Posted on 08/11/2014 8:07:16 AM PDT by Phillyred
Almost every day, it seems, brings a headline demonstrating how right 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was, and how wrong President Barack Obama was, on the critical issues facing America.
In 2012, Romney warned that Obama’s failure to secure an agreement to keep a residual military force in Iraq would threaten the U.S. gains made at such a high cost in American lives and treasure. “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence,” Romney asserted.
The chaos in Iraq today supports Romney’s view. With no U.S. military presence to constrain Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite politician persecuted Sunni leaders and gutted Sunni participation in government and the military. Worse, it set the stage for Sunni sympathies to turn to the fanatical Islamic State in Syria and Iraq that has conquered a significant part of the country and waged genocide against religious minorities. Obama has had to order U.S. air strikes to protect U.S. personnel in the Kurdish region and to support Kurdish militia to keep ISIS from capturing all of northern Iraq.
In the 2012 debates, Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia America’s top geopolitical foe. Today, Russia has stolen Crimea from Ukraine, funds and provides weapons and men to Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and even threatens an invasion of the country. President Vladimir Putin meddles in the Mideast, seeks to expand Moscow’s clout in Latin America, and harbors renegade Edward Snowden.
On domestic issues, Romney in 2011 advanced the idea of giving veterans a voucher to obtain medical care they could not get at a Veterans Administration hospital. This year saw the VA scandal reveal that long waiting lists for hospital treatment were hidden. Legislation Obama signed this week allows vets to seek help outside the VA system.
Romney understood that the nation’s outdated, complex tax code encourages U.S. corporations to park assets overseas and invest in other countries. He recommended tax reform to keep that money and business in America and boost the economy. Obama does nothing about reform but demagogues as “unpatriotic” corporations pressured by the tax code to seek profits and better returns for shareholders overseas.
As governor in Massachusetts, Romney demonstrated an ability to work across party lines, and, as a business executive called upon to save the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics from scandal and financial ruin, he proved to be a problem solver.
Obama has never demonstrated a commitment to bipartisan leadership. In the opening days of his presidency in 2009 with the nation in financial crisis, Obama rejected GOP ideas for economic stimulus by telling Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, that “I won.” Obama’s re-election meant only further gridlock in Washington.
All this hasn’t been lost on the public. Polls last month showed Romney would handily win a rematch and that he would be a 2016 front-runner in New Hampshire, which hosts the first presidential primary. Even some GOP donors warmed to the idea of a 2016 Romney bid.
Romney ruled it out. Probably with good reason. Another run would require his confronting the ghosts of 2012 — his “self-deportation” immigration rhetoric, his writing off of the “47 percent,” and his failure to defend his own business record.
While Romney might have been the president the country needs today, it’s not so clear he’s the candidate of tomorrow.
“...Romney got so much right...”
Except the li’l ol’ abortion thingey... and the gun control thingey... etc., etc.,
The Repackaging Of the RINO begins...
Nope.
Cruz/West write in.
Let’s hope she’s a lady of her word!
The GOP has no one to run against Cruz
This is the best they can do
Imagine that the GOP did not want to win any if the last elections not this last one
Romney was good for them in that case
A winner will be very bad. The GOP acts like they want to be in the minority Well they probably want to be there
They hated Reagan. They ran McCain against bush in 2000 and they hate conservatives. They maybe don’t want some roll up your sleeves guy in there, ordering out for chik fil a, holding meetings under gel washingtons portrait asking a lot of questions making them have to work AND think. They don’t want committee chairmanships
They have to run someone from their side. If they plan to give the election cheating and all to H! All they have to do is beat the conservatives and then schmooze the dem with the help of MSM. The dems continue destroying everything and blaming the GOP. It’s better than having to work
Of course they’ll run Romney
Linda did this in the SC primary. Flood the opposition with a lot of candidates and come out ahead with a very slim margin. That’s how tgey do it
The mystery is how they think they can protect the country from the ME. Maybe they’re like most Americans. They think they’ll convert to keep the peace, denying how unpleasant it will be
I’ll stay home if Willard runs.
The sentiment expressed on this thread is in line with many other comments common to Free Republic. That sentiment is that while Obama has been a terrible President and has been quite damaging to the conservative cause, he was an acceptable alternative to Romney. It’s hard to draw any other conclusion. We had two choices in 2010: Obama and Romney. Obama won because more people chose him than chose Romney. Very few liberals sat home, many conservatives did just that.
What will conservatives do this November and what will they do in 2016?
Agree on him being a poor candidate, but there is no disputing his competence and managerial ability.
Right on which position of his, he changed it so often it is hard to tell what his position is.
When a candidate sucks, like Romney, that’s what tends to happen.
Say what you will, but Obama represents his base well, and they rewarded him for it.
Who does Romney represent?
I can’t forgive him for playing the wimp against the Marxist monster. Never again! Bob
Well, this one won't cast a vote for a liberal, even if he's sporting an "R" after his name. Seems to me that's Conservatism 101.
nicely played
Romney is wrong on lots of issues. He’s just simply way better than the mouth breathing marxist a$$hole who won the election. So is my beagle.
First, I stand with Ted.
Isn’t it interesting that all sorts of folks told me that there was NO differences between O and Mitt. Maybe they were wrong
Yes. No one has EVER come out and stated that they regret not voting for Romney
The situation you describe is perhaps widely accepted.
The numbers who will not support such a ‘candidate’ have increased
The RNC knows that and is going with Romney
The RNC is stupid but not about everything. They know how to strategically place a loser. And they know how to destroy a conservative. That’s all they do and it’s all they know how to do
Romney only appears right when compared to Obama. He’s still just another left wing socialist with pathetic campaigning skills.
Romney received one million more votes than McCain in 2008. Obama received 3.5 million fewer votes than 2008 and still won by 5 million votes.
LOL Baraq pegs the “liberal meter”. It’s super difficult to be farther left.
Back in 2007 a friend told me “the American people are never going to vote for a guy from Kenya named Baraq Hussein who is the most liberal member of the senate”
That tells me not that they won’t run him but that they will run him because winning is not the plan
Maybe it is we who need to get a clue
"Us"? Who is this us you speak of? I'm certainly not one of the 47 percenters.
Romney's mistake was not owning that comment. He could have made that his defining moment and won the election with it. But nooooo. He was too wussified and walked it back.
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.