Mitt Romney

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by nickformitt, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. nickformitt

    nickformitt New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. MnBillyBoy

    MnBillyBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not sure on that one..She seemed to applaud most when he mentioned the Florida support team..
    Anybody ?
     
  3. conBgone

    conBgone Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,741
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's one of Mitt's $100 mil each trust fund kids.
     
  4. MnBillyBoy

    MnBillyBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,896
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Romney's have Male children..
    At least get some part of the NEGATIVE attack right.

    Do you have a trust fund for your kids ?
    Shame if you dont.
     
  5. Bain

    Bain New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    947
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A second wife? :-D
     
  6. SupremusVeritas

    SupremusVeritas New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. CoolWalker

    CoolWalker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
  9. Flanders

    Flanders Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,589
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    48
    To SupremusVeritas: I never heard “Mitt the Twit” before. Good one.

    George Neumayr’s piece convinces me that conservatives better win a bunch of congressional seats this year —— then get a real third party up and running before 2016. Don’t make the mistake of a third party dependant upon one man à la Ross Perot.


    Romney's Cheap and Empty Win
    By George Neumayr on 2.1.12 @ 6:09AM

    The GOP is signing its own political death warrant by backing him.

    Mitt Romney's plastic and philosophically vapid campaign secured an easy victory in Florida on Tuesday night. Sunshine state GOP voters swallowed his "electability" argument whole, according to the exit polls.

    It appears that country club Republicans have succeeded again in duping the GOP electorate into crowning a "centrist" Republican. Never mind that "centrist" Republicans rarely win the center. They usually lose the center while sapping the spirit of the party's conservative base.

    Out of Bob Dole's and John McCain's tattered Big Tent steps another "reformed" RINO, Mitt Romney, who will receive, should he win the nomination, a similar thumping from the Democrats.

    But let's say that he is "electable," for the sake of argument. Who cares? The purpose of politics in a republic is not simply to win but to win on sound principles. A party that pursues victory by scrapping or sidelining its platform will have no truth left with which to govern once it does.

    If "electability" is the goal, why don't the politically correct plutocrats of the GOP just call for a one-party state? That way they could win every time.

    The "electability" argument is bankrupt on both philosophical and practical grounds. It destroys the party's soul and guarantees defeat.

    Even though Romney paid for this Florida win on his debit card -- outspending Newt by millions -- he still couldn't nail down the rank-and-file vote. Seven out of ten self-described conservatives didn't vote for him. This foreshadows the boredom and disgust that will keep conservatives home in the fall.

    Visions of a former Paul Tsongas voter and Planned Parenthood supporter won't exactly blast them out of bed in the morning. The confederacy of weasels that is the GOP establishment couldn't even find a moderate with an engaging personality to run. They settled on a robotic bore.

    His high-priced strategists -- the ones who bragged to the New York Times about engineering his post-South Carolina comeback -- wind him up and then find photographers to capture him "doing his own laundry," buying a Big Mac, or woodenly tossing bags of potato chips to media jackals on his campaign plane.

    This pitifully plastic campaign is what passes for winning politics in the GOP. Newt, Romney supporters crow, is a loser and "embarrassment." But what about their own candidate? Romney's teleprompter-dependent drivel is far more risible than Newt's grandiose opining. Romney comes off as the blinkered technocrat whose idea of wit is to compare his opponent to "Lucille Ball at the chocolate factory." All one can say for Romney is that he looks presidential. If Newt looked like Romney and Mitt looked like an overfed blowhard, Gingrich would be winning.

    That Romney is a corny businessman of narrow learning and culture wouldn't be so deadly if he harbored conservative convictions. But he doesn't. He has been taught how to play a semi-conservative Republican on TV, but his deepest instincts remain liberal. Hence, his dogged pride in Romneycare, legislation that Barack Obama himself would have fathered had he governed the Bay State.

    What's notable about the rise of Romney is not the extent to which he has pandered to conservatives -- the usual media narrative -- but the ease with which he has left his liberalism open for all to see and still won. In the debates, he has defended statist mandates, extolled gay rights (short of marriage), and waxed nostalgic about FDR's New Deal. Remember his rebuke of Rick Perry for even contemplating a system other than Social Security? Good Republicans, Mitt let Perry know, don't entertain such impure thoughts.

    Almost two years after energy from the Tea Party swept Republicans back into congressional power, a politician who embodies the antithesis of that spirit stands on the verge of victory. This is regress, not progress, and the GOP will pay a severe price for the Faustian bargain of "electability" that it entails. A party that chooses power over principle will lose both.

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/01/romneys-cheap-and-empty-win
     
  10. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    2,182
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Mitt's your candidate, conservatives.

    Don't worry. You'll soon get the orders to back him, and you will obey. It's what you do. All this unpleasantness will be a fading memory, overwritten by the adoration you'll feel for Mitt.
     
  11. kk8

    kk8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    7,084
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you are voting for Obama then, right? Can you tell us why? My guess is that it is you and all the rest of the Dems (which the real ones don't even exist anymore, or at least they are unaware that their party has been taken over by radical progressive liberals) falling in line.

    There are plenty of reasons to vote for any of the republicans next year and not Obama...my question is what could possibly be the reason to vote for Obama?
     

Share This Page