Posted on 06/01/2012 10:13:24 PM PDT by Innovative
Mitt Romney often is described as a turnaround artist. No better example of that is how he turned a failure into a success with the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Romney "can see into a situation very quickly," Bullock says. "He's very facile with numbers. He's got that raw intellect which lays a great foundation. And then he's combined that with a very significant layering upon layer of education and business experience that has given him now the base from which he can make pretty sound judgments pretty quickly."
"Mitt is a cheapskate," says Bullock, who is now managing director of Sorenson Capital, a leveraged buyout firm. "He does not tolerate one iota of waste."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
oops. I had to cut into this dance of yours with dixie because here is another silly ole’ mindless tactic of the I HATE ROMNEY I HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOST MY MIND CROWD and that is calling anyone who doesn’t believe OBAMA=ROMNEY or ROMNEY=OBAMA a Romney worshipper or accusing them on placing Romney in some sort of ‘Godlike ‘position. WHen the poster is usually sanely just arguing logically the Obama doesn’t equal Romney and vice versa. You clothes have no owner with the ability to decipher reality on the Obama issue and they are sad because they HATE Obama. They are even wondering what the hell you are thinking.
You keep on wasting that bandwith while I enjoy my late-night meal.
It’s gonna get pretty dull soon around here with just you and I trading predictable jabs back and forth. Hell we could probably cut and paste last nights ‘ for something different. You know it isn’t gonna change for either one of us. Slow night at the fight club sadly. I was looking forward to throwing and tossing, and of course pummeling you and the Obama=Romney game, but between our quick jabs we’ll both be bored without new blood to toy with. :)
haha. Are you eating for real? I am jealous. Or are you insinuating that you are trying to have me for dinner. Haha. I told you you were on bath salts. lol.
>>”Funny, you spend all your time attacking Romney and spreading lies about him, but never see you say a single negative thing about Obama.”<<
You noticed that, too, huh?
Wrong and wrong. Time to get your prescription renewed (eyeglasses or otherwise).
>”Romney is a liberal, he always has been and always will be. Liberalism is his core.”<
_______________________________
And 0bama is a Communist, he always has been and always will be. Communism is his core.
I’m no fan of RINO-Romney, but I’ll sure hold my nose and pull the lever for him before I stay at home and cast a vote for the Communist/Marxist/Socialist America-hating Barack Hussein 0bama.
*snickers*
Hey, now, don’t be making fun of Willard and his sycophants or you’ll be accused of working for Zero’s campaign.
You think replacing the failed Communist Emperor with a failed Socialist Governor is the solution ? Here's a thought... How about demanding the GOP dump Willard for a successful and accomplished Conservative Governor like Scott Walker ?
I don’t care if they vote for him. Heck I encourage it as a means of picking up downticket seats. But treating him like the second coming of Jesus is disgusting.
Oh, brother, I remember those cretins. Most of the current batch of knuckle-dragging Willardbots are the second and third tier contingent. The real raving nutters left here, most via the white lightning.
The whole thing is kind of strange. I think back to the Wyoming caucus earlier this year, said to be the most conservative state in the union. Romney ended up with the lion's share of delegates out of that state despite Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum still being in the race at that time. Yet Gingrich and Santorum were blown out of the water by Romney in the most conservative state in America. So basically Wyoming conservatives have embraced Romney as their standard-bearer.
All of this just seems incongruous with what is being stated in this most conservative forum.
Anyway, I wonder why you yourself don't throw your hat in the ring and run as a conservative third party candidate. You seem to be very vocal regarding your displeasure over our choices during this coming election and it seems to me that the presidency could be yours if you could direct your energies accordingly.
I might consider voting for you once I learn additional data about your positions. For example, would you get the federal government completely out of the "entitlement" programs and would you support a less onerous federal tax structure that rewards those who are successful? I think those are winning positions.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE uses taxpayer money to “bail out”.
Bad Gov. ROmneyCARE’s RomneyCARE meant using US taxpayer money.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE’s Olympic visit meant using US taxpayer money.
Bad Gov. RomneyCARE is a phoney who should pull out. NOW.
You can wish all you want.
The bottom line is that we have 0bama or Romney this time around.
I hear people repeating these talking points all the time. My recollection of Romney's record as Massachusetts governor is much different than yours, and mine is backed up by the actual facts.
Romney didn't push through gay marriage. In fact, he opposed it vehemently and sought to implement a constitutional amendment for the state that would override the state supreme court's ruling that gay marriage was legal. While I don't agree with Romney's overall stance on gays, the facts on gay marriage support him as being very firmly AGAINST it:
As governor, Romney faced challenge on gay marriage (LA Times)
His record on judges also appears to be much more complex than a simple talking point. Remembering that he was governor in a state that is the deepest blue of all blue states, with only 12% of voters identifying themselves as Republican, he certainly wasn't going to get a Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia through the nominating process, not that he necessarily would have nominated judges of their particular ideology. I'm not arguing that he was a model of conservative consistency here, just that without some degree of pragmatism, a Republican governor of Massachusetts would never have had any judges confirmed at all. It does appear that Romney became much more conservative in his judicial appointments in his final year in office. Some would say that was because he was looking ahead to running for president, but it could also be because he was fighting an activist state supreme court and his philosophy on judges changed for the better.
A Look at Romney’s Judicial Philosophy: Conservative Reform in the Most Liberal State
As for "WillardCare" providing abortions, the healthcare law that Romney signed did not provide for abortion coverage. There was an independent board called the Commonwealth Connector that later added abortion coverage to the plans offered through the state healthcare exchange.
Deja Vu: The Latest Attacks from Santorum
Romney is not a perfect candidate, but in 2008, he was actually the "conservative" alternative to John McCain, once Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo fell by the wayside. His record as governor of Massachusetts is complex and deserves much more analysis than the simple talking points that you're attaching to it.
Why wouldn’t I run ? For starters, there are many more qualified people than myself. Even were it remotely possible, I would think serving in lower office would tend to be a minimal prerequisite, wouldn’t you ? (Or at least a business executive of a major company with management skills)
Strange could be a word. The people that should’ve run oddly did not. It left the field with a bunch of egomaniacs that were second-tier at best. Most of us were expecting Palin to get in, as she was the proverbial “next in line” candidate with the Conservative base behind her. Why she didn’t is the question (it’s not like the media ever let up on their attacks of her, so she was already used to it, so that wasn’t necessarily the reason). Perhaps it is because she could see the disastrous situation in DC and whomever would be President for the next term wasn’t likely going to be able to turn things around in just 4 short years. I’ll not bother to entertain other nefarious reasons floated about in internetland.
One thing, however, is crystal clear. The entire process for selecting the Presidential nominee is profoundly broken and must be changed. This ludicrous IA-NH-SC troika that makes or breaks candidates has to stop. Neither IA nor NH, both now Democrat states Presidentially, have any business playing a major role in determining the GOP nominee. States like TX ought to have a leading early role, especially since it is amongst the most solid of GOP Presidential states (having not voted for a Democrat since 1976).
I’ve advocated methods such as drafting candidates and Conservative pre-primaries to weed out the unviable nominees and RINOs (Willard would not even get past the door).
Well, you’ll pardon me if I refuse to support either left-wing abomination.
And yet your response is soooooo educated. You sound like a Dimocrat - can't provide a cogent line of reasoning to support your mania, so you resort to school-yard "cutdowns". I knew you were "compromised" when you pinged Diogenesis for "some truth" - he also needs to have his meds regulated since he became so obsessed against Romney that Obama is an OK choice.
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.