Romney and Bush are considered similar candidates... Several major Romney donors told The Washington Post earlier this year that Bush would be their preferred Republican candidate in 2016.Can America go for a candidate who has already had the nomination and lost? I remember when Nixon thought he could do it, and I considered it a ridiculous notion — I being a teenager and Nixon being correct. You may say: 1. But Nixon got drummed out of office, or 2. It's a new era and what worked in the 60s hasn't worked since the 60s.
After shrinking out of the public light following his crushing loss to President Obama in 2012, Romney has slowly reemerged as a coveted political ally for Republicans seeking office this year.
Romney, 67, has begun to embrace the role of party elder, believing he can shape the national debate and help guide his fractured party to a governing majority.
Well, it is a new era now, it's true, but that's an answer to argument #1. I believe, and I've said it before, that if new media had been around at the time of Watergate, Nixon would have held onto his presidency. As for argument #2, think about why it hasn't worked since then — look at all the losers — and ask why they never tried a second time or, if they did, why they didn't get too far.
The key loser is Al Gore. (The other post-Nixon losers who didn't try again (at least not yet) are: John McCain, John Kerry, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford.) Like Nixon, Al Gore had reason to believe that he was the true winner of the election he lost. And there was something of a draft Gore in '04 movement and talk of him again in '08. I think the reason Gore held back was that he didn't get sufficient interest from donors.
If the donors get behind Mitt Romney, why wouldn't Mitt Romney be a creditable candidate? Why couldn't he win if he ran not because he was a sore loser and felt entitled or ambitious, but because he's a modest, dutiful man, called into service in a time of need?
And take into account that the opposing candidate is quite likely to be Hillary Clinton, who was so much the front runner in '04 that her failure to get the nomination makes her seem like a previous loser, and that prior loss seems more loser-ish than Romney's 2012 loss, since Hillary was a frontrunner who got blindsided by an upstart, and Romney had an uphill battle against an incumbent. (And wouldn't Romney have won if he'd kept up the first debate aggressiveness in that second debate?)
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
I wonder if Schieffer's source is...Mitt Romney? Could be a feint to see whether reaction to the notion is positive or negative.
Mitt Romney would be a great president. Who's a better candidate? Who doesn't think that the country would be in better shape, with a more-improved economy right now, if Romney had won in 2012?
In a country of 300 million we should be able to find more candidates than those named Clinton and Bush.
I liked Romney just fine, but can't we find someone else to run for President? Is our pool of possible candidates really so small?
What's gone wrong?
The dems could pull it off. They could nominate Kerry and he'd win. Hell, they could make Dukakis president.
And wouldn't Romney have won if he'd kept up the first debate aggressiveness in that second debate?
And therein lies the problem for Mitt Romney. Romney lost a winnable race because he pulled his punches, was too afraid to move in for the kill at key moments, and wasn't willing to defend himself against cheap shots (remember Romney apologizing for being rich? I do.)
There are a lot of potential deal killers for Romney. Two more are: he was afraid of debating Obama and his get-out-the-vote program was a disaster of mismanagement, supposedly his strongest point.
"I liked Romney just fine, but can't we find someone else to run for President? Is our pool of possible candidates really so small?"
There really is a big problem with the pool.
I don't think we need another first-term Senator and I think Governor Walker will have a lot of trouble with the national audience.
You think Perry will do better than before?
I'd like to see Romney spend more time with his family and focus his other energies on his church callings. He gave it a try, twice, and it's time to move on.
"What's gone wrong?"
Hoo boy!
We no longer have a democracy, but an oligarchy, and only candidates deemed safe to manage the affairs of the wealthy and powerful are permitted to get into office. When the stray loose cannon does get into the pool of aspirants for the White House, they're shunned and tittered at as unwelcome kooks, (e.g., Kucinich, Paul).
It does not matter who our next President will be...nothing will change...except for the worse...for us.
If you're a Republican, you have to be twice as good and twice as squeaky clean. If you are both those things, the media and the hip young people denigrate you as an old fashioned, out of touch geek.
What's the answer?
Ann, Perry does seem like a much better candidate this tine around. Trading his 'Aw shucks' down home attitude for the hipster NPR host look was a bold move that may pay off big. At this point I like Walker. He's beaten the lunatic fringe in Wisconsin and he has appeal for independent blue state voters. And I think he's more dedicated to classical liberal values than any Republican candidate aside from Paul.
Just the latest attempt by Democrats to ensure a squish Republican is on the other side of the ticket. Unacceptable. I want a Republican president who is as conservative as Barack Obama was liberal. This means one who will force conservative platforms through Congress and will use the executive branch to meet conservative goals without regard to what the law says. Then, after eight years of hyper-conservative rule, we can discuss what a centrist might look like.
"Who doesn't think that the country would be in better shape, with a more-improved economy right now, if Romney had won in 2012?"
I don't...and so, apparently, do the many people who did NOT vote for him.
But, see my previous comment...Obama being in office doesn't mean the country and the economy are in better shape than if Romney had won. Conditions would be the same.
It makes no difference which carefully vetted and neutered Democratic or Republican candidate is elected to the Presidency...that they become the nominees at all proves they have sufficiently shown they will be obedient and loyal servants of the parasite class--the wealthy--who own this country.
Perry will do better but my picks are Cruz, Jindal and Walker. Bush is a stay-at-home for me. Amnesty is the deal-killer.
How does one spell loser?
A) Romney
B) Dole
C) Ford
D) McCain
E) Bush 41
F) All of the above
If you answered F, you are a winner.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, nominating Mitt Romney would deprive Republicans from claiming that Hillary Clinton is too old to be President, since Romney is seven months older than Hillary. I know that he looks about ten years younger, but he is actually older.
I would truly be disappointed if Governor Walker's uniquely mid-western appeal doesn't appeal to the country at large. I think he would make a fine president. Maybe the eventual nominee will select him as VP if Walker doesn't catch on? I could imagine a Romney-Walker ticket doing very well in the Midwestern states, with Walker also energizing some of the base Republican voters.
"What's the answer?"
There is none. There will never be another republican president.
There's no way Mitt Romney is running. He (or somebody) is using Mitt Romney to try to bluff Jeb Bush into running. It's Jeb Bush that is mulling it over, not Mitt Romney. Thus this desperate, desperate bluff to try to push Jeb Bush into the race. "Boy, this is a great time for a moderate Republican to run. If Jeb Bush doesn't take this great opportunity, Mitt will step in and grab it."
I think I've seen this maneuver in romance!
Are you jealous, Jeb Bush? Are you green with envy yet? Look, the White House is sitting in Mitt Romney's lap. The White House is nibbling on Mitt Romney's ear. Don't you want that White House so bad?
If your choice is Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, why not Mitt Romney? And if you need an establishment stalking horse while you find the electable candidate, why not Mitt Romney again?
[HillaryClinton's] loss seems more loser-ish than Romney's 2012 loss, since Hillary was a frontrunner who got blindsided by an upstart, and Romney had an uphill battle against an incumbent.
To you it does. And though your impression seems perfectly correct, it's not presented that way in the media, even the less obviously Democrat media. Nor will it be. That's partly the usual bias, but also because Romney's loss played on a bigger stage, and Clinton has kept herself in the public eye with a new and different job.
Clinton could self destruct, but it's about the only way she can lose the nomination.
" . . .they will be obedient and loyal servants of the parasite class--the wealthy--who own this country."
That would be the people who pay most of the income taxes.
The Dems are going to run a radical leftist statist masquerading as a moderate.
Couldn't the Repub's give us a choice by running an actual conservative/libertarian type? Someone with actual conservative instincts and history who would know how to explain the conservative viewpoint in a non-apologetic way? How about someone not afraid to hit back? Romney was afraid to appear mean to Candy and Zero. What happens when he needs to attack Hillary or Elizabeth?
Mumble, mumble, mumble.
Good loser.
I've got two words for you: Bob Dole.
And again: John McCain.
Go with seniority. Works every time for ya, don't it!
- Hammond; card carrying Libertarian.
We'll then, you're a fucking moron Robert Cook.
Look, that's what Mitt Romney, a milquetoast personality has done all his life. He takes fucked up shit, analyzes it, implements a plan and fixes it.
As a libertine conservative guy, I had a lot of problems, but one thing I knew was that if we had to have a mechanic working on the economy, there has never been a better person run for president.
Instead, we have some jackass with the ultimate daddy issues doing everything he can to create a world wide race war.
How's that working out?
Consider why Nixon won the nomination (and presidency) in 1968 after losing a close on in 1960 and then being upset in the 1962 CA governor race. By 1968, the country was in JFK/LBJ fatigue, after years of violence, assassination, riots, Vietnam, and liberal projects that didn't meet their promise. Nixon seemed like a reminder of the 1950s, which people were feeling nostalgic for. Plus, he was a much improved candidate by 1968, who had smoother TV appearances and could straddle the middle and right wings of his party. Donors and supporters then could believe he'd be able to do better this time around.
I don't think Romney really has that--after 2012, people picked apart his gaffes and weaknesses from the campaign, and they'd bring those issues up again. It's hard to make the case that in 2016 he'd clearly do a lot better than he did the last time around.
Who knows, though--the GOP has no presumptive front runner, and it could come down to whoever outlasts the Thunderdome of the primaries. Which is of course the bigger problem--the GOP has a way of tearing down their survivors (er, nominees) and leaving them lamed in time for the general election, in a way that the Democrats simply don't. Are we really ready for a couple more years of wonderful party loyalists like Newt and Santorum going around calling the nominee a "vulture capitalist" and practically writing the DNC's attack ads for them?
My guess on the source? Mitt Romney's campaign manager, Matt Rhodes. Just a guess, I have no inside information. IIRC, Romney voted against running last time (in his family ballot) and he has stated specifically that there is no way he is running.
Ya'll need to watch House of Cards. It's a show all about political manipulation. The original from the UK is great, and the USA version is a lot of fun, too. What's particularly fun for us on the right is the bad guy is a Democrat. Shocking! Unbelievable!
Anyway, if you watch the show, this is the sort of "news" that Kevin Spacey would feed to a reporter for political purposes. I am highly suspicious that this is a valid peek into the mind of Mitt Romney.
I saw this live and thought old Bob was really helping out the GOP.
You understand, since McCain (Democrat wannabe) and Romney lost, the GOP is looking at the *I^%*&% lunitic, far, far, far right fringe at underhumans like Walker or the phantom Cruz, and Bob's letting us know "hey guys that won't work. You need to moderate and choose Romney or McCain to have a shot at over 40% of the vote."
Most in the GOP believe this and will act on it. They were told Romney was a brilliant manager and by God they believe it today regardless of what happened on election day.
Thanks Iowa. New Hampshire. You guys can really pick 'em. And ethanol doesn't starve kids to death either with killer corruption because of your white greed.
So, yeah, Cook is right, at least insofar as he agrees with the Codevilla Ruling Class description of our country. But, Palin was the rogue who got near the White House not Paul or Red Dennis.
We no longer have a democracy, but an oligarchy, and only candidates deemed safe to manage the affairs of the wealthy and powerful are permitted to get into office.
I'm in agreement with Robert Cook. I think I'd better take the day off.
Thank you, Professor, for finally creating a poll which includes precisely the right answer.
Bob Schieffer reports gossip like a 14-year-old girl.
Don't forget to tweet, buddy.
The next time I want to insult a 14-year-old girl, I'm going to say, "Stop acting like Bob Schieffer."
Ought to change the name of that show to Shadowy Anonymous Source the Nation
I hope the GOP agrees to Al Sharpton hosting a debate.
"Okay Gov. Walker, now you had to fire a couple racists from your staff, but only after the emails came out into the open. What emails are still secret showing more racism from you and your staff? Okay Gov. we're gonna need your username and passwords and check for ourselves right now. Are you afraid of the light? Are you unwilling to be transparent with the American People tonight?"
And I hope Powerline defends racist Democrats because hey, if you don't defend your enemy when he is strangling himself then you are like Sun Tsu, a barbarian alpha male unfit for modernity.
How can anyone disagree with Crack?
We have racist Democrats controlling the old media and most new technology, sports, academia, Hollywood, and the federal, state, local, and hyper-local government bureaucracy in a large majority of the country, and GOPers rushing to claim America isn't racist and racist Democrat billionaires are just misunderstood and need our empathy.
Mitt could win if the debate moderators don't take sides and if the IRS doesn't succeed in suppressing the Republican vote.
Sheesh. Mitt can't win.
So far, I think Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are the only prospective Republican candidates competent to actually run the executive branch.
However, Jeb Bush is kind of stuck with some of his big brother's mistakes, like the DHS and NCLB, and Romney has the memory of his Karl Rove advised campaign in 2012.
It is still early though, more governors seem to be thinking of maybe having a go at it, and there could be more to come.
Oso Negro,
That ignores the existing bureaucratic grunts in the rest of the executive branch. They've proved themselves a ready made army to enthusiastically carry out the policies of the left.
A right wing president and congress threatens their rice bowl. For all the fantasizing about what goes around comes around, where are you going to find the "civil servants" to carry out the turnaround. Not going to happen.
I like Romney a lot. If I could just pick someone to assume the presidency, he'd be my pick.
But I would not bet on him winning (or Bush, for that matter, though I'm not familiar with him as a candidate so I could be persuaded otherwise). He was not aggressive enough last time and there's no reason to believe that that would change. At the very least, they could never attach a racist tag to him, but, assuming that Clinton is the opponent (a big assumption), they can and absolutely will attach a war on women to him (binders!), and he will pull even more punches to try to avoid that.
Also, I like Althouse's logic that he was less of a "loser" than Clinton, but we all know that that's not the way it works. It doesn't make sense, but it will be seen that way.
There are a lot of R governors out there. I don't understand why we can't come up with a deeper field from them.
Lord deliver us from any more Bushes. Despite numerous misgivings I'm still a registered Republican, but if Jeb is the nominee I'll have to re-register as Independent just to preserve my self respect.
Hillary, of course, lost in spectacular fashion to a candidate without qualifications and absolutely no one thinks that should disqualify her from being crowned.
The contention that Romney would not have been able to improve the economy or mood of the nation is debatable. He is not by nature a person who would want to divide the country, is a person who would see himself as president for all the people and not just Republicans and who is definitely a man that knows something about business and the multitude of impediments the government could remove to advance it without harm.
Hillary, of course, lost in spectacular fashion to a candidate without qualifications and absolutely no one thinks that should disqualify her from being crowned.
The contention that Romney would not have been able to improve the economy or mood of the nation is debatable. He is not by nature a person who would want to divide the country, is a person who would see himself as president for all the people and not just Republicans and who is definitely a man that knows something about business and the multitude of impediments the government could remove to advance it without harm.
1. I would like nothing better than to say President Rand Paul.
2. Having said that, Mitt would run the ACA better than anyone. Mitt would not have to take all the "how did he get his money questions," when we would want to know, "how did Hilary get all her money?"
3. Mitt/Martinez has a nice ring to it. Gov Martinez can take the attack to HRC without having a male seem attacking and Mitt can look Presidential.
The next time I want to insult a 14-year-old girl, I'm going to say, "Stop acting like Bob Schieffer."
Number of 14-year-old girls who know who Bob Schieffer is: Zero.
"I want a Republican president who is as conservative as Barack Obama was liberal."
You mean...not at all?
MadisonMan said...
The next time I want to insult a 14-year-old girl, I'm going to say, "Stop acting like Bob Schieffer."
Number of 14-year-old girls who know who Bob Schieffer is: Zero.
Percentage of Americans who know who Bob Schieffer is: < 2%
Number of 14-year-old girls who know who Bob Schieffer is: Zero.
You're right, that would be a stupid insult for a 14-year-old girl. I'll keep that in mind the next time I face one of them in word combat.
I suspect before this thread is done I will be apologizing to the 14-year-old girls of America for that unfair and unjust comparison.
So the money men behind the party have written off Christie.
Romney was far and away the best candidate from the 2012 Republican primaries, and he was a better candidate than either Dole, McCain, or '92 HW Bush.
That said, it seems like it will be another pretty weak field of candidates. That Romney and Jeb are being touted by the money men lets you know that they think the field looks weak. I think Walker is pretty good and won't come off strange like Perry does but I'm not sure he has the national political chops yet. He is pretty young still and could use more time. Same with Jindal.
I would have used "credible" as opposed to "creditable", but one can make a case for the latter...
I have to love the thinking here.
"Our dream candidate--a son and brother of presidents, coming from an old-line WASP family of wealth and privilege! This will help shake the GOP's image as the party of the wealthy and connected."
"That's a great idea!"
"It sure is! Even better, the guy has been out of office for a decade and is over 60, so you just know he can help our problems with young voters."
"Inspired! But I have some bad news, Jeb isn't running."
"No problem--let's re-nominate the guy we picked last time, another scion of a wealthy political family, but he's much richer than Jeb. He's also in his 60s and been out of office for ten years, and we already know from the last run that the Democrats can successfully tar him as a rich out of touch one percenter!"
"So much genius..."
This is the Republican bench? Are they just as determined to hand this over to Hillary as the Democrats are?
Romney's got momentum going for him. In his first campaign, he got further than his father. In his second campaign, he won the nomination. In his third campaign, I'm sure he'd only lose by one or two percentage points. You've got to hang in there. I'm sure by the fourth or definitely the fifth time around, he'll be a winner.
The plus for Romney is that he's already been slimed by the Dems and it's ho-hum. The minus for me is, incredibly, the same as for Cook (7:11). He is an oligarch and will be sympathetic to the new robber barons who, unlike the old, produce nothing.
Having said that, I would prefer a Romney-Carson ticket to anything the Democrats have. Carson's outspokenness might keep Romney honest.
Bush is center-left and his position on immigration, if adopted, would give the country to the Dems - who can't govern.
After eight years of having a president who is for the forty seven percenters I don't want a president for the one hundred percenters-I want a president for me-one of the fifty three percenters.
It helps to try again when you turn out to have been 100% right about pretty much everything you said would happen.
Romney/X 2016: He Told You So.
Bear in mind that Romney narrowed Obama's margin of victory considerably. He won with about 4 million fewer votes- the first time that has ever happened I think. And, yes, he would have been better than Obama by several orders of magnitude , and is a far better man by an even larger margin.
I think Jindal or a Walker would be the best choice by experience and ability. Jindal really is the smartest guy in any room he us in, where Obama only thinks he is. But I think he is charisma challenged, and in our American Idol culture could not win.
Blogger CWJ said...
Oso Negro,
That ignores the existing bureaucratic grunts in the rest of the executive branch. They've proved themselves a ready made army to enthusiastically carry out the policies of the left.
A right wing president and congress threatens their rice bowl. For all the fantasizing about what goes around comes around, where are you going to find the "civil servants" to carry out the turnaround. Not going to happen.
Ah, but I have considered that. I would propose dispersing the Federal Agencies more completely among the 50 states and maintaining D.C. as the ceremonial capital. I would then layoff every single Federal employee, restructure the Executive branch, and have people apply for the new jobs in the dispersed states. Excessive bureaucratic experience would send your resume to the bottom of the stack. I would do all this in the name of stream-lined, cost-effective government. Some agencies would not be restaffed at all.
But what about his gaaaaafes?
Prof. Althouse: Who would you vote for if the election were tomorrow and your choices were Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney?
Here's your answer: the (R) base pretty much hates Romney, for exactly the reasons Tim Maguire cites.
Kucinich is not a kook? Wow, the Cookieverse is an even stranger place than I would have guessed.
Oso,
"...maintaining D.C. as the ceremonial capital"
Then I take it you'll be in favor of my proposal to shrink the District to the smallest possible dimensions, and give the rest of the area back to MD? See: http://demo.equatoria.us/rump_dc.png
"Prof. Althouse: Who would you vote for if the election were tomorrow and your choices were Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney?"
To ask the question puts in stark relief that our "democratic republic" is dead dead dead.
It astonishes that anyone would think a vote for either of these wretches will result in a positive outcome or a change in direction for the country. When one hears repeated the tired litany of expected or possible candidates for the White House one gasps at the bankruptcy of choices before us, at the certainty we are voting for a new captain who will do nothing but stay the course even as the ship sinks swiftly to its fathomless demise, a new captain, whomever he or she may be, who will praise the previous captains and their stalwart efforts--which they will continue!--that have brought us to this ruin.
If Jeb should decline, Romney will be under incredible pressure to run. If both say no, they will do what they can to rehabilitate Christie's image.
One thing is certain: the GOP elites will not push themselves away from the table and sit out a hand. Losing is less dangerous giving up their seat in the game.
At least the GOP primary will be interesting--there's just no presumptive front runner here despite the Jeb and Romney talk. What do the Democrats offer? A coronation for Hillary. SNORE!
What makes the Democrats' side of this especially disgusting is all of these Senators and Governors who put their time in, clearly have lofty ambitions, and then they just sit this one out because of course the Movement owes everything to that awful power couple. Not that this should be surprising, but what a bunch of weenies. At least Obama last time around saw that coronation forming, and went "yoink!" and snatched the tiara at the last minute. Whatever else I may think of Obama, I'll always appreciate him giving the Clintons something the Republicans never were able to.
In Cook's world, Kucinich is a moderate. Think about that for a moment.
Nominating Mr. Romneycare a second time would prove that there's no point in having a Republican Party anymore, because it proves the Republicans, completely lacking any principle, also can't even figure out what "electability" is after getting a direct lesson in what it isn't.
John Kasich
Rick Snyder
Mike Pence
Excellent Midwestern Governors.
Documented and unblemished track records.
Electable.
Take your pick.
In 2012, Romney was running against the first African American president -- 2016 is going to be a very different game simply because of that.
Sure, the MSM will do its usual job of running interference for, carrying the water of, etc., the next Democratic candidate, who will more than likely be Hillary. But I don't think first female president comes anywhere near the first that Obama represented.
Plus, she's very vulnerable on her record. Romney's prescient take on Russia, as just one example, only adds to his stature and will make him look very good opposite her.
Blogger Kirk Parker said...
Oso,
"...maintaining D.C. as the ceremonial capital"
Then I take it you'll be in favor of my proposal to shrink the District to the smallest possible dimensions, and give the rest of the area back to MD? See: http://demo.equatoria.us/rump_dc.png
Yes, I am!
Alex said...
In Cook's world,.......
It's always October and the internationale is always playing.
Not that you'd ever commit yourself so far, Cookie, as to say something positive or affirmative or definite, but who would be a suitable slate of candidates in your mind? Van Jones? Lois Lerner? Mumia? Gus Hall's corpse? Kucinich as the conservative outlier? Go ahead, name a few, I'm curious as to who you think is good.
If Governor Romney decides to run again, I will volunteer to work for his campaign in my community. Millions of others will do the same.
If Romney gets back in the arena will he win?
I hope so.
We just have to insure that dead voters stay still, college students and dual residents don't vote twice and we find a least one supporter in Philadelphia who will vote for Romney.
The biggest question of all is, will Ann Romney approve of another run?
Althouse-
Nope, I don't think Perry will do better.
Robert Cook-
I agree. It's an oligarchy. The voters are no longer the constituents. It's the campaign donors. The donors choose who we get to vote for.
Reading about ancient Athens or Rome is instructive.
Lydia said: "Plus, she's very vulnerable on her record. Romney's prescient take on Russia, as just one example, only adds to his stature and will make him look very good opposite her."
In a normal world, yes. But we now inhabit bizarro world where binders full of women and Sandra Fluke drown out silly little things like the possibility of World War III.
Gotta agree with Cook.
It's the first part of 2014. The fact that we can speculate about who will be running for President in two years should be a big warning sign. There are too few people who are eligible to run. We have fifty state governors. How come so few can make it to the national election?
It's so expensive to run that no one can do it without being bought. If anyone doubts this, look at the current President's amazing record in protecting entrenched interests. He's the complete opposite of a reformer.
There are two base Republican parties--the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives. There is some cross-over, but it seems most fiscal conservatives tend to be libertarian on social issues.
Mitt Romney wasn't a libertarian, but didn't really give a rat's ass about social conservatism. That makes him a non-starter.
Mitt Romney wasn't a libertarian, but didn't really give a rat's ass about social conservatism
Wow. Simply wow.
You do know Mitt was a Mormon ...right?
You know..those people known for being among the most socially conservative people in the country?
"It helps to try again when you turn out to have been 100% right about pretty much everything you said would happen."
Sadly you will never realize how wrong you are.
Romney had a job: win.
He failed.
You making up excuses is disgusting.
This man had a lot of privilege and used it; didn't work.
So saying "try again" is stupid.
Unreasonable and idiotic.
Or do you not understand why Buckley knew he would lose?
Romney is a money-maker not politician. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
Do you not understand division of labor?
Romney does at the macro level better than almost anyone, HE IS STILL A LOSER.
The fact loser-supporters keep begging for more losing is telling and why I Stay Away per Alice in Chains.
You defend losing racism, not Buckley.
Clive and Powerline are more similar than not, and me too.
I am more similar than not to Clive Bundy and the Powerline bunch.
You do know Mitt was a Mormon ...right?
You know..those people known for being among the most socially conservative people in the country?
I live in Utah. Utahns may be "known" for this, but it isn't true. They are less socially conservative than much of the South. There is a strong streak of libertarianism here.
Mitt is a classical liberal. He does believe in personal responsibility. Interestingly, the official Mormon stance on abortion is that ultimately it's between the woman, her husband, the doctor and God.
At their heart, social conservatives are just as bad as liberals; they just disagree on what they want the government to force you to do. Mitt wouldn't have toed this line and lost the election because of it.
Social/Religions conservatives are destroying the GOP. Sarah Palin, case in point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा