ideas.”~
He had conservative ideas. Of course they weren’t original, conservatives have been espousing them for decades.
Do you want a candidate with original ideas or with conservative ones?
I think he wasted his money because people like you don’t deserve a good President, you deserve what you are about to get. So I hope you are happy. Cause you ought to be.
“Do you want a candidate with original ideas or with conservative ones?”
Original applications of conservative ideals, fitted to
our times...and preferably, not just written by staff.
Have you ever read the Reagan book, “Reagan, in his own hand”
[http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own-Hand-Revolutionary/dp/074320123X]
It is a book compiled of the radio spots he did for (3-4 years),
each one an original composition of original thought. Well
worth reading. As you read it, you see how he implemented
it in his Presidency. Great stuff.
I read that when Mondale was considering a run, he contacted
someone on Reagan’s former staff to ask how they had organized
these radio spots. When he heard Reagan had written and edited
them all, he dropped it.
The book also includes copies of many of the speeches that
you can see how he edited in his own hand.
You can also buy a recorded set of the speeches from the
Reagan library (which I have also - and they’re excellent).
REAGAN IN HIS OWN VOICE: Ronald Reagan’s Radio Addresses
[https://www.reaganfoundation.org/store/products.asp?subcat_id=66}
$30 well spent.
best,
ampu
“But based on filings with the Federal Election Commission, as of this summer, Romney’s campaign has employed more than a hundred different consultants, making combined payments to them of at least $11 million—roughly three times the amount spent by John McCain or Rudy Giuliani.”
THAT is where the info about Romney came from, btw...
his own filings with the FEC. (same link I gave you before)
best,
ampu
I’m sorry, we’re suffering from a disconnect here.
Are you trying to say that hiring consultants is buying the election?
You're not the only one. Many of us have and against attacks by Liberals in REAL life.
I agree with your entire post but would just change it to a stronger candidate in 2012.
Don’t attempt to pass yourself off as anything but a sycophant for Romney.
I had barely heard of Romney 6 months ago. Now that I have become familiar with his campaign, it is obvious to me he is twice as intelligent as any other candidate running.
But the way I am looking at it, people get the government they deserve. So we might end up with Billary or Obamination. Selfishly speaking, it is good that most voting population is not very smart. It sure makes it easier to out-compete them.
For starters, one is not even in the same league as Reagan and warranting comparison until they have served a couple of consequential terms as POTUS and have written extensively about politics and conservatism for a couple of decades or more.
“I’m sorry, we’re suffering from a disconnect here.
Are you trying to say that hiring consultants is buying the election?”
No.
Buying the election would be trying to win solely by
use of money and nothing else. No, wait. That’s what
Romney did. But that was not my point.
My point was that in response to your claim that Romney
won 4.7 million votes by virtue of his ideas, I claimed
that [based on FEC records] Romney:
1. used money to buy influence with those who would
endorse him.
2. used money to carefully shape his image from moderate/liberal
to conservative.
3. had few ideas except those his hired staff wrote down
and shaped to position himself as a conservative.
In short, that it wasn’t ideas at all - at least none he
held himself. He simply made a plan, complete with powerpoint
that showed how someone could win the R nomination. He used
money to make himself into that candidate, changing every
position he previously ran on. Both of these happened
more than 4 years ago. Romney analyzed what it would take to
win and then put it in motion, including changing himself
to present a conservative image.
I suspect he wasn’t committed to is old positions any more
than the new ones. He is a pragmatist, who seeks power,
money, and fame. He probably achieved all three. Just without
the Presidency.
I bet he is far more comfortable now that he can be himself.
best,
ampu
I don’t agree with you, because I was excited by his ideas and by the conservative principles he espoused (though admittedly not pure), not because he paid for my vote.
It’s not worth arguing at this point, though; we’ll see in a few years if you’re right when he runs again.
Tant,
you are right - it’s not worth arguing about
a candidate who has suspended his race for now.
[does suspended mean he can unsuspend later?]
I certainly don’t think he paid for your vote
or the votes of millions. He paid to shape the
perception that he was what you believed he
said he was.
Have a great day. Cold here. Windy too. We should
fine the Canadians for sending down this arctic
flatulence!
ampu
No, we just don’t want McCain.
> But with a field of all the people in the world, to want Romney as standard bearer? You’ve got to be kidding.
Have to agree. Would I have held my nose and voted Mitt in November? Probably. But as a conservative standards bearer??? My God, is that how far we have sunk? Can we at least get Fred for crying out loud?
JINDAL for standards-bearer! I would LOVE this!
A standards-bearer needs to be solid, not iffy or flipfloppy.
If Massachusetts represents your notion of conservative sentiment, I guess youre right. But thats the trouble with Republicans, theyre living without a coherent Philosophy. Listen to Bobby Jindal if you want a counterexample. Dont get me wrong, I voted for him in my states primary but he can thank John McCain for that.
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.