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.

[angcat]

Condi realizes that Obozo is an embarrassment to any intelligent African American. She woke up is right!

[ansel12]

The Constitution is pretty clear about there not being any religious test. I except Islam because of the world-wide political domination it clearly seeks over this mortal earth hiding under the name of religion.

I don't know of a religion called Fundamental Islam, but you will have to change the constitution to make a government religious test for it, or to keep Americans from being able to want to learn more about the highest ranking church official to ever run for president, also to want to discuss if it is sane or Christian or Jewish to vote for a man who thinks that he is becoming a God.

Like you, if a Muslim or a Mormon will renounce their religion, it would carry weight with me also.

[ansel12]

You really feel the need to denigrate and insult conservatism, freerepublic, and JR while speaking your mind?

That means that you were speaking your mind, and the revulsion at conservatives, freerepublic and JR is exactly what you meant.

That is as direct attack on JR and his freerepublic as I have seen for weeks.

All taken from you anti-FR diatribe in post 28
“”Sensible voices are now being heard.”” ? “”Idiocracy was crushing Free Republic”” ? “”We actually ended up with a decent nominee.”” ? “”a trail of slime is gradually being overcome by the sensible people still left here.”” ? “”Take your paranoia elsewhere.”” ?

[Jeff Head]

No, you don't have to change the constitution. The US Government could easily make it illegal to practice or promote Sharia Law because it is clearly a system that not only discimintes against women and anyone not abiding it, it is a totalitarian political system which is in direct violation of the US constitution itself.

It could easily be legally labeled seditious as such...we would just have to have the will to do it, and to educate the people as to why.

Now, if we wanted to say that people could not read the Koran, or they could not pray to allah, or they could not interact religously amongst themselves according to the "legal" tennants of their religion, then yes, that would require a constitutional amendment...one that is not going to ever be willing adopted in this nation, and for good reason, it could and would be applied to all.

But Sharia Law is something very different. It is tangible and very established with its own legal and judicial internal mechanisms, and it could be outlawed in the US, precisely because it is not religion at all, but a seditious, anti-constitutional system of tyranny masqerading under the cover of a religion.

[ansel12]

Good luck with that.

[altura]

I am not insulting Free Republic nor conservatism.

I have a long history (15 years long) of conservative posts and positions on this forum.

I was for various candidates in the primary but we now have a candidate.

We have a president who is a danger to the country and stands for everything we hate.

I’m not gonna sit around and pout because I didn’t get the nominee I wanted while Obama wins an election.

A lot of people here agree with me. I do not denigrate Free Republic. If I didn’t love Free Republic, I wouldn’t bother.

I am denigrating the small but active band of people who consider it their holy duty to put anti-Romney opinions on every thread and who have no hesitation in insulting anyone who points out a different opinion.

Just because you don’t like what I say doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

[ansel12]

No, post 28 was about as insulting as it gets.

You throw bombs at everything here, JR, conservatism, freerepublic itself, and then you play whiny victim when called out for it. You posted some nasty stuff.

All this because you finally got Romney?
“”Sensible voices are now being heard.”” ? “”Idiocracy was crushing Free Republic”” ? “”We actually ended up with a decent nominee.”” ? “”a trail of slime is gradually being overcome by the sensible people still left here.”” ? “”Take your paranoia elsewhere.”” ?

---

POST 28
Free Republic is only now showing signs of recovering from the death knell we experienced during the anti-Romney crusade.

Sensible voices are now being heard. Idiocracy was crushing Free Republic far more than Romney ever could or would.

We actually ended up with a decent nominee. We might not agree with him on everything, but so far, he’s looking good.

He doesn’t seem to be afraid to bring it to Obama.

The group I call “The Band of Bothers” who come on every thread (whether it is about Romney or not) to leave a trail of slime is gradually being overcome by the sensible people still left here.

Take your paranoia elsewhere.
28 posted on Fri Jun 01 2012 11:42:43 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) by altura

[Jeff Head]

Some folks do not like others speaking their mind when it does not agree with their own.

Fact is, this whole thread is an affront to some merely because it states the facts about what is occcurring as regargs Romney’s campaign.

Fact is, he is gaining endorsement from across the GOP psectrum including many very conservative, long time, all American individuals who are very well known and respected by us all.

They are not wrong, they are not fooled, they are not betraying America...they are making critical decisions and providing critical support in the most critical election in our lief times. I ha dalways felt the Regan Carter election in 1980 was. This one even eclipses that.

Barack Obama’s Terrible Firsts as President
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama1sts.htm

WHo Really is Barack Obama
http://www.jeffhead.com/whoisobama.htm

[Jeff Head]

Some folks do not like others speaking their mind when it does not agree with their own.

Fact is, this whole thread is an affront to some merely because it states the facts about what is occcurring as regargs Romney’s campaign.

Fact is, he is gaining endorsement from across the GOP psectrum including many very conservative, long time, all American individuals who are very well known and respected by us all.

They are not wrong, they are not fooled, they are not betraying America...they are making critical decisions and providing critical support in the most critical election in our lief times. I ha dalways felt the Regan Carter election in 1980 was. This one even eclipses that.

Barack Obama’s Terrible Firsts as President
http://www.jeffhead.com/obama1sts.htm

WHo Really is Barack Obama
http://www.jeffhead.com/whoisobama.htm

[Jeff Head]

Here it is...so far a pretty ggood thread with discussion from both sides. That's an impressive list Romney is accumulating with many very well known and respected, all-American conservatives and champions of the Constitution among them.

I pray he is successful and we can remove the Kenyan Marxist from the riegns of power and the White House.

Thoughts?

[Drew68]

Hold on to your hat, Drew68, I have something positive to post to you:

LOL! Yes, we are on the same team!

And here's something for you: The Brietbart scoop on Obama's literary agents has affected my opinion greatly on the birther issue.

Anyways, I'm in Florida where my vote counts much more than in other, more solid states and I'll be voting enthusiastically to evict this lying, disastrous POS from the White House!

[betty boop]

That's an impressive list Romney is accumulating with many very well known and respected, all-American conservatives and champions of the Constitution among them.

Indeed it is an impressive list Jeff. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia should be on it, too.

Also such talk radio luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Katz, Jay Severin, and Sean Hannity, all heard on Boston Talk Radio WTKK 1200 AM. (Glenn Beck is also on the roster, but I don't hear his show very often, so don't know what he's been saying lately.)

What I most admire about Rush is that he is unquestionably a most solid and principled political conservative, and yet he is not a dogmatist about it. Rather, he is a political realist.

A dogmatist rarely moves beyond the approved "text." A political realist, however, understands that politics is the art of the possible. That is, he is aware that a dogmatic position by itself cannot transform political reality, that a dogma as an end-in-itself is pretty sterile as a means of effecting political change. I believe this; and the history of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this. He understands you have to work within the context of on-the-ground political realities, illuminating problems according to core principles, but not reducing their solutions to simple, pat, one-size-fits-all dogmatic answers.

In other words, a text — no matter how sublime — that is not transformed by lived experience guided by core principle does not actually bear much fruit. This involves the (humble) recognition that we "ordinary" people can do little by our own efforts to shape the political environment, but must participate in it anyway, just as we find it. This is directly analogous to the idea that "faith without works is dead." If that makes any sense at all....

To change the subject: A couple weeks back, P-Marlowe suggested that my vote for Romney in Massachusetts would be a totally wasted vote, because Obama was going to carry the state no matter what. (So I might just as well vote for Virgil Goode. But what would be better about that vote, since Obama is supposedly going to carry Massachusetts?)

I, as a "prisoner behind enemy lines" in Massachusetts, have noticed certain signs around the state in recent times that suggest Obama may not have a lock on Massachusetts' electoral votes.

I've mentioned one of them before, on another thread: The loud, long booing of Obama at Fenway Park on the Red Sox seasons' opening day. It happened to be the 100th anniversary of Fenway Park (a hallowed Boston institution), so the Prez put together a little congratulatory video, broadcast to the fans on the Jumbotron. The crowd roared their disapproval of him — music to my ears. Especially because a phenomenon like this happened in Massachusetts.

Then, David Axelrod — Obama's chief spear-carrier — made a speech here this past week, and hundreds of "protesters" showed up to heckle him. He totally lost control of his audience, and his speech could barely be heard. The look of shock on his face was priceless....

Plus, as already mentioned above, Boston Talk Radio WTKK's diverse line-up of political commentators are trashing the Prez, and arguing the case for Romney. This is the radio station that long-suffering political conservatives, libertarians, and "independents" living "behind enemy lines" in Massachusetts listen to.

I am heartened by these developments. On this basis, I'd hazard the guess that Massachusetts may be a swing state this year. I think the left-progressive political machine that runs this state is losing control over "the public mind" here.... There is a growing sense of "I'm mad as h*ll, and I'm not going to take it anymore."

I certainly hope my reading of this developing situation proves accurate, come November 6th.

We'll just have to wait and see....

Dear Jeff, thank you so much for your highly informative essay/post. Very nice work indeed!

[EternalVigilance]

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

-- John Adams, Letter to Jonathan Jackson (2 October 1780), "The Works of John Adams", vol 9, p.511

[FreeReign]

The entire FR He-Man Mitt Haters Club jihad is predicated on such outlandish predictions of the monstrous and megalomoniacal things Romney is sure to do once in office. And how do we know that this is what he'll do? Because of his history of being an unprincipled, flip-flopping squish. It is to laugh!

The unprincipled flip-flopping liar Mitt may do bad things. Obama the big government tyrant will do bad things.

This will be our choice.

[Alamo-Girl]

Wow! I'd love to see Massachusetts be a swing state this year!

Thank you so much for your insightful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

[Yashcheritsiy]

Indeed it is an impressive list Jeff. Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia should be on it, too.

Also such talk radio luminaries as Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Katz, Jay Severin, and Sean Hannity, all heard on Boston Talk Radio WTKK 1200 AM. (Glenn Beck is also on the roster, but I don't hear his show very often, so don't know what he's been saying lately.)

So, it's impressive that Mitt Romney gets the endorsement of leadership caste Republicans?

What I most admire about Rush is that he is unquestionably a most solid and principled political conservative, and yet he is not a dogmatist about it. Rather, he is a political realist.

A dogmatist rarely moves beyond the approved "text." A political realist, however, understands that politics is the art of the possible. That is, he is aware that a dogmatic position by itself cannot transform political reality, that a dogma as an end-in-itself is pretty sterile as a means of effecting political change. I believe this; and the history of Rush Limbaugh demonstrates this. He understands you have to work within the context of on-the-ground political realities, illuminating problems according to core principles, but not reducing their solutions to simple, pat, one-size-fits-all dogmatic answers.

In other words, a text — no matter how sublime — that is not transformed by lived experience guided by core principle does not actually bear much fruit. This involves the (humble) recognition that we "ordinary" people can do little by our own efforts to shape the political environment, but must participate in it anyway, just as we find it. This is directly analogous to the idea that "faith without works is dead." If that makes any sense at all....

This is a wonderful speech and all, but I can't help but smell in it the foul stench of fear and surrender.

Further, it's something of a straw man. See, what you're trying to do with this is build up the false dichotomy of "pragmatic conservative" versus "wild-eyed extremist." The "pragmatic conservatives" (such as, presumably, yourself) are willing to accept political realities, while "wild-eyed extremists" who aren't supporting Romney (i.e. the people who disagree with you) are just trying to destroy this country through their fanaticism and intolerance.

Complete and utter nonsense, every last word of it.

Sorry, but conservatism is not a living, breathing document, no matter how much you would like for it to be. It's really NOT okay to support pro-life yesterday, but pro-abortion today, even if doing so means you get to dodge the "dogmatist" label. It's not okay to want conservative economic solutions yesterday, but then to go along with the status quo of "progressive" taxation, more social spending, and more government control of the economy today, just because this will get you a pat on the back from the GOP-E.

I have seen nothing yet to actually suggest that Mitt Romney will be good for the country - and really, that's what this *should* be all about. You screech and scream about how bad Obama is - and he is - but you have been unsuccessful in making the case that Romney would be effectively better. You really have. You have failed in that effort. Simply accusing people of lying when they bring out facts about your chosen candidate, while having become an unfortunate FReeper pastime for the past couple of years, is not convincing. Accusing people of religious animus toward him because he's a Mormon doesn't make a solid case for you. All it does is further convince us that you really have nothing substantive to offer to us as far as making a case FOR Romney. I mean, you can get all the thumbs up and rah-rahs from Jeff Head and rogue yam that you could want - but it still doesn't make the case.

What's doubly galling about all this nonsense you've given us about this false dichotomy between "dogmatism" and "political reality" is just HOW inutterably false it really is.

Either conservatism works, or it doesn't. If it works, then go with it. If it doesn't, then we all might as well stop stumping for it, and get on board the progressive gravy train. Nevertheless, conservatism CAN and DOES win - ESPECIALLY in the current political climate, the GOP could have ran any one of the conservatives in the primary and have won with him or her. Perry could have won. Gingrich could have won. Even Bachmann could have beaten Obama. We don't NEED a progressive like Romney to "tack to the centre to win." So now, we enter an election where we could have one of the best opportunities to roll back the Left and start instituting real conservative changes - actually moving back to where we need to be instead of just slowing down the slide away from it - and we've wasted it on an absolute loser of a candidate. Sure, he may beat Obama - but it may end up not mattering that he did.

Political reality IS conservatism, BB. Reality is not subjective. Either something is true, or something is false. Getting government out of our lives will lead to greater prosperity and freedom. Opposing the gay agenda will protect the morals and safety of the nation. Opposing abortion will save little babies' lives. Standing for the Constitution will preserve our liberties. These are all POLITICAL REALITIES. Ones that Mitt Romney has consistently been on the wrong side of until he realised he needed to put up a different public front back in 2007 when he started running for President.

And frankly, BB, if you don't understand these things, or if you think that the Constitution, economic freedom, protecting the right to life, and so forth are just "dogmas" to be tossed away when your chosen candidate doesn't support them, then we ARE very different...and you are NOT representing political reality.

Let's ask you some other questions about political reality:

Will Romney do anything about the TSA, VIPR, unconstitutional searches, etc. And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional czars that Obama has set up? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

Will Romney get rid of the unconstitutional and liberty-invasive portions of the PATRIOT Act? And if you think he will, then what evidence are you basing this belief on?

In short, what real evidence do we have that Romney would govern any more constitutionally than Obama has?

People on hear screech and moan about whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not and whether he is constitutionally eligible for the office he now occupies. But really, why do we care, if we're just supposed to go along with a Republican who, while perhaps born a citizen, has shown no real concern for that document any more than Obama has?

Seriously - if it's "dogma" to stand for the Constitution, to stand for freedom, to stand for economic liberty, to stand for protecting little babies from having their heads pulled off by a legalised murderer, then you may count me as a "dogmatist," whether or not Rush Limbaugh approves.

On this basis, I'd hazard the guess that Massachusetts may be a swing state this year.

Talk about losing touch with political realities.

All your talk reminds me of back in 2008, when FReepers were desperately assuring one another that New Jersey and Pennsylvania were in play, and that we were going to take Michigan because "there are a lot of McCain/Palin yardsigns around."

Anywise, I have to say - probably the worst long-term result of Barack Obama's tenure has not been the tanking economy, or Fast and Furious, or the czars. It has been to totally and completely emasculate conservatives through fear to the point where they will willing, nay enthusiastically support a complete and utter progressive, just because he isn't Obama.

You know, if everybody who claims to be a conservative would actually vote for and support Virgil Goode, he'd have a strong chance of winning. The only thing keeping this from happening is the narrow-mindedness, the inability to think outside the box, the institutionalisation to the Republican Party, that plagues the thinking of too many conservatives. "We're scared. We don't want to take a chance. Nobody knows who he is. He doesn't have any money." All things that could change in three weeks, if people had any sense about them.

That right there, BB, is the "art of the possible." THAT'S thinking outside the approved text.

The approved text says "Go with the RINO if he's nominee because we all have to rally around him to win." THAT is non-thinking. THAT is dogmatism.

I'll close with this question for you, as well as for everyone else on the thread - putting aside all arguments about relative support levels, IF Mitt Romney and Virgil Goode had an equal chance of winning, WHICH one would you rather see win? This ought to be an interesting gauge of just how conservative our FReeper population really is.

[Agamemnon]

He has such a great opportunity, if he wins, to have one of the best cabinets.

I've put some thought into this, and rather than just linking to it again let me repost and expand upon it a little with some new developments for the full benefit of this thread.

Assuming Romney becomes the (R) nominee, he will need to coalesce the base. He must do this convincingly for conservatives and Tea Party to get on board full throttle, not just halfheartedly.

How many of us were enthusiastic about Reagan in 1980 but thought the "Rockefeller Wing" was going to sabotage our chances when he selected GHWBush as his VP? How many of us were somewhat enthusiastic about Quayle, but not so much about GHWBush in 1988? How many of us were enthusiastic about Kemp, not so enthusiastic about Dole in 1996? How many of us were only cautiously supportive of GWBush in 2000, but roared when we learned he'd selected Cheney as his VP?

How does Romney get us ALL on board? Here's a suggestion:

Run not only with your VP but with your proposed cabinet as well.

Conservatives sometimes have to be reminded that a President is not king. He can't get anything done by dictate. Above all, he must be a quarterback for the team. While a quarterback may sometimes run a ball in to the end zone himself, more often than not he strategically uses the talents of his team mates to move the ball down the field and bring about the win.

Did anyone hear Palin (4/12/2012) on Hannity when asked if she'd consider being Sec'y of Energy? Did you watch her show the following night in place of Greta? Did anyone hear our own FReeper Allen West when interviewed on Hannity (4/11/2012) and asked whether he'd consider being Romney's VP? And BOTH essentially said YES!

Newt has conceded. Romney captured the TX delegates. Newt barely got 8% for all the promised Perry endorsement did him. Newt actually endorsed Romney when in Georgia. Paul is out (finally). Are any of these folks any less conservative for facing what are becoming our realities this election cycle?

A revolt at the RNC convention is NOT going to happen, now that everybody is for all practical purposes lining up, as they should, behind the likely (R) nominee, Mitt Romney.

I have proposed cabinet and administration roles for persons who were Romney's rivals at some point. These are the skill sets we conservatives wanted applied to the places of government where they'd be most effective. Instead of rivals let's make them team players:

Rick Santorum - Sec'y of HHS

Sarah Palin - Sec'y of Energy + Sec'y of Interior + EPA(merge these)

Newt Gingrich - Sec'y of Education

Michelle Bachmann - Attorney General

Herman Cain - Sec'y of Commerce, HUD, + Head of GSA (merge)

Tim Pawlenty: Sec'y of Transportation

John Bolton - Sec'y of State

John Petraeus - Sec'y of Defense

Ron Paul - Head of Federal Reserve (let the audit begin!)

Donald Trump - Head Council of Economic Advisers

Paul Ryan - Head of Office of Management and Budget

Joe Arpaio - Head of FBI, + Homeland Security (merge these)

Dick Cheney - Head of CIA

White House spokesman: Mike Huckabee

1st Supreme Court nominee: Mark Levin

2nd Supreme Court nominee: Ann Coulter

And our own FReeper, Allen West, as VP

Did anyone catch the Frank Luntz, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain program on 5/28/2012 with that audience of former Obama voters, where Hannity and Cain tested messages on the audience to which were the most persuasive? Herman Cain was asked by Sean who Romney ought to pick for VP and Cain suggested Allen West!

I was a Perry guy. Keep him as Governor of Texas. He's doing fine right where he is.

Next: Most of these folks are honed primed and stoked from the recent primary debates. They're all sharp. Nationalize the cabinet selection process as much as the Presidential and Congressional elections.

Release every one of these folks back out onto the the campaign trail with an assignment: tackle in an "in your face" way each of these departments - stage a kick-off news conference in front of each one of them. Challenge the office holders to the equivalent of Lincoln-Douglas style debates allowing each Obama appointed office member to defend their record and their (mis)-management of their public trust.

They won't debate, you say? OK, try some new Rules for Conservative Radicals. Stalk them, dog them with cameras, shame them into the arena, watch the cowards avoid the heat, watch for and exploit their mis-steps, create and run ads based on their failures in office and refusal to be made accountable.

Envision Joe Arpaio standing out in front of the TSA calling out Janet Napolitano to mix it up with him!

Envision Newt Gingrich perched out front of the Dept of Education taunting Arne Duncan to a debate on the front steps where Duncan can try vainly to defend his record as Sec'y of Education. Dog him wherever he goes.

Envision Sarah Palin calling out Stephen Chu to debate the Keystone pipeline, fracking, ANWR, and American energy self-sufficiency through Natural gas and 200+ year proven oil reserves left untapped due to Federal regs and an idiot Secretary who looks forward to $7/gallon gas! Dog him wherever he goes. Dare them to accuse you of stalking!

Multiply that 10-fold. Get in their faces and with camera's rolling. Go Breitbart on them!

While this is distracting the DNCs resources, Romney can land his own punches on Obama in the same way he's managed to blow away all his opposition in the primaries. Use Romney's well funded strike teams to confound opposition at the grass roots, do what they can to discourage and depress Democratic opposition and their voters.

Similar to what I have suggested for the proposed cabinet taking it straight to Obama's appointees Romney has already given indication that he's willing to take it right to Obama. Look at that Press conference Romney had on 5/31/2012 with failed Solyndra as the back drop. This is exactly what I am saying for the proposed cabinet members to do.

Face it: if Romney was able to take out his competitors in the primary don't you suppose Obama's hacks could have taken anyone of them out in the general?

Have Romney's boys sew the seeds of hopelessness and dissension in the Obama ranks, emphasize betrayal and failure of Obama to keep 2008 promises. Undermine, destroy and confound the opposition into a confused, ill-directed mass who find themselves fighting on more than one Alinskyized, freeze-the-target Presidential candidate, and instead spending their resources fighting 10+ personalities "running" for cabinet offices.

Who are the DNC’s "generals" they have to call into a fight like that? If the experience in Boston on 5/31/2012 is any indication of any thing I think we actually may have them on the run.

Team Romney and Tea Partiers are getting in the face of the likes of David Axelrod right on the steps of the Massachusetts State House, shouting him down, and rattling his sorry ass right on national TV.

It is happening, folks. The Islamo-Marxist is going down in November! Let's all be counted in making that happen, not sitting out, or wasting our energies on 3rd party distractions and certain losers!

It's no simpler stated than this: If you don't help Romney get elected anything else you do -- or don't do -- only helps Obama get re-elected. Voting 3rd party isn’t voting against Romney and voting against Obama – it is voting for who ever between the two of them wins the general – and in the end you have no standing to influence either one of them.

Instead of dividing us with all the endless sniping, let's quit doing the DNC's work for them and work on dividing THEM for a change!

For instance, gin up Blacks' and Hispanics' traditional revulsion for things "gay" and shove Joe Biden's pre-mature-ejacu-intellectual foot farther up the ass of our first "Gay President" -- a title just gifted to us by that Time magazine cover. Divide and conquer. Beat it like a drum. We can and we will win this thing!

Romney and Netanyahu both began strategic business careers at Boston Consulting Group. Agree with them or disagree with them, but admit that they are patient, long range, strategic thinkers.

One of the things Romney has been able to do in large part is to keep his persona distanced from the decisively well-calculated positioning of opposition to rivals in the primaries. His name-less, face-less cloaked "hit-men" are as effective as any guerrilla force out there, but all that activity is maintained at a plausibly deniable, comfortable, arms-length distance from Romney the candidate. I dare say it puts the likes of Nixon's and Clinton's "opposition research" squads to shame.

Sorry George. Enough of the "kinder-gentler" crap. Tight formations, and "gentlemen's wars" provided the fixed targets that let us destroy the British in our War of Independence.

I can see that machine going to work on Obama and leaving more than just a few lumps. Let's turn the "talents" of Romney's henchmen on to Obama, keep them disciplined, focused, and this side of doing any thing "Watergate," and let them go for the DNC's jugular.

If Romney is what we've got to work with this time around let's face that fact head on and let's hold his feet to the fire and make our will known as conservatives. If he's smart he'll seek our trust, and appoint many of our cabinet choices. To secure our trust he's going to have to both earn it and maintain it.

Romney will go a long and convincing way to doing that by arming, deputizing, and funding the campaign efforts of his "cabinet-in-waiting."

FReegards!

[netmilsmom]

Oh goodness! Your entire post is a dream!

>>White House spokesman: Mike Huckabee<<

Wouldn’t it have been nice to have Andrew Breitbart in that role?

[EternalVigilance]

I see no basis in reality in your post. Sorry.

[NE Cons]

Excellent post... West would be my favorite candidate for VP... Is he really a FReeper? What’s his screen name