AH WELL, BACK TO THE MEAD HALL...
Posted on 01/09/2015 4:07:09 PM PST by presidio9
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , the Republican presidential nominee in 2012, told a meeting of donors Friday that he is considering another White House bid in 2016, people present said.
The possibility of a third Romney bid could upend the emerging GOP field, coming as top Republican donors are starting to rally behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
Mr. Romney made the remarks during a session Friday afternoon -SNIP-
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
NO, WE DO NOT WANT HIM. THIS NATION NEEDS A REAL CONSERVATIVE.
That having been said, I think we can all agree that he would have been much, much worse than Obama. Race relations would have been even worse. He would have had a worse atty gen than Eric Holder. He would have had more Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists in the White House. He would have raised capital gains tax to a staggering figure. He would have already jailed hundreds of thousands of people for not paying their healthcare premiums. He would have actually shared nuclear secrets with Iran, not just allow them to get closer and closer to developing their own. He would have done more apologizing around the world for the terrible country that is the United States of America. Not only would he have refused to use the words “Islamist Terror,” he would have actually donated a considerable portion of his personal fortune to them. He would have a $6 trillion plan to pay for everyone’s 4 years of college. Yes, we can all feel relieved that we dodged a bullet when Obama made it back to the White House.
Oh, yes. Almost forgot. He is a Mormon.
I see what you did there.
+1
Goug, whatever candidates are allowed on the two party’s tickets, they are there by consent of the oligrachs who actually run this nation and the vast majority of the world. So running down one or another of the candidates who run for the position as the party choice is a waste of energy, even if it is fun to read such satirical stuff.
I hope that Romney runs, along with Jeb and Christie. In that way, the “moderate” (liberal) GOP vote will be split, and with any luck the conservative vote will consolidate around an alternative who wins the nomination.
Let the games begin...
I don't think it will play out that way. If Romney is in, I just don't see Jeb or Christie getting much support. The moderate vote will consolidate around Romney. Romney will simply crush them in the early primaries as he will have the full machinery of the GOP behind him.
Unfortunately our primary system does not favor a conservative getting off to a quick start (even Reagan stumbled badly in New Hampshire back in 1980). We really need to change our primary system as Iowa and New Hampshire should not have so much power in determining our nominees.
I've always advocated having three "national" primaries. One in early February to weed out the pretenders. Then another one around the end of March to determine the 2 or 3 finalists. Then finally, a run-off in early June that will determine the nominee.
You would need 10% of the vote to get past the first primary and maybe 25% of the vote to get to the final run-off primary.
Otherwise, it's a good bet that Romney will be our nominee. I know many here don't like that notion but we need to understand that Mitt Romney is well loved by the GOP elite and they still have him in their future plans. They feel he came close to winning against an incumbent in 2012 and should easily beat whoever the Democrats put up in 2016. The nomination is basically Mitt's to lose and it now appears that he going to get into the race.
I recall trying to see if Perry was still being run by Karl Rove, and also Bachmann — both whom were “birthed” by Rove politically... (And now that Perry has Steve Schmidt as his wrangler we know that Rove was “running” Perry and IMHO also Bachmann..) But i don't recall wondering about their conservative stand... Only worried about their GOPe affiliations that could make them susceptible to RINO manipulation.
As for Gingrich, I recall wondering about his moral character and Establishment associations.
"Ideological purity" is a Rove term used to inaccurately characterize Tea Partiers as the Moral Majority in order to confuse and divide social and fiscal conservatives... Falsely accusing conservatives of having some sort of purity test confuses the issue so as to make way for the ridiculous Rove "moderate" argument while obscuring the fact that RINOs are really on the same team as Dem's . This is the terminology McCain used when he read (Rove’s) Tea Party Hobbit editorial on the Senate floor and it is used as a foil on conservatives to preset the argument and prevent us from asking questions especially about a candidates RINO associations and affiliations.
Whenever a LibRINO throws out the term “purity test” you can bet there is a disinfo campaign happening to get our eyes off the fact that the GOPe should be kicked out of the Republican Party entirely instead of us Tea Partiers wondering if we need a Third Party.
Ahhh... Ursula looks particularly lovely today. I hope there are a few
tasty morsels left for her in the refrigerator. Pulled troll is delicious.
It is as it has always been
When someone says “ Iz go bust capZ in you AZZ”, it’s a safe bet they are a son of Obama with real or wannabee gangbanger issues.
When someone says I feel that if we don’t get climate change under control” it’s a safe bet they are an indoctrinated eco nut.
Because people use language that’s part of their culture. When your culture is wannabee thug, you speak with the words of wannabee thugs. When your culture is drooling Gaia devotee, you speak using the words of a drooling Gaia devotee.
When you use the word ‘purist’ or ‘purity’ you are speaking with the language of the RINO/GOP/Left. And when speaking that groups language, one is OF that group.
We’ve tried McCain and failed. We’ve tried Romney and failed. We could try something different this time like... a conservative nominee. Just a thought...
Huh?
Yea, I put forward that radical notion myself once or twice. But you see, Conservatives simply can’t win!
Now someone like Mitt Romney...now he can win. He’s severely conservative, takes all sides of all issues and is a big tent guy. Thats what conservativism needs to grow. A big tent filled with non conservative ideas and people. Because we lack diversity.
Purity bad. Diversity good.
I think Mitt has done an outstanding job cleaning up after Barry and Val since he took back the White House and I am just shocked (shocked I tell you!) that no one but me sees that.
I had enough people tall me he would win and was the man to beat obama, so I know he did. He’s simply being nice and letting Barry pretend hes still president but really, I know Mitt is.
He would have put an acceptable face on his chosen heresy.
He'd have the WHOLE country on Prozac® not just Utah.
He'd have made Stepford Wives look downright mainstream.
He would have dogs running AWAY from cars instead of chasing them.
Shibboleth
“Presido9” was using the RoveSpeak rather easily. Sorry if what I wrote seemed like I was directing it at you, I was really calling out what is probably FreepRINO
No I agree with you. Completely. I didn’t take it that way at all.
"He wanted to be president less than anyone I've met in my life. He had no desire... to run," ...
Hillary wants to be in the White House again because she couldn’t fit all the silver and valuables into their luggage when they left.
IATZ, guess you’ll have to research those facts on your own.
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.