Posted on 12/09/2008 2:59:59 PM PST by Rameumptom
But attacks on Gov. Palin and her children were OK to you scheming RomneyBOTs.
Romney's team's vicious attacks cost the GOP the Election2008.
Romney never attacked anyone.... nor did his team, as you claim.
That was some misdirection rumor started by someone on ? some blog.... without so much as one shred of proof.
But you are so delusional you buy into this baloney just so you can heap more slander on Romney.
If you need a culprit, just look at McCain himself.... his comments over the weekend in which he couldn't even offer future support Sarah Palin.
It was McCain himself (and his inner team) which, according to the NatlReview roundup after the election, got furious with Sarah due to her desire to attack Obama.
If you have to direct you pent up animosity at anyone, it should go toward John McCain... who was the worst 'Republican' in decades.
Edit, you don't have any credibility when it comes to Romney. You falsely claim often on Free Republic that Romney was "endorsed" and "supported" by Rush Limbaugh, among others. That is clearly, plainly, indisputably, FALSE. You spread these blatant falsehoods because you will do anything to convice the uninformed and gullible that "great minds" agree with you about your Hero, when the truth is that many, if not most, conservative "great minds" were and remain lukewarm or downright negative toward Romney.
Most certainly, Limbaugh refrained from endorsing OR supporting Romney in the presidential primaries in the honest political meaning of "support" and "endorse," which is to advocate that people vote for or financially support one candidate or proposition specifically over the others. Limbaugh did no such thing, nor can I find any proof that Michael Reagan did, either, yet Romney supporters here have claimed otherwise and posted carefully parsed quotes to "prove" it.
The truth is that Limbaugh and Reagan for sure -- and probably half a dozen or more of the other pundits you claim "supported/endorsed" Romney -- merely spoke or wrote praise of Romney somewhere along the line during the primaries. You Romney supporters parse the words out of the context, post them here, and state or at the very least imply falsely that the pundit/author/speaker of the words intended genuine support or endorsement of your Hero, when the actual context of the words proves otherwise.
On the other hand, when Rush stated unequivocally that Fred Thompson was "the only conservative on the stage" after one of the primary debates, few if any Thompson supporters crowed that Limbaugh had "endorsed" or "supported" Thompson because to do so would have been a lie.
Bottom line: You have proven that your own standards for truthfulness, ethics, and honesty regarding others' view of your candidate is very low indeed. Romney's supporters speak volumes about their Hero, and thus I am inclined to believe that Romney's people WERE VERY LIKELY behind many of the attacks on Palin. It would be consistent with the behavior we see here on Free Republic from Romney advocates.
Like I said, "delusional."
Here is a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh only a few days before Super Tuesday, 2008.
“Now, I think now, based on the way the campaign has shaken out, that there probably is a candidate on our side who does embody all three legs of the conservative stool, and that’s Romney. The three stools or the three legs of the stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives. The social conservatives are the cultural people. The fiscal conservatives are the economic crowd: low taxes, smaller government, get out of the way.”
Limbaugh spoke very very supportively of Mitt Romney, because it was obvious to him and all other thinking conservatives that Romney (NOT McCAIN) was the only candidate who had the balls to run the type of campaign that needed to be run against Democrats, whether Hillary or Obama at that point.
And THAT was the drive behind the conservative thinkers’ support of Romney, not that Romney is perfect, because no one is, not even Ronald Reagan.
But it is even MORE obvious now that McCain has once again proved himself a political wimp that Romney was the only candidate who stood a prayer of a chance.
You can cling to your hate if you want, but that doesn’t change the “way things have shaken out”, as Limbaugh so elequently said.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/01/the-romney-paradox/
The ultimate argument in favor of Romney comes not from me, but from the miserable existance that your support of John McCain (and others certainly) has foisted upon the conservative movement.
Romney might not have been trusted by many Republicans ( read the Romney Paradox, if you haven’t already) but you must admit that those Republicans were WORST than Democrats in their selection of left-supporting John McCain.
If you can’t admit that, then what’s the point of your involvement in politics.
Do a google search “did rush limbaugh support mitt romney” and you will get dozens of solid credible articles from around the nation highlighting all the supportive and near-endorsive statements Limbaugh made on Romney leading up to the 2008 primaries.
Here’s the HEADLINE from an article on Rush Limbaugh’s website:
“ONE CANDIDATE NOW REPRESENTS ALL THREE LEGS OF CONSERVATISM”
The article goes on to explain Limbaugh’s support of Romney, and it explains why conservatives were slow to endorse Romney (understandable)
You can flame me till doomsday, but the facts remain.
Look, I’m not doing this because I love Mitt Romney so much.
I’m just still ticked at the reasoning Republican-conservative’s gave in their selection of McCain as 2008 nominee... and I don’t want to see THAT repeated again — EVER.
Many reporters published on this matter.
A few of the scores of URLs are here:
Peeking Out From the McCain Wreckage: Mitt Romney
Someone's got to say it: IS MITT ROMNEY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBAMA'S VICTORY?
Vanity: Team Romney Sabotaged Palin and Continuing to Do So?
Romney Supporters Trashing Palin
Romney advisors sniping at Palin?
Novak: Fred Thompson drop-out rumors traced to Romney campaign
Again, you LIE BRAZENLY when you state that Limbaugh "supported" or "endorsed" Romney. If your standards of honesty and up-frontness are so low that you cannot acknowledge that in the political sense, those words "support" and "endorse" have very specific meanings and that Limbaugh specifically avoided doing either one with ANY of the Republican primary candidates, let alone Romney -- well, again, your very loose definition of truth and honesty illustrates perfectly why Romney should be rejected NOW.
You tell me, "You can cling to your hate if you want ..." --- again eloquently illustrating why the behavior of Romney's supporters is warning enough (as if Romney's liberal record wasn't, which it is) that Romney is bad news. "Hate" has nothing to do with it. Why are you so fixated on the word "hate"? Again, it tells us an awful lot about Romney himself that his supporters cannot conceive of any other motive than "hate" for distrusting their Hero.
Romney is bad news, and Edit35, you illustrate perfectly why this is so.
Romney would have been worse than McCain because he is much slicker and prettier and women love him (that automatically makes a candidate suspect in my sexist views). He would have made Republicans like you swallow the socialist, big-government tainting of the Republican party even more readily than McCain.
Your "solid, credible articles" are by people like you who wish, hope, and delude themselves and rationalize that the nice things that Rush said about your Hero must mean that he outright endorsed him!
There was ONLY ONE CANDIDATE that Rush called a "conservative," clearly, concisely, loudly, unambiguously, and that was Thompson. You didn't see me or other Thompson people here shouting to the rooftops that Rush "endorsed" or "supported" Fred because we have higher standards of truth and ethics than you Romney supporters. Rush refrained from endorsing or supporting either one. You know it, I know it -- you cannot find the words from Rush's mouth or pen to prove your point. You are reduced to misrepresenting what Rush said. You must clip and parse words out of their full context to create the impression that Rush ever had anything but the faintest regard for Romney's so-called "conservative" bona-fides.
As for your not doing this because you don't want to see a McCain-like fiasco repeated EVER -- I got news for you. The nomination of Romney would have been the same thing only worse because Romney is comely and a lot slicker than McCain, though no more principled. He'd have suckered the American people on the Republican dime for a lot longer and ruined the future of the party even more than McCain could have.
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.