m00 vs everyone who supports Romney

[m00]

Yes, because in the incredibly short term they have to attract independents, who are freaked out by hard core social conservatives and will run left if that's the choice on the right.

I completely disagree with this.

One thing I think Newt Gingrich really gets is that nobody is going to win against Obama who runs a partisan or special-interest driven campaign. What you want to run is an American campaign. Note that Reagan accomplished this, and even though he was a conservative his platform and what he spoke about was incredibly inclusive - the shining city on the hill spoke to everyone. If you go back and watch his debates, there was nothing he said that was particularly polarizing or could be considered a pander.

In our day and age, this is about focusing on issues such as the national deficit, corruption and inefficiency in the public sector, civil liberties vs encroaching government, securing our borders against illegal immigration, and how to achieve a strong national defense during times of economic hardship. Romney is the most special-interest candidate on the Republican side, and his special-interest is the banking and finance sectors. I seriously doubt people are going to cross parties for Romney.

[RedGrouse]

I am not committed yet. I am anyone but Obama.

[mike128]

Seriously, I thought this was conservative underground, not RINO underground. WTH, SarasotaRepub?

I leave for a little bit, and come back and see support for a guy who is basically Obama-light. Wait, actually I think Obama is Romney-light. It's like voting for Stalin because he's "not Hitler."

But seriously, I don't understand how someone can remotely consider themselves a conservative and cast a vote for the guy.

m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!

[Zathras]

m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply!

Well, if you didn't come off as a raving maniac when you post, maybe it wouldn't happen.

[Odysseus]

But But But Reagan was a social conservative and as some of the wise sages on this board have repeated the MeMe 'Social Conservatives can't win elections'. Trouble with that Meme is it is blantantly untrue,not only can a social conservative win but win but a large majority. Sorry to all the marvelous Mystics on board but History bears out that which I speak. The only evidence on your side is media Meme's and myths.

Reagan wasn't just a social conservative, he was a total conservative, social, fiscal, foreign policy, you name it. He understood that the moral issues were the foundation of the fiscal issues. He was able to build a coalition that included every kind of conservative, including Democrats who were alienated by their party's hard left tilt. The point is not that social conservatives cannot win, it's that someone who is only a social conservative, but also a free spending big government type cannot win.

I completely disagree with this.

One thing I think Newt Gingrich really gets is that nobody is going to win against Obama who runs a partisan or special-interest driven campaign. What you want to run is an American campaign. Note that Reagan accomplished this, and even though he was a conservative his platform and what he spoke about was incredibly inclusive - the shining city on the hill spoke to everyone. If you go back and watch his debates, there was nothing he said that was particularly polarizing or could be considered a pander.

In our day and age, this is about focusing on issues such as the national deficit, corruption and inefficiency in the public sector, civil liberties vs encroaching government, securing our borders against illegal immigration, and how to achieve a strong national defense during times of economic hardship. Romney is the most special-interest candidate on the Republican side, and his special-interest is the banking and finance sectors. I seriously doubt people are going to cross parties for Romney.

I agree with you about Newt, who is certainly the best of the four, but if he doesn't get the nomination, then we will be stuck with Romney, and this is looking more and more likely, unless there's a brokered convention. Either way, any of the four is better than Obama.

m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!

The reason that you are getting the business is because you are incapable of discussing anything else. Moo's been here for years and has credibility that you lack.

[AmPat]

m00, You're exactly right. But you better be careful expressing your true views on this forum about Flip Romney. Your threads may get moved, censored or deleted, just like mine did many times, unless you bow to the altar of Romney. You may either get trashed as a DU troll, or maybe you won't even get to see this reply.

I can understand the strong desire by most on this forum to beat Obama, and I want that just as much as they do. But you and I both know that Romney is not the candidate who can accomplish that. Just be careful here, and watch out!

Oh grow up! Your poor, pathetic, victim routine doesn't play here. Your post and previous posts, are extremely irritating because you come off as the all knowing Sage, the purveyor of all that is wise and just. The One who must be listened to if the world is to be saved.

There are not many on this board that don't already know and agree with exactly what you are saying. The problem is you preach AT us as though we need you to navigate these treacherous waters for us. You cannot take the podium and give us speeches every time and speak as though you are the only one who "gets it."

Your conclusion that the two of you are the only ones that "know that Romney is not the candidate" is just one recent example.

[m00]

I agree with you about Newt, who is certainly the best of the four, but if he doesn't get the nomination, then we will be stuck with Romney, and this is looking more and more likely, unless there's a brokered convention. Either way, any of the four is better than Obama.

I think it's entirely possible to have a contested convention where the pledged delegates become unbound. Especially if Gingrich does well in the south. And this is what I hope for. Then we'll see if Romney can stand on his own without the Democrat-supporting media driving this election and telling us who is inevitable. Note I said Democrat-supporting, because it's bad enough that the mainstream media has a single political ideology (liberal), but what's particularly galling is when they openly support a candidate in a different political party from the one they are trying to influence. If Romney can win a contested convention without the aid of his money or the media, then so be it.

But here's my point. Romney is outspending his opponents 5, 6, to 1 (or more). He's not going to be able to outspend Obama. He claims to have the plan to fix our economy, but he is backed by the finance and banking sectors and yet these are the guys that created the mess we're in by colluding with big government! Romney's history and positions directly conflict with everything the tea-party stands for. If we want to beat Obama and fix the economy, can we please not do it with the guy who is bankrolled by the people who broke the economy in the first place?

[Zathras]

The reason that you are getting the business is because you are incapable of discussing anything else. Moo's been here for years and has credibility that you lack.

And it's also the reason he's not getting the Dead Horse pic that you do when you post one of your many hate filled rants about Mitt Romney that say absolutely nothing new.

[m00]

Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's senior campaign adviser, was asked in a CNN interview Wednesday morning whether the former Massachusetts governor had been forced to adopt conservative positions in the rugged race that could hurt his standing with moderates in November's general election.

"I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes," Fehrnstrom responded. "It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/politi...rap/index.html

I think Romney's senior campaign adviser sums things up pretty well.

[JB]

I think Romney's senior campaign adviser sums things up pretty well.

When I saw that both Santorum and Gingrich brought Etch A Sketchs to their press conferences the next day to make it an issue, I knew desperation had overcome them and their campaigns. They need to bail now.