February 28, 2009

Second Look at Romney?
— Ace

Something that I've been thinking, and I've heard repeated by a diverse range* of CPAC attendees -- Romney wasn't taken seriously enough and would, in the current economic situation, be a terrific president. And he could have ridden his financial chops, possibly, to a victory in 2008.

Good speech here. He's a bit Jekyll and Hyde, delivering a good speech and then a woeful one. But here he's the good Dr. Jekyll.

* "A diverse range" means like three or four people.


Posted by: Ace at 05:56 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The Republican party:  always nominating the right guy for the LAST election.

Posted by: someone at February 28, 2009 06:01 AM (1wXl7)

2

Romeny has a LOT of negatives from his liberal record in MA that he needs to overcome. I will NEVER vote for another liberal because he is less odious than the communist nominee.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:02 AM (f6os6)

3 CNN Headline: How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms

Time Mag Headline:

 

The Obama Team's Drink of Choice? Coke, Not Pepsi

With all that is going on this is what the MSM is reporting on ??????

Posted by: ironman at February 28, 2009 06:06 AM (GkYyh)

4 Romney was and is a good man.  Yeah he flipped but he flipped in the right direction.  He was running in one of the most liberal states there is so he did moderate his positions back then.  His good points are that he is very eloquent, telegenic and he WANTS it.  The fact that he was able to fool libs into voting for him in the past is probably a good thing.  Him and Jindal or Palin would be great.

Posted by: Ken Royall at February 28, 2009 06:08 AM (9zzk+)

5 Based on his record, I can't imagine how Romney cold be any LESS liberal, domestically, than GWB was. America hardly needs more of that.

Could he win? Maybe. Does he understand what's really wrong with where the U.S. is currently headed? Uh, no.

Posted by: goy at February 28, 2009 06:09 AM (LbGQ5)

6

The CPAC presidential straw poll here

 

you can take it yourself

 

And yes, you will note the Paulbots have already got to it.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:10 AM (f6os6)

7 LA punk band finds new relevance in The New World.

Posted by: TBinSTL at February 28, 2009 06:12 AM (2vLkB)

8 i like romney. 

Posted by: kelley in virginia at February 28, 2009 06:14 AM (g568/)

9 Yeah he flipped but he flipped in the right direction.

That's wouldn't be a problem. Reagan did that.

But Romney didn't flip. He just started lying about himself.

Posted by: oblig. at February 28, 2009 06:15 AM (Hc34T)

10 Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Personally I was so underwhelmed by last year's crop I hope none of them ever run again. We need a clean slate in '12.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 28, 2009 06:16 AM (hlYel)

11 I think Romney is a good example of the kind of republican congressmen we all tend to dislike, and this post explains why he keeps getting elected

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at February 28, 2009 06:17 AM (PQY7w)

12

Have no fear, morons, Annette Bening is here! 

http://tinyurl.com/cbol3r

Posted by: mitthrawnurdo at February 28, 2009 06:18 AM (9hSKh)

13

All of this speculation about 2012 is a waste of time anyway until the Party revamps the rules for the primaries. So far I haven’t heard a peep out of the big wigs who run the party on that score.

 

If we go into 2012 with the same set of rules we had for 2008 we will once again have a nominee picked by the media and ushered in by the liberals in Iowa and Vermont. If they are going to change this we need to hear about it SOON.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:18 AM (f6os6)

14 I wouldn't necessarily say Romney's a liberal--the problem is when he was willing to take a bunch of liberal positions in the past and is willing to take a bunch of conservative positions now, without there being any catalyst outside of those positions being better suited for getting the nomination, how can you be sure whose side he's on?

I supported him at one point during the primaries, but right now anything that would make him a good President would also make him a good scapegoat.

I like eloquence, but I'm also kind of sick of Republicans who sit back and let a bunch of bullshit about them go unchallenged and I don't know if Romney has it in him to hit back at this stuff and hit back hard.

Posted by: AD at February 28, 2009 06:20 AM (Gw0+y)

15

Wow, CNN just showed a video of a Seatle cop throwing a 15 year old girl to the floor by her hair and beating her with his fists in the face.

If that had been my daughter that would be one dead son of a bitch.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:20 AM (f6os6)

16

Romney is the reak frickin deal.  It was a crying shame that Crist and Huckabee threw him off the rails in 2008.  My hope is that the same won't be true this time around.

 

Best Regards

Posted by: ATNorth at February 28, 2009 06:22 AM (XH/G8)

17

Romney wasn't taken seriously enough and would, in the current economic situation, be a terrific president.

Shit, that was obvious before the election, but McRINO already had the nomination.

Ace, what'd you think of Santorum's speech this morning?

Posted by: Andy at February 28, 2009 06:24 AM (B+HYX)

18

and is willing to take a bunch of conservative positions now

 

No, we don’t know what positions he will take now because he hasn’t held ANY office since MA. All we have now is “conservative rhetoric”.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:24 AM (f6os6)

19 I think had Romney been the nominee last year, he might have won the election. When the financial crisis started to brew around September, McCain's lack of financial chops and Obama's good sense to say nothing about anything resulted in Obama winning the election. Had Romney been the nominee, he would have been able to articulate realistic plans to mitigate the economic crisis and that would have been appealing to most folks. People were looking for a leader at that time and unfortunately, by default, Obama projected that much better than McCain.

Posted by: IC at February 28, 2009 06:26 AM (dp7UW)

20

#18

You mean that a politican might lie to get elected?!?!  Oh, be still my beating heart!

Note - I don't know if this is the case with Romney now, but his current flipping can make one more than a bit suspicious.

Posted by: mitthrawnurdo at February 28, 2009 06:26 AM (9hSKh)

21

Hahahahahaha, CNN calling Republicans liars because they said Obama’s tax plan would increase taxes on small buisness. Their proof the sited as evidence that it wouldn’t. An article by AP that most small buisnesses would get the Obama “middle class tax cut”. You know, that one time 13 dollar tax cut.

 

Boy they must think we are stupid.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:28 AM (f6os6)

22 Boy they must think we are stupid.

Unfortunately, for a substantial number of people, they seem to be right about that.

Posted by: AD at February 28, 2009 06:30 AM (Gw0+y)

23

I think had Romney been the nominee last year, he might have won the election

 

I think if a dog turd had been running he might have won.

 

Wait, a dog turd did win.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:30 AM (f6os6)

24 Vic @ 21 They do in fact think we are stupid. And a whole lot of us must be, since it was this dirt bag that got elected.

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 06:30 AM (uj/0b)

25

Before Obama's socialized healthcare, there was Romney's socialized healthcare, with a thugocratic component that required you to buy heath insurance, whether you wanted it or not.

Plus, he is a weasel.

Plus, WASH THAT GREASE OUT OF YOUR HAIR!

To say that he would have been only half as bad as Obama ain't saying a hell of a lot.

Posted by: Bender at February 28, 2009 06:31 AM (62LLx)

26 The Republican party:  always nominating the right guy for the LAST election.

A thread winner in the first comment!   That's got to be a record.

Posted by: DelD at February 28, 2009 06:32 AM (HYdva)

27 A second look at Romney? You know who that helps!

Posted by: Potosi Joel at February 28, 2009 06:34 AM (TPRbZ)

28 On topic, I think the whole Main Street vs Wall Street setup in September would have sunk Romney anyway. You remember that right? How it was all those greedy Wall Streeters (read Republicans, never mind who they actually contribute to) that created this mess.

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 06:34 AM (uj/0b)

29

CNN: A family of 4 making 35K a year will get a $1200 reduction in taxes. Hahahahahahaha. Under the Bush tax cuts a family of 4 making 35Kpays NO TAXES you dumb asses. They obviously are talking about the raise in EIC otherwise known as tax welfare.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:35 AM (f6os6)

30

They do in fact think we are stupid. And a whole lot of us must be, since it was this dirt bag that got elected.

 

Yep, that 52% of the tabulated electorate was stupid. OK, maybe not all of them. Most of them probably voted their own interests since they pay no taxes and live off of government largess.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 06:38 AM (f6os6)

31 >>>Ace, what'd you think of Santorum's speech this morning? Missed it alas. I was up early but because I had had problems hooking up to the internet here I wasn't in any great haste to get here. As everything is recorded, i'm sure I'll have the chance to see it.

Posted by: ace at February 28, 2009 06:39 AM (leDZH)

32 Nobody would have beaten Obama. The 52 percent were in love with the idea of a halfrican American president, no matter if he was a muslim socialist.
McCain would have sucked, but he still would have been better. Romney or Giuliani would have been better than McCain, but the open primaries guarantee that we are letting the Dems pick our nominee. Until they fix that, they don't get a nickel from me.

Posted by: the real joe at February 28, 2009 06:42 AM (VBjKB)

33 Another OT http://tinyurl.com/dcxlzs I'm starting to see the plan. This administration is so corrupt from the very beginning that the electorate will become numb to it. It's working.........

Posted by: sears poncho at February 28, 2009 06:48 AM (uj/0b)

34 And he could have ridden his financial chops, possibly, to a victory in 2008.

Why isn't Romney on every talk show ever day, explaining what will work and why Obama is wrong with the stimulus? If you're a financial genius, wouldn't right now be the opportunity of a lifetime? Explain your plan so when Obama's does fail people would say, 'didn't that Mormon say this was going to be fucked up and he was right'?

Posted by: liontooth at February 28, 2009 06:49 AM (n3pxb)

35

Holy Mother of God, I know this is CPAC, and I know that potential candidates have to get face time before the faithful, but we've just come off a 2+ year race for the White House. I would venture that a good slice of the populace had more than a little campaign fatigue by November 4, 2008.

In my opinion, and that isn't worth much except to me, these politicians just need to start busting their asses to insure that we have an Office of the President Elect to contend for in 2012.

Posted by: solitary knight at February 28, 2009 06:51 AM (SqnIe)

36 OK, I've taken my 2nd look at the Mittster.  He's still got work to do to convince me he's somebody I could support.   He's got a few years to do it in. 

I am through voting for the R candidate the party nominates just so we don't get the candidate into office that the Ds nominate.  

Posted by: THeREsaD at February 28, 2009 06:55 AM (MO2LE)

37

I voted for Romney in the primary -- the day he dropped out -- as a protest vote.  Mitt's been caught in too many lies and has an air of "Clinton Cuth-throat" about him for me to vote for him again.  He may have $$, but Sarah Palin has a grassroots following.  The amount that's been donated to SarahPac will be announced in the next month or so, and it'll no doubt be quite a surprise to the country-club GOP/RNC --- who will probably choose to ignore it and give us yet another loser candidate for '12. 

For the Sarah snobs out there, the same criticisms were leveled against Reagan.  And if you don't follow SP closely on the Web, you don't know the BS she puts up with (and smacks down handily)  in her own state from Dhims as well as corruptocrats from her own party. 

The latest example of her "servant's heart," is the published comparison of what past govs and various Alaska elected officials spend vs. Palin.  This woman is living close to the bone and does an outstanding job managing her state.  See more at www.conservatives4palin.com.

Posted by: bitterclinger at February 28, 2009 06:58 AM (LKkE8)

38 3 CNN Headline: How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms

Time Mag Headline:

 

The Obama Team's Drink of Choice? Coke, Not Pepsi

#3 Isn't it surreal?

 

Posted by: Islamic Spy at February 28, 2009 07:03 AM (MEMCX)

39

Forget Romney, he's tto white.  The Libs will eat him for breakfast.  He's so white he makes this old, white, guy uncomfortable.  He'd beocmoe the Liberals Uber Hate object like Bush was in two weeks.  Find somone else less white looking, and not Jindal.

Posted by: Islamic Spy at February 28, 2009 07:05 AM (MEMCX)

40
25

>>Before Obama's socialized healthcare, there was Romney's socialized healthcare, with a thugocratic component that required you to buy heath insurance, whether you wanted it or not.

It's a disaster. Loosing billions. They never thought how many would sign up thinking it was cheap or free. God, liberals suck. Masshole.

Posted by: sickinmass at February 28, 2009 07:08 AM (/i4dU)

41 "Forget Romney, he's tto white.  The Libs will eat him for breakfast.  He's so white he makes this old, white, guy uncomfortable.  He'd beocmoe the Liberals Uber Hate object like Bush was in two weeks.  Find somone else less white looking, and not Jindal."

So we need a candidate the Libs won't be too mean to? Sheesh.

Look, after four years of the Obama disaster, the stupid white suburban females who swooned for Barack will whiplash to "I want a President who looks like my Dad. He'll save me." A white businessman will be a hot commodity in '12.

And as far as the "I'd rather have a Commie than a squishy Repub" crowd goes, I'm going to commit a Netiquette faux pas and recycle my comment from another thread:

"Not to mention he wasn't a super-duper uber-conservative with a 100% conservative record and he didn't walk around with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder and a copy of Atlas Shrugged in his MOLLE backpack, which made him, like McCain, a far worse alternative than the multi-trillion-dollar-spending, Palestinian-cock-sucking, Weathermen-befriending socialist fuck we have now.

"Awesome logic. Bob Barr in 2012! Because if there's one thing this country needs, it's destructively futile displays of ideological petulance!"




Posted by: Dave S. at February 28, 2009 07:28 AM (Ae/PN)

42 While we're all looking for the Great White Hope, how about Allen Keyes?  He's as well spoken as Obama and every bit as much the Firebrand.  How about KEYES/PALIN?

Posted by: 7HEAVENS at February 28, 2009 07:49 AM (MEMCX)

43

AC blasted McLame at CFPAC now. Said it is a wonder he didn’t loose by 75 points.

Posted by: Vic at February 28, 2009 07:53 AM (f6os6)

44

Let's see....Romney is articulate, good-looking, was able to be elected in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, has been giving reliably conservative, reasonable ideas for the past 4 years, has a proven track record of success in the business world for many years before that, and even had success in ventures that looked like real losers (2002 Winter Olympics).  During the primary campaign, he was the one that was being attacked by the MSM, but still managed to clearly show the shortcomings of McCain.  After the primary, he became the loyal soldier and campaigned hard for McCain. 

He has a photogenic family with little or no scandal.  The biggest problems you have with him are that he "flip-flopped" on things like abortion rights.  Seems to me that a flip-flop signifies more than just a one-time change - it means going back and forth.  He changed from being tepidly pro-choice to being pro-life.  So have a lot of people over time (including me).  He was a political (near) novice running against Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts; he ran a good campaign.  As far as the health care program, it was an attempt at a market solution that was not implemented until after he was out of office, and was changed significantly from what he proposed.

He gets attacked by the MSM because he is a Mormon.  I am Catholic, but I personally would rather be in Mitt's Mormon Church than in Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ.

I went to multiple campaign events last year.  The only two events that had the great electricity, palpable energy in the crowd, plus a great stump speech were from Sarah Palin - and Mitt Romney.  Say what you will about him, but he is the anti-Obama.  He has been successful in almost every venture in his life, and you know who his family is and what they stand for.  He has a long list of real-world accomplishments.  He would have gotten much worse treatment from the MSM during the general election, but he also would have gotten a lot more energy from the base.

Posted by: Bill H at February 28, 2009 07:59 AM (v84kQ)

45 Does anyone else hate the term "chops" as much as I do?  When used in this context, I hate it, hate it, hate it.   What's extra-weird is, I have no idea why.

Posted by: right at February 28, 2009 08:01 AM (EquV1)

46 Romney is a wonk. The best man for president is a wo-man: Palin 2012!

Posted by: Admr. Sebastian B. O. Buniontow VI at February 28, 2009 08:02 AM (NLtVk)

47 Bill H.

Oh, so you are saying that Fred Thompson's and Rudy's convention speech were not "had the great electricity, palpable energy in the crowd."

Please, your intregity is showing.

Posted by: Admr. Sebastian B. O. Buniontow VI at February 28, 2009 08:05 AM (NLtVk)

48 Fred....?





Fred.....?



Shit.

Posted by: Filly at February 28, 2009 08:20 AM (YRH+B)

49 Romney said "I like mandates." He likes the Mass Health nightmare that forces residents to get health insurance. Fuck him. We need a candidate that believes in Freedom first and above all else. Romney is not that man.

Posted by: eman at February 28, 2009 08:40 AM (Ee8qq)

50

the proper way to address the Fred is just; Fred!

 

Posted by: shoey at February 28, 2009 09:10 AM (RxUMK)

51

Admr. Sebastian B. O. Buniontow VI:

I said I went to campaign events, not the convention.  And Fred was out before I went to any events!  The events I went to with Rudy, McCain and Huckabee just didn't have the same feeling.

With that said, the event with Palin was more energetic and exciting than Mitt's.

Posted by: Bill H at February 28, 2009 10:00 AM (v84kQ)

52 3 CNN Headline: How to get Michelle Obama's toned arms

Time Mag Headline:

The Obama Team's Drink of Choice? Coke, Not Pepsi

With all that is going on this is what the MSM is reporting on ??????

DO NOT LOOK AT THE GIANT RED COMMUNIST AMERICA HATING ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! Instead, look at Time and CNN, they'll lull you back into your apathy.

Posted by: shibumi at February 28, 2009 11:33 AM (tZB/c)

53

Rommney has some merit but I will always be against the man who brought national health care to Massachgusetts.

 

Anyone bother to look to see what its done to Massachusetts or Washington?

 

Please let the RINOs take their Guillanis, Huckabees, and Rommneys to Vermont or Oregon and leave the GOP in peace.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at February 28, 2009 01:00 PM (0Qynq)

54 The best Man for the job in 2012?

Sarah!

Posted by: Dave C at February 28, 2009 01:03 PM (vt8PF)

55 @54: I would like her to be, but she just doesn't seem to be too enthused: where ate her op eds, her book, or even her positions on her own PAC's site? She's going to fade out of sight forever, if she doesn't do something about that.

Posted by: Michelle Obama at February 28, 2009 02:18 PM (iafWn)

56

>Romney wasn't taken seriously enough and would, in the current economic situation, be a terrific president. And he could have ridden his financial chops, possibly, to a victory in 2008.

 

Except that some people- including many commenting on this site, too- couldn't get past Romney's Mormonism. We sure dodged that bullet nominating McCain, huh.

Posted by: Jones at February 28, 2009 03:49 PM (VkNlv)

57 I have to agree about Romney and I've heard that from two others since. All of us supported people other than Romney in the primaries (sometimes more than one depending on who dropped out); none supported McCain although we did support McCain in the general.

I won't be so bold as to say Romney would've won easily but I think he would've had a better chance than McCain for the simple reason he was potentially better funded and, in my opinion, more adept at handling the media.  Romney is clearly the better "executive" of the entire lot that ran, Democrat or Republican -- I say that in hindsight, though.  Shame I didn't see it a little better at the time but I thought Hillary was "inevitable" back then. How things "change" in such a short time.

Rep. Mike Pence is looking awful good suddenly.


Posted by: prairiemain at February 28, 2009 06:07 PM (oPAYR)

58 Romney for Treasury Secretary in the Jindal or Palin Administrations. Otherwise, HELL no.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at February 28, 2009 06:54 PM (Z9IOH)

59 Romney would have won the election hands down last year due to the economic cituation. However, it did not happen. For all the financial genius Romney is, he supported the TARP I, the auto bailout (until it was evident that all conservatives hated the idea), and Romneycare is a disaster in Massachusetts. Yes, Romney had great success in the private sector, but to toss away his political career in Mass. as a liberal is absurd. Romney is like Obama in which he'll say and do anything to get elected. But, he screwed his chances by dropping out at CPAC and not waiting until the convention. That was pathetic, not classy. The only brightness in that dismal election year was the Cuda Sarah Palin. The woman showed more balls than all the men (and Hillary) put together. She is getting my vote in 2012. I can't wait until the RNC and the elitist snobs in our party have a collective jaw-drop and heart attack after witnessing the amount of money SarahPAC got from the grassroots.

Posted by: JennyC at February 28, 2009 06:55 PM (sVxR1)

60 And he could have ridden his financial chops, possibly, to a victory in 2008.

You must not think the Sept.15 money-market drawdown was rigged. I think it was. I think Soros triggered it to get his guy into the White House. If Romney, whose strong suit is business, had been the GOP nominee, some other, different stunt would have been pulled. The Soros/Ayers/U.N. axis was NOT going to accept defeat under any circumstances.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at February 28, 2009 07:28 PM (jqPY9)

61 There's no way on earth I'd vote for Romney for president. No way. I've seen too many things that lead me to believe that the guy is a total jerk. Also, his position on the War on Some Drugs is absolutely loathsome. Jindahl seems capable, smart and genuinely nice, but I don't think he's ready for 2012. I love Sarah Palin and would vote for her happily, but I don't think that's going to happen. I think the party fears the press' deep hatred of her too much.

Posted by: Nicole at March 01, 2009 11:53 AM (70qoY)

62 Romney 2012:  Because its his turn.

One good thing about a 2012 run for Mitt.  His sole accomplishment in government, Romneycare, will no longer be an albatross, because by then we'll have Obomber-care.

Posted by: Les Grossman at March 01, 2009 01:16 PM (Vc/xe)

Posted by: remy hair at March 01, 2009 04:25 PM (poHFL)

64

Romney is a good executive with a brain in his head who doesn't take any crap off anybody.  He's actually a grown-up whose run something important. You can't make a billion dollars and be a stupid man, so I'm going to give him props for "intelligence," as well.  He's also a serious person. My personal opinion is Romney could clean up this mess tomorrow, put a decent, non-panic-inducing face on it, and give us a buck forty six in change.

I agree wholeheartedly with the poster who says the primary system MUST be revamped. By rights, Oklahoma should vote first; it was the only state that did not have a single county vote Democratic.  The biggest reliably Republican state is Texas (our independence day is today, btw) which in my book qualifies us to go first.  Maybe a Red River primary.  But what I'm getting at is that Republican states ought to pick Republican nominiees.

Don't believe me?  In the Texas straw poll, held very, very early on, Duncan Hunter won by a landslide.

Posted by: The other coyote at March 02, 2009 06:57 AM (IDFhb)

Posted by: 货架 at May 12, 2009 03:44 AM (49N5c)

Posted by: ttrtrtrert at November 05, 2009 11:32 PM (wYEI1)

67 fdsafasd

Posted by: where can i purchase an iphone at December 14, 2009 12:16 AM (S4a/k)

Posted by: Revizyon ile Organize Matbaacı at February 13, 2010 05:16 PM (G0i8M)

69 iPad Converter provides powerful and professional functions. With this iPad software pack, you can rip any DVD files (DVD-Video, DVD folder and DVD IFO file) to iPad. Also you can convert all popular videos/audios to iPad formats. While the iPad Transfer realizes files transfer from PC to iPad, from iPad to PC and from iPad to iPad.

Posted by: iPad Converter at July 15, 2010 12:54 AM (JK+YA)

Posted by: travel senior at July 19, 2010 11:41 PM (w5EPU)

71 Don't forget the brand of  canada goose anyway. It is because Canada goose clothes could bring you all that you really need in the chilly winter. A nice canada goose coat absolutely brings a funny winter life. Canada goose label also earns great admiration and appreciation, which other winter coats cannot gain from customers. Perhaps you could experience canada goose clothing in order to learn well about this style of winter clothing. Then, you can leave your own comments on canada goose coats on the website. Of course, you also could find out other comments and reviews on Canada goose from the Internet.(yang)

Posted by: canada goose at July 04, 2011 11:47 PM (jQnVI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
111kb generated in CPU 0.11, elapsed 1.0955 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0251 seconds, 307 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.