5 Reasons Conservatives Don't Like Romney

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You make it sound like Gingrich could be the man. Everything you mentioned above are things he actively did in the 90’s as Speaker.[/quote]

While ultimately not supporting him for the nomination, I have defended Gingrich’s role where Romney’s criticisms are concerned. Romney, who ran away from both Reagan and the Contract, has no business trying to tear down Gingrich’s role in Conservative history. None. But, Gingrich has flirted heavily with health care mandates, too. That’s what undid him in the last two debates. He couldn’t steer away from the personal character stuff, into a rebuke of Romney’s accomplishments. Had he not his own history of supporting a mandate, he could’ve out-Santorumed, Santorum, by contrasting Romney’s governance with Conservative ideas. Instead, Santorum was left to hold the line. And he gave a damn good presentation on the problem of a Romney nomination. Just so, you have to imagine what Gingrich could’ve done with such an opportunity. Sadly, he’s developed (or had) a bit of a technocratic-managerial streak for a while now.

62

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You make it sound like Gingrich could be the man. Everything you mentioned above are things he actively did in the 90’s as Speaker.[/quote]

I don’t think Gingrich is anything like that, frankly. He’s too undisciplined, and his track record for getting things gone ran up against the shoals of being asked to step down as Speaker. Gingrich became divisive within his own party, as opposed to a reliable consensus-builder.

Gingrich is erratic when we’re looking for stable, competent leadership. And I’ve had enough of personalities who think they are bigger than the office to which they have been elected - if I wasn’t cured of that already, the “oceans-healing” Obama certainly did the fix.

65

pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…But when I look at Gingrich I see a 300 pound wife cheating sleaze ball with an ego larger than my 5 acre yard. It IS all about him and that’s easy to spot. He doesn’t care about the party first, he cares about Newt first. And you can see that through out his entire private and public life. I really can’t stand the man.

But yeah I’d support him over Obama, no problem there.

66

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I support anyone who can beat Obama. But naturally I’ll support whomever the republican party nominates. And Paul is exceptionally unappealing to the voters. I told you that months and months ago. And where is he now? About where I thought he’d be, in last place.

That my friend was an easy call. [/quote]

I agree, problem is, I don’t think any of the candidates can beat obama. Americans have a notoriously short memory to begin with. You throw on top of that a very friendly media, and a charismatic speaker and you got obama for 4 more years.
I think the only way obama can lose is if the economy down ticks again. People already forgot the stimulus fail. So it will take a fresh event to stick it in people’s minds.
Keep in mind that the people that will largely decide this election are scarcely aware there is going to be one in a few months. All they know is their favorite idol got booted last night and they think Kim Kardashian is a fucking genius.[/quote]

I cannot disagree with you my friend. It will be an uphill battle for the republican nominee. The media will be very protective of Obama.

Most of “us” know, but most of “them” are not even paying attention yet.

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…[/quote]

So is Santorum (competent politician). But he doesn’t remake himself for the particular office he’s running for.

68

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…[/quote]

So is Santorum (competent politician). But he doesn’t remake himself for the particular office he’s running for.[/quote]

Maybe that’s why he’s in third place!

70

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…But when I look at Gingrich I see a 300 pound wife cheating sleaze ball with an ego larger than my 5 acre yard. It IS all about him and that’s easy to spot. He doesn’t care about the party first, he cares about Newt first. And you can see that through out his entire private and public life. I really can’t stand the man.

But yeah I’d support him over Obama, no problem there.[/quote]

And I look at Romney and see a Republican Kerry or Edwards. Honest, I do.

I do see Gingrich’s flaws but I also see a competent politician.

At the end of this campaign I would rather see Romney as POTUS over Bam Bam but there is no way I’d vote for him. None. I will probably do what I’ve done in 2004 and 2008 and vote the Constitution Party. I do this partly because I know MT is a red enough state that my fellow state citizens will send Republican electors to the electoral college.[/quote]

Then what you’re saying in essence is that you’d rather help Obama win reelection. Wow, you must really hate Romney. I don’t dislike any of the republicans that much. The worst republican is better than Obama. I hope you reconsider and vote for who you think is the best of the final two.

72

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…[/quote]

So is Santorum (competent politician). But he doesn’t remake himself for the particular office he’s running for.[/quote]

Maybe that’s why he’s in third place![/quote]

He’s in third place with little money and name recognition. 2-1 so far in states won, between Romney and Santorum. Still a good ways to go. And he matches up well against Romney in states to come (see below for new polling numbers). He’s certainly won more campaigns than Romney has, too. Legislation? Welfare Reform (Rick played a huge part) vs. Romneycare…hmmm

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/show-me-santorum_620806.html

"What might be most interesting in both states is what happens in a head to head between Romney and either Gingrich or Santorum:

-In Missouri Santorum leads Romney 50-37 and in Ohio Santorum leads 45-38.

-In Missouri Gingrich leads Romney 43-42 and in Ohio Gingrich leads 42-39.

Two takeaways from those numbers: if this ever came down to Romney, Paul, and just one out of Gingrich and Santorum, Romney would be in a lot of trouble. And he’d be in more trouble if the single conservative alternative ended up being Santorum.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/trouble-ahead-for-romney.html"

He just a got Michelle Malkin endorsement. Levin is on board. David Limbaugh is on board. And even Rush just (like yesterday) gave him the nod as the Conservative of the Race. Santorum’s biggest hurdle probably won’t be Romney. Now, obviously Romney will fire up the multi-million dollar hate machine (it’s all he has), but he’s going to have a hell of a time taking down a guy that can effectively slam him on the issues. That was Newt’s achilles heel. Like Romney, he’s supported the individual mandate, supported TARP, flirted with cap and trade, etc. Not Santorum. Santorum’s obstacle is in convincing Newt’s folks that he’ll be the better not-Romney. I think it’ll happen, as Newt just can’t get after Romney on the before-mentioned issues without getting shut down.

73

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’m not standing up for the man when I say the following I’m simply using your aforementioned argument about getting things done.

You sound more emotional than logical about Gingrich.[/quote]

That’d be incorrect. Gingrich is a blizzard of ideas, not all of them good. He isn’t terribly judicious in his selection of legislative priorities, and therefore tends to blow too much capital on bad ideas at the expense of good ideas. Given the climate we face, we need the opposite.

Logic.

Yeah, he was on some things. A perfect example was the overreach in trying to impeach Clinton.

He gets credit for some of that no question, but he had the wind at his back with the roaring economy and the revenue flooding in from the incredible capital markets at the time. He also did well with welfare reform. He deserves credit.

That doesn’t automatically mean I think he has the stuff or temperment to be an effective president. And, he’s a bit weird with all the “futurist” stuff, and I don’t think very highly of his character (and yes, character matters).

74

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Like Romney, he’s supported the individual mandate, supported TARP, flirted with cap and trade, etc. Not Santorum.[/quote]

Wasn’t there some news recently that Santorum supported an individual mandate back in the 1990s? I didn’t follow up on that to learn the truth of it. Do you know?

77

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Like Jack Kennedy? The weirdo that wanted to put a man on the moon?[/quote]

No, weird like endorsing the Toffler books, etc.:

78

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

It absolutely favors liberals. FTA:

  1. Mitt Romney has benefitted from a tremendous media double standard. Other than Herman Cain, who at least is a conservative who has worked tirelessly for the Tea Party, Mitt Romney is the single least qualified man running for office in the Republican field.

Yes, Mitt’s business experience is a plus, but it didn’t help him in Massachusetts, where he was an awful, unpopular governor whose signature program, Romneycare, has been a miserable failure. Romney has gotten where he is because he’s rich, the establishment is behind him, and much of the conservative media has been greasing the skids for him.

The double standards have been extraordinary and grating. The other candidates had to bring up Bain Capital because much of the conservative media wouldn’t touch the very issue that Ted Kennedy used to beat Mitt Romney’s brains in back in 1994.

Even today, when you try to point out that Mitt’s “100,000” jobs created number is pure vapor, that he made a lot of money off of deals where the taxpayers and the FDIC had to pick up the tab, or that it looks awful for Mitt to make millions on deals where businesses went under and hundreds of middle class workers lost their jobs, you’re answered with cries of “capitalism” and “free enterprise!” Good luck with that strategy in the general election if, God help us all, Mitt gets that far.

Furthermore, remember when Newt Gingrich was ahead of Mitt in Iowa, running a positive campaign, and was told “Politics ain’t beanbag” after Mitt creamed him with millions in negative ads? Then remember when those same people squealed with outrage when Mitt got exactly what he had been dishing out after New Hampshire?

We were told Newt was campaigning like a liberal when he hit Mitt on Bain Capital, but when Mitt ran dishonest ads featuring Tom Brokaw crowing about a now discredited ethics investigation, the same people were silent.

After the last debate, it was amazing to hear talking heads telling everyone how wonderful Mitt did after Rick Santorum gutted him like a Christmas turkey on Obamacare and Romney was booed by the audience after he was caught lying about not having seen an ad that he personally endorsed.

Let’s be honest and name some names: Jen Rubin, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, National Review, Fox News and the Drudge Report among others have been shilling for Mitt Romney and attacking his adversaries during this primary the way the the New York Times will for Barack Obama in the general election. That doesn’t make them RINOS, liberals, part of the establishment or bad people.

Reasonable people can reach different conclusions about which candidate to support. But that being said, these people should realize that as far as a lot of other conservatives are concerned, they are betting their reputations on Mitt Romney.

What they are in effect saying in so many words is, “Vote for Mitt Romney and we promise you that not only will he get elected, he’ll govern conservatively.” Given his record, that’s liquidating your house and putting it on a spin of the roulette wheel. [/quote]

How much do you think they’ll favor Obama against the eventual republican nominee?

I noticed that it’s starting already. I was in my chiroprators office this morning looked up and saw a People magazine. And who was on the front cover? Mr. and Mrs. Obama–some headline like “Inside the Obama Marriage.”

Yes even the social media favors the liberals.[/quote]

Really what is to like about any of the Republican nominees ,other than Paul ? Paul is the only hope for the Republicans
[/quote]

Good point Pit. The ideal candidate should be an old man with the highest negatives of any republican candidate…even higher than Gingrich’s. What do you think Obama would beat Paul by? 20 points sounds about right to me.

(eye roll)[/quote]

Good point ZEB , The way I see the election is , those that vote Obama about %30 those that don’t like Obama will vote Mitt %30 and those that are libertarians at heart %30 , close call but I would concede to Obama

79

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Like Romney, he’s supported the individual mandate, supported TARP, flirted with cap and trade, etc. Not Santorum.[/quote]

Wasn’t there some news recently that Santorum supported an individual mandate back in the 1990s? I didn’t follow up on that to learn the truth of it. Do you know?[/quote]

It came down to a blurb summing up a couple of candidate’s positions when he was running for senate in 1994. No quotes or descriptions. It’s the only known source. What is available is video of Santorum in 1994 running opposed to mandates, and for optional Medical Savings Account.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenatorialDebat/start/677/stop/798

80

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:
pushharder,

I know some people look at Romney and think that he’s a phony, fair enough, he is after all a competent politician so…

So is Santorum (competent politician). But he doesn’t remake himself for the particular office he’s running for.

Maybe that’s why he’s in third place!

He’s in third place with little money and name recognition. 2-1 so far in states won, between Romney and Santorum. Still a good ways to go. And he matches up well against Romney in states to come (see below for new polling numbers). He’s certainly won more campaigns than Romney has, too. Legislation? Welfare Reform (Rick played a huge part) vs. Romneycare…hmmm[/quote]

Put the breaks on there bud I’m a Santorum fan. I just don’t happen to think he can beat Obama. But if he had the nomination I’d back him 100% and hope for the best.

[quote] Santorum’s obstacle is in convincing Newt’s folks that he’ll be the better not-Romney. I think it’ll happen, as Newt just can’t get after Romney on the before-mentioned issues without getting shut down.
[/quote]

Well I agree with you that he needs to go after Gingrich supporters. But the problem is Gingrich is not getting out EVER. I think Newt is seeing himself as President and reality is not knocking on his door any time soon.