Romney picks up Shultz, Rice, Huckabee and Nancy Reagan Endorsements

JEFFHEAD.COM (Multiple News feeds) ^ | June 1, 2012 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

Over the last few days, since Romney clinched the GOP nomination for President by going over the 1,144 committed delegates needed with his win in the Texas Primary on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, a number of new endorsements have come in for Romney's bid for the Presidency.

These include George Shultz, former Secretary of State; Condoliza Rice, former Secretrary of State and National Security Advisor; Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and presidential candidate; and Nancy Reagan, wife of President Ronald Reagan. Here's what each of them had to say on the date they endorsed Romney:

NANCY REAGAN endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012) “I offer my firm endorsement of Mitt Romney's campaign for president. Ronnie would have liked Gov. Romney's business background and his strong principles, and I have to say I do too. I believe Mitt Romney has the experience and leadership skills that our country so desperately needs, and I look forward to seeing him elected president in November.”
MIKE HUCKABEE endorses Mitt Romney (May 31, 2012) “I was very careful and deliberate in not wanting to get involved in the process prior to somebody securing the nomination, largely because I play on both radio and television. I didn’t feel it was appropriate for me to pick a Republican candidate. I don’t think anyone doubted that I was going to support the Republican. But Mitt Romney has now earned it — and I use that term very specifically. He worked hard to get it and therefore I think all Republicans and all conservatives need to rally around Gov. Romney. "So, I made it very clear: I’ll do everything that I can to vigorously support Mitt Romney because I think our country is at stake, and I believe his leadership would provide the right direction as opposed to what we’ve had for four years, which is the wrong direction. “Four years ago, we were opponents. There’s a lot that happens when you are running against somebody in a primary, but it’s not personal between Mitt Romney and me. It’s about our country, and quite frankly, Mitt has worked hard. He has my absolute and full support. I think when you look at what Obama has done and what Mitt Romney brings to the table in terms of being able to manage something, for heaven’s sakes, Mitt's managed a state, he’s managed a significant capital enterprise, he’s managed a huge non-profit endeavor, the Olympics, and done it all successfully. Barack Obama came to the presidency having managed nothing, not so much as a hot dog stand. And this country is struggling because of it. "I am going to do everything I can humanly do for Mitt Romney to be the next president.”
CONDOLIZA RICE endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012) "We care about the future of this country, and the future of our world and I’m delighted to join so many friends here in supporting, and in my case, endorsing, Gov. Mitt Romney for President of the United States. If America is going to rebuild its strength at home, rebuild its sense of who we are, it needs a leader that also understands how really exceptional the United States of America is, and is not afraid to lead on the basis of that exceptionalism. America's leadership is craved in this world, it’s understood in this world. The only thing the American people dislike more than weak leadership, is no leadership at all. And Governor Romney, you can bring it back."
GEORGE SHULTZ endorses Mitt Romney (May 30, 2012) "“What Mitt has done at Bain Capital has been a major contribution to the American economy. He has learned and instinctively can feel what it takes to get this huge amount of money that is sitting on the sidelines of our economy to move forward and be invested."

I found Huckabee's statement interesting, and compelling, given the history.

CLICK HERE ON THIS LINK to see what each of the following names on the list below had to say (and when they said it) in endorsing Romney:

Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Michelle Bachman
Rick Perry
George W. Bush
Rudy Guliania
Mitch McConnel
Herman Cain
Dick Cheney
Sarah Palin
Paul Ryan
Marco Rubio
Jim Demint
Jeb Bush
John Lehman
John Huntsman
Nicki Hailey
Christine O'Donnell
John Bolton
John Mccain
Paul Pawlenty
John Sununu
Christ Christie
Darrel Issa
John Kasich
John Voinovich
Tom Foley
Bob McConnell
John Ashcroft
Eric Cantor
John Boener
Connie Mack
Dennis Hastert
Richard Shelby
Dana Rohrbacher

A long and impressive list of very recognizable names that brings together every portion of the GOP...from the very conservative, to moderates (which he will have to have to win, as sad as it is to include some of their views), which will and is also attracting a majority of the independents...which he will also have to garner.

[Elsie]

Gee, Thanks!

[Elsie]

It does for ME!

[Elsie]

It’s a LOOOooong way to November!

[Elsie]

The man with the delegate count is not yet nominated and we have projected past that as to how he will fly or fall.

Yup!

[netmilsmom]

>>But they’re similar enough that it really makes you wish we had some other options, doesn’t it? <<

Damn straight I wish I had some other options!!! Perhaps you should have read through the thread instead of using your talking points to point out the “maybes” against the “have dones”.

I destest MR, I have never supported him. I was for Cain then Perry then Santorum as my posting history shows. They all left me. My life would be so much easier with another option but this forum and the tea party got bested by the GOPe and are now hell bent on revenge, even if it means Obama.

Not me. I’m not that stupid. I’ll go with the Palin way. Our Kingmaker is betting on MR to stay in check with a conservative congress. Which is a whole lot better than the guarantee of Marxism and destruction from Obama.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Barry Goldwater is probably disowning you are we speak, Aggy...

[netmilsmom]

Nor has he done anything from back in post 108 which you conveniently ignored.

[fieldmarshaldj]

November ? Jiminy Christmas, I thought we were back in 2007/08 again with all the Willardbots swarming here like flies on turds.

[Agamemnon]

You asked the question, Mr. Willardbot, I gave you the answer.

Did you, really, Mr. Axelrod?

".... Getting a little scared there after your bitch-slapping in Boston the other day, are you?"

[unkus]

LOL!!

[Agamemnon]

Barry Goldwater is probably disowning you are we speak, Aggy...

Goldwater was great in '64. Not so great once Reagan was elected, however.

Goldwater openly disowned alot of what Reagan was and did, in fact.

If he disowned so much of Reagan, I'm happy to know that Yash thinks Goldwater would find me to be someone to be disowned by Goldwater, as well.

I take that as a compliment, in fact. Looks like I stand in pretty good company with Reagan.

Reagan in part tried to appease him with the appointment of S.D. O'Conner to the USSC. Bad choice.

I passed out stickers for him in Kennedy's back yard - Rhode Island - in '64. By '81 I had already long disowned Goldwater.

Oh, and you did know he came out post Roe v. Wade as pro-abort, pro-gays in the military, pro-medical marijuana didn't you?

What? You mean you didn't know that?

I lived it, but you can look it up. As quoted from Conservapedia:

"Bill Buckley said of Goldwater: 'Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.'" (National Review, Dec. 10, 2004)

Silly me, why should I think you'd know facts like that?

But then again you didn't even know that Allen West is a FReeper.

Here I am even assuming you're old enough to remember any thing about the '64 election, and even '80 for that matter.

I'm starting to think I'm likely granting you far to much credit for having any knowledge about anything.

And yet, still, you post.

Amazing.

You make it so easy, Yash. You just step in it every time.

You're like the Whack-a-Mole of the thread today!

[betty boop]

Who's "attributing motives" to you? This is something you actually said.

Yes, I did use an analogy regarding similarities between Rules for Radicals and some of the tactics used by some of the people here. But you seemed to suggest I was trying to "diss" you. Hence, my concern about your attributing nefarious motives to me. All I was trying to do was to get you to examine your methods/tactics.

I can't tell you what to think — and don't want to. What you think is your job. I'm content just to show you where to look. And you can go look or not, that's up to you.

BTW, I do not regard you as "a bad guy" just because we disagree.

[BlackElk]

I am a Roman Catholic and one of the primary anti-Romney FReepers and I have NEVER opposed Romney because of his Mormonism. I have, in fact, repeatedly posted that I would defend him or any other Mormon from attacks so motivated which are anti-Mormon bigotry. Every Mormon I have ever known personally has been a fine and admirable person.

I certainly disagree with the religious tenets of Mormonism in many respects but one of my major problems with Romney is that he is a phony Mormon just as he is a phony Republican and a phony "severe conservative." The Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a PRO-LIFE church, a PRO-FAMILY church and as to public policy a CONSERVATIVE church. Romney has an entire career of being an enthusiastic baby-killer as to abortion, an enthusiastic marriage killer by support of lavender hoopla posing as "marriage," and a liberal who fled from any suggestion that he might have supported Ronald Reagan.

Other Mormons who fall far short of the good moral policies of the Mormon church were Frank Church and anyone in public office, now or ever, named Udall. To say that opposition to Romney, Church or the Udalls is anti-Mormon is to utter absolute libel against the Mormon faith which each of them have regularly ignored in their expedient search for votes.

As a Catholic, for the same reasons, I despise John Kerry, anything ever in public office named Kennedy and related to the Hyannis Port Clan Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Rosa DeLauro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Robert Menendez, Susan Collins, Robert Casey the Younger, anything named Cuomo, Patty Murray, Richard Durbin, and a whole lot more including phony "Catholic" Republicans with similar anti-Catholic voting records. That does not make me or anyone else criticizing such immoral monsters anti-Catholic. There has been precisely one baptized Catholic who has ever served as POTUS. That was John Kennedy and I would gladly trade him in for a good Mormon, a good reformed Christian, a good Jew or a good Catholic and remove Kennedy from the history books. Myth Romney is not a good anything religiously any more than Obozo is.

You want to support that POS Myth Romney? Feel free. The US is still a free country until it elects either of these pathetic creatures in November. God gave you free will. Use it. However, don't you dare indulge this Romneyite fantasy that only prejudice against Mormons and their faith could possibly explain not voting for the wondrous Myth.

I don't vote for candidates who have persecuted Catholicism which candidates include BOTH Obozo and Myth. I would not have chosen Caligula, Nero, Diocletian or Julian the Apostate to be Roman emperors either for similar reasons. The freedoms granted by God and protected under the First Amendment guarantee that I need not vote for either or to make believe that Myth Romney's tactics in the primaries or as Massachusetts' governor are acceptable either. He bought his nomination and now he should suffer the consequences of his despicable tactics. Whichever of Obozo or Myth loses, I will celebrate the loss of the loser and immediately join anyone else with common sense and RESIST the winner if it is either of them.

I have voted GOP in each and every POTUS election of the last 44 years. That ends this year and Myth's alleged Mormonism has nothing whatsoever to do with that decision.

[Elsie]

I have, in fact, repeatedly posted that I would defend him or any other Mormon from attacks so motivated which are anti-Mormon bigotry.

That's honorable; for MORMONs need all the help they can get.

But; will you ALSO defend mormonISM?

[Elsie]

That ends this year and Myth's alleged Mormonism has nothing whatsoever to do with that decision.

That's good; for Mitt's 'mormonism' is about as evident as Jeff Head's.

[Dr. Sivana]

I certainly disagree with the religious tenets of Mormonism in many respects but one of my major problems with Romney is that he is a phony Mormon just as he is a phony Republican and a phony "severe conservative." [ . . .]
Other Mormons who fall far short of the good moral policies of the Mormon church were Frank Church and anyone in public office, now or ever, named Udall.

Elk, you forgot Harry Reid. Like Blackelk, my continued opposition to Romney has nothing to do with his Mormonism. Heck, take him out, and replace him with Bay Buchanan, Glenn Beck, Jeff Flake or even Orrin Hatch, and I would be willing to vote the ticket. Romney doesn't meet the standard of any of those Mormons in positions or record.

The Mormonism means nothing to me.
The SLC Olympics mean nothing to me.
Bain Capital means next to nothing for me.
RomneyCare, alliances with homo-agitprop orgs and judicial picks mean a WHOLE lot to me.


I read enough of these threads to know that people with my reasoning or close to it, including the owner, are the plurality. I am also pretty sure that the ones who DO have issues with Mormonism (as is their right), would mostly not support Romney even if he had been a United Methodist all of these years.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Repeated for you, since you apparently have a serious problem with reading comprehension:

I don’t vote for liars, leftists, cheats, backstabbers, malignant narcissists and sociopaths. That rules out Zero and Willard.

BTW, for someone promoting the Tea Party in his posts pimping the worst Socialist RINO ex-Governor in the country for President is the height of hypocrisy.

You have a nice day, Mr. Willardbot.

[Elsie]

bttt

[fieldmarshaldj]

Can you believe this jackass poseur ? He pings me out of the blue to pose the question, ‘What would it take for us ALL to vote for (Willard).’ I answered him straightforwardly (that Willard would have to be summarily dumped from the ticket for me to vote for the GOP nominee — presuming the replacement isn’t another odious RINO) and he throws a $hitfit and launches into the usual Willardbot sleazoid attacks (i.e. ‘You work for Zero’). I mean, seriously, for somebody looking to urge unification behind this abomination, do you think viciously attacking stalwart Conservatives with libelous garbage is going to somehow change minds ? Really ? These loons are NUTS.

[Jeff Head]

To be fair, Drew, they would prefer neither. but that is not what is going to happen. It will be one or the other.

I will to vote for Romney despite his record...and his record is not ALL bad, but it does have very non-conservative aspects to it.

Thta’s why I supported Sarah, Cain, Santorum, and the Newt in the primaries in that order. But Romney won.

Now, as the list of endorseres in this thread shows, all of those people and many, many more are enddorsing and supporting Romney because the grasp the simple fact that either romney or Obama will be President.

Critical Endorsements for Mitt Romney
http://www.jeffhead.com/endorseromney.htm

All of the hand wringing, all of the desire for it not to be so, all of the religious posts about Romney, all of the anti-mormon post about him, none of that will matter. It will be one or the other, either Romney or Obama.

And Romney, despite his past, has indicated that he has changed, and has been running on a platform of issues that support that change for the last five years. And when you look at that platform, the same one he is ommitting to to all of these very prominant endorseres, it is not a bad platform at all.

Mitt Romney in 2012 on the Issues
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/

I submit he will have no choice but to follow keep those commitments. And if he does and we also deliver a majority House and Senate, the US will undergo a HUGE turnaround, and he and his admin will get a lot of the credit, and he will get elected to four more years of the same.

Why would he jeopardize that? Why would he turn 180 degrees away from that?

Answer...he will not.

We have absolutely no chance of expriencing or witnessing any of that with Obama. He will dig in his marxist heals and double down on all he has been doing in his first four years.

We cannot allow that to happen and that is why, I too, am supporting Mitt Romney now for President.

WHY I WILL SUPPORT MITT ROMNEY
http://www.jeffhead.com/Romney2012.htm