Romney: We must acknowledge when Obama is right
posted at 7:55 pm on April 2, 2009 by Allahpundit
He must be running in 2012 because he surely can’t believe this will endear him to anyone except independents.
“I also think it’s important for us to nod to the president when he’s right,” Romney said, after chiding the president’s budget. “He will not always be wrong, and he’s done some things I agree with.”
Romney, who spoke at a dinner for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he’s pleased with the president’s plans to “finish the job” in Iraq and Afghanistan — lines that drew applause from the partisan audience. He also applauded the president for standing up to the auto industry.
“I hope he continues to be tough and shows some backbone because that industry is not going to make it unless we have real backbone and get those guys to fundamentally restructure all of their obligations,” he said.
I have no problem with him saluting The One on Iraq, but … he still can’t offer a critical word about Obama canning GM’s CEO? Play to the independents if you must, Mitt, but throw the base a little red meat now and then. Surely Sarahcuda is at least mildly peeved at the thought of the president dictating to America’s business elite. Exit citation, from the Fox News poll I just wrote about: Maybe Mitt knows what he’s doing.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
“those socons/Fundies/evangelicals/other assorted wild-eyed lunatics are dragging us down to hell”.”
Are you describing Romney and Jindal voters?
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:35 AM
I’m describing who’ll get the blame with Jindal on the ticket.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:37 AM
so who would you like on the ticket?
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:38 AM
In other words, no more of this “appealing to the base” by picking a conservative VP candidate and then blaming the base when a more “centrist” candidate at the top loses. I want two fairly centrist candidates for both Pres. and VP. No more excuses.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:39 AM
like…?
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM
Here’s a better question.
If you could magically remove Obama and Biden from office and replace them…..in the exact cirmcumstances our nation faces today….who would you pick? Regardless of who could get elected.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Romney/Pawlenty, Romney/Whitman, Pawlenty/Crist, Romney/Crist, something along those lines.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:43 AM
With Congress in the shape that it’s in, I don’t know if any Republican administration would have much impact right now, really.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 12:46 AM
Good choices for sure!
With all that’s happening in the world with the economy, terrorism, Iran, North Korea…the leadership team that would make me sleep better at night if I knew they were at the helm would be a Romney/Petraeus administration..
Having the smartest businessman, most ethical politican like Romney paired with the greatest military general in America…..I would feel very safe and confident in our future with that team.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:51 AM
“With Congress in the shape that it’s in, I don’t know if any Republican administration would have much impact right now, really.”
Ah good point….O.K. in my fantasy question I will then add that Pelosi and Reid have been magically removed too and replaced by Judd Gregg and Mike Pence!!
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:54 AM
I was a big fan of Mitt, warts and all. He is F ing dead to me with his BS support of comprehensive illegal immigration.
Why that new development isn’t getting more play is beyond me.
America1st on April 3, 2009 at 1:05 AM
Palin/Romney (til he endorsed Comprehensive Kill the Country Immigration Reform.)
America1st on April 3, 2009 at 1:08 AM
I don’t recall who said it, but you were right!!! Mitt Romney has decided he can’t compete with Sarah or Huckabee, so he’s going for the moderates!!! Guess where he would win for being a moderate during the Primaries…New York, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania…all the big delegate vote states. I think he knows what he’s doing right now. Of course, this is the same Mitt who can’t decide what he believes on anything. Couldn’t make it as a Conservative, go Moderate and win the primary like McCain did. I hope the Conservatives in all the other states realize what a phony he really is!! Talk about NOT being an authentic person, that perfectly describes flip-flopper Mitt. I just hope the Republican Party will not have any winner take all states in 2012 like in 2008. Then Mitt’s strategy would be all for nothing.
VFT on April 3, 2009 at 1:12 AM
It amazes me to see all the people at HA who pick Romney after all he has said and done. Look at his record in Mass., he was NOT a Conservative. Do you think his spots have changed? Romney CANNOT be trusted with our vote. How do you know what he would stand for as President. We can’t even figure that out NOW! He maybe a good family man, but we need somebody with principles and values and stands up for them no matter what. Not somebody who will change his mind just to get elected. Give me a break!!!
VFT on April 3, 2009 at 1:17 AM
Isn’t what the Obama administration’s doing with GM basically the same thing Romney did to make his millions? It’s not surprising that Mitt is in line with Obama on this.
Big S on April 3, 2009 at 1:23 AM
Sorry Allah. Somebody has to pop the bubble.
portlandon on April 3, 2009 at 1:24 AM
Allah, you missed this crucial poll data:
Do you even know who Rush Limbaugh is?
Yes – No
Democrats: 68 – 32
Republicans: 68 – 42
Independents: What year is it? Are my pants on?
BKennedy on April 3, 2009 at 1:33 AM
Hey, I hate to break it to you. Palin is not going to be president. Let me say that again… Sarah Palin is NEVER going to be president.
Romney on the other hand is one of the best choices we have for 2012. If people like you supported him in the last election where he was clearly the most qualified candidate on both sides of the isle, maybe we would not have this Obama mess on our hands.
Borislav on April 3, 2009 at 1:40 AM
It’s not surprising that Mitt is in line with Obama on this.”
The a more accurate statement would be Obama is in line with Mitt on this.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 1:46 AM
Would be a great thought. But wrong, Obingo bought and paid for TOTUS. It was planned. Romney would have lost as well. Why do you think they put Rino McCain in for the run?
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 1:57 AM
That is exactly right, Sheryl…and your posts have been right on throughout this thread.
But this problem is that whenever there is a thread on the brightest and best hope that the republican party has, Mitt Romney, is like some kind of tard bugle is sounded and all the tards that post on Hot Air come and talk tard talk while there are only a few heroic non-tards like me and you and a few others to fight all the tards.
Its like Lord of the Rings and all the tards are the orcs and only the few people on Hot Air that understand are the fellowship of the ring.
Yeah, its kinda like that.
I mean think about all the orc-tards that come out whenever AP throws in a thread about the one true republican, Mitt Romney.
You got your:
1) Sarah-Tards
2) Lucifer Huckabee-Tards
3) Anti-Mormon-tards
4) Liberal troll-tards
5) Tard-tards
THESE are the tards that Mitt Romney would have to face to win the nomination…which begs the question:
How can the holder of the one true ring win an election where the voters prefer Sarah-Tards and Huck-Tards rather than really smart, capable people.
Cant be done.
The Wall on April 3, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Huckabee is not a Conservative either.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 1:59 AM
I feel that Romney is a Conservative. To many idiots just don’t see it. Sarah isn’t ready to run for POTUS. Huckabee is a joke.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 2:02 AM
Meant to say, Romney wasn’t picked to run because our Senate and House knew that he possibly could have beaten TOTUS. So that is why we were stuck with McCain.
sheebe on April 3, 2009 at 2:04 AM
The battle between moderates and conservatives is the wrong battle to be fighting. If either side wins decisively they get clobbered in the general and if they come up with some ridiculous compromise they get clobbered in the general. A house divided against itself cannot stand.
You win by nominating someone who not only stands above the conflict, but pulls people above the conflict as well. I know it’s played out, but it’s what we’re really looking for when we’re looking for the next Ronald Reagan. It’s not that we’re looking for someone to mimic his policies, it’s not that we’re looking for someone to mimic his attitude, it’s not that we’re looking for someone like Ronald Reagan in anyway other than we’re looking for someone who’s a genuine leader, meaning s/he not only charts a course, but people follow him/her.
As soon as we’re talking about regional or sectarian appeasement we’ve already lost. People in general elections don’t like the winners from either side of this battle because it’s either a wishy-washy, doesn’t really believe anything moderate or a spineless pandering ideologue who also doesn’t really believe anything. It’s gotta be someone in between, not out of prudent political positioning but because s/he actually thinks for him/herself and will subsequently be to both the right and the left and in line with the party depending on the issue.
Sanford 2012
galenrox on April 3, 2009 at 2:04 AM
Oh, my dear sweet sheebe – you could not be more wrong.
Not only is she ready, she could be a daily drunk and do better than Precedent Girlyman on his best day.
Most critically, anybody can be president. Look at who’s in there. Since election day, it is impossible to even ask the question of “qualified” or “ready” any more.
platypus on April 3, 2009 at 2:16 AM
I think that Tom Tancredo, whom Romney reportedly made promises to, may be regretting having endorsed him
MB4 on April 3, 2009 at 2:22 AM
“tard bugle”
LOL….funny to think what that would look like and sound like!
I love the LOTR though I don’t think those who are against Romney are tards.
They just get overly passionate, say snarky stuff to try to get their point across and throw tandram like statements around: “he’s toast” etc. hoping to convince someone to see their point of view.
Though the jokes on them as their shrill rhetoric ends up just being something akin to “white noise” and if the GOP leaders do too much of it to pander to the base….valid criticism will get lost as white noise and we’ll become even more inconsequential as a party.
The best way to influence people to conservatism is to ask questions, find out their needs and explain to them how conservative principles are better for their lives and fundamentally better for America.
As Rush said at CPAC most people in their daily lives live like conservatives. We just need to speak to them at that level and get their votes.
Reagan did that and I think Romney can do it too. BTW thanks for the kind words again!
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 2:32 AM
“I think that Tom Tancredo, whom Romney reportedly made promises to, may be regretting having endorsed him”
This poster gets it right on Romney:
I remember Mitt Romney as governor having a very clear stance against illegal immigration, not at all the muddle you pretend it was. He vetoed an in-state tuition bill, he was on record against driver’s licenses for illegals, he signed an agreement with the feds to deputize the state police to make immigration arrests and he authorized his National Guard to help patrol the US-Mexico border.
I don’t ever remember him taking a pro-amnesty stand. That is a figment of your very fevered anti-Romney imagination.
You also seem to suggest that Mitt Romney is against all immigrant labor. Not true, as even a cursory knowledge of his record indicates. As governor, Romney fought to increase visas for immigrant laborers who work seasonally on Cape Cod, and he proposed more money in his budget for English as a Second Language programs for immigrants so they could more easily assimilate into our work force.
As Romney said many times on the campaign trail, he “loves legal immigration.” What he doesn’t like is the attitude by New York Times editorialists and others that excuses law breaking, even if it disadvantages people who wait patiently in line to enter our country legally.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 2:39 AM
That’s funny because people said the same thing about Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Reagan before they won too. I never thought Obama would win in 2008. If Obama can win with as little experience as he had, anyone can win the presidency.
sarahpalinfan99 on April 3, 2009 at 5:26 AM
Well, I don’t see how Mitt wins the primaries or general election unless us other “tards” vote for him. So you just keep insulting us and see how many of us cross over to vote for him. No wonder he couldn’t beat McCain.
sarahpalinfan99 on April 3, 2009 at 5:30 AM
Yeah, but what if we really do not think Obama is right?
I have to say that I thought Obama was right to keep the Secretary of Defense and not just pull out all of the troops in Iraq without thinking about the consequences. Considering his campaign rhetoric, he was dishonest, but he was right.
But when it comes to firing CEOs in the private sector and the other things he has done in terms of the economy, I think he was wrong.
Terrye on April 3, 2009 at 6:54 AM
sheebe:
We got McCain because he got the most votes. I am so tired of hearing people make excuses about how their guy lost because of some conspiracy or something.
Hell, Huckabee won more states than Romney did. Romney just did not have the support among Republicans he needed to win the nomination. And it was not a plot, or open primaries or anything else that screwed him up.
This is the same system we have had for years and while it might make some sense to move the first primary to some state other than Iowa, the overall system picked other Republicans like Reagan etc. Now all of a sudden we have Republicans sounding like Democrats in 2000 whining about how they were robbed or something.
Terrye on April 3, 2009 at 6:58 AM
For the next President, I want someone who will be a big supporter of the United States Constitution. This country has had one President after another since I guess Teddy Roosevelt who have continually violated the 10th amendment growing the Federal Government into a 50 tentacled beast with power the Founding Fathers were strictly against. We are a nation in violation of its own foundational document,(damn, on the reread before printing, I realize how Jesse Jackson that last phrase was-haha) no wonder we’re in the shape we’re in with an anti-Constitutional Marxist at the helm. I’m tired of partisan bs that leads the country nowhere. The Dems promise help to the poor and middle class that never happens. The Republicans promise smaller government that never happens. They are two sides of the same coin, who are both driving the country toward the “New World Order”. We need someone who is truly American, and for American Sovereignty for our next President…….
adamsmith on April 3, 2009 at 8:22 AM
Can I just mention how annoying it is to move something from the headlines and not import the comments?
Buy Danish on April 3, 2009 at 8:25 AM
Mitt is McCain “light”. We don’t need to go down that road again, do we? Are we ready to nominate a candidate for President who really believes in the conservative values made our country the place to live and raise a family. I am not interested in supporting a candidate who feels he must transform himself/herself constantly in an attempt to attract the independent vote or a candidate, like Obama or Clinton who disguises himself as one thing but is actually another. Until we get rid of these stupid “open” primaries I fear that we will continue to allow the Democrats to select our utterly inept candidates.
ncjetsfan on April 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM
AP, we ain’t liberals or RINOs. You don’t have to keep harping on the fact that you do not like conservatives.
We get it.
Jim708 on April 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM
For He is Lord. Hallelujah.
MadisonConservative on April 3, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Because in a battle, you don’t send a note to your enemy and say what a “grand move you made, you killed 132 of my men, you made the right move”. In a better analogy, the enemy comes in and feeds the locals before you do, and they then turn their loyalty to the one who feeds them. A humane move, meant to destroy you.
You have to look at the overall “destination” of Obama’s movements, one alone, separate, instanced, may look like a “good move”, but when you place it in perspective, and include the overall purpose it is a disaster.
A series of “good moves” in chess, ends up with you being checkmated.
right2bright on April 3, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Mitt showed exactly who he is…he care little about any outcome, besides him making some increase in popularity.
He tried buying votes, and that did not work, the only time he got elected is when he turned his back on being a conservative.
When Kennedy called him on being a conservative, Mitt ran like a dog with his tail between his legs.
He is a man with no honor…just aspirations.
right2bright on April 3, 2009 at 9:17 AM
rino. bye.
Coronagold on April 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM
Oh, that one’s easy. Thompson / Palin. Fred Thompson is clearly not a campaigner (in the conventional sense), but I consider his ideas to be near-ideal for actually being the President. Palin in as VP would give her the hands-on experience to lay the groundwork for the future, and she could be an on-the-road pitbull for such an administration.
VekTor on April 3, 2009 at 9:28 AM
MItt is definitely trying to be everything to everybody. Why should we hand out compliments to Obama when he is trying to remake the U.S. into a Socialist Nation? They only time he makes a logical decision is when he has no other choice.
kingsjester on April 3, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Why do I care about what he says and why are you pushing his bid for a GOP Presidential run? I know you like him because he reminds you of Rudy but pretty much ALL RINOs sound the same.
If another RINO gets picked then your boss will get that third party. We’ll take the base and they can keep the spineless, uninformed, politically apathetic and clueless, wishy-washy, Independent masses. I think the base would do a better job convincing them away from a Romney lead Party on principals alone than they would playing at talking out both sides of their mouths based on polling data. It’s just more scientific. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Romney referred to as a Flip-Flopper during his campaign? So was Rudy, eh?
NEXT….
Sultry Beauty on April 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I don´t see what the big deal is. Romney has been very clear about what needs to be done to improve the auto industry. Why wouldn´t Romney get some credibility by faintly praising Obama now for basically “showing signs of improvement”, knowing that he will get ample opportunity to hammer Obama later? Romney must know that Obama is unlikely to “continue to be tough and (…) get those guys to fundamentally restructure all of their obligations.” Obama will not take on the unions. This isn´t “sucking up” it´s getting into position for chiming in when the inevitable disappointment comes.
I´m sick and tired of those in the sainted base who would rather feel good about their principled stand than actually win.
One more thing: Pawlenty, Sanford, Petraeus – yes. Crist, Whitman – hell, no. You gotta be kidding me.
el gordo on April 3, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Which is why so may do not support Mitt…his “principled stands” are not the stands of a conservative party.
His “principled stands” shift, they are built on sand…and since he is such a “principled” and “religious” man, here read this: Matthew 7:24-27
right2bright on April 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Mitt who?
Yawn.
molonlabe28 on April 3, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Romney = common sense.
Palin = no sense.
Rush and the rest of GOP = just plain lost in the woods.
Monkei on April 3, 2009 at 10:27 AM
People that say Romney is POTUS material are nuts.
Romney flip flops so much, you just want to throw him back in the water. He makes Obama look principled. He’s every cliche imaginable and as shallow as they come.
Moesart on April 3, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Monkei = swinging in the trees in the woods.
Democrats = clear-cut the woods, sold the lumber overseas under the table and didn’t pay taxes on the profit, slaughtered the monkeis and fed the meat to their hogs.
littleguy on April 3, 2009 at 10:59 AM
That comment ROCKS!! And deserves repeating!
califcon on April 3, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Are any of you anti-Romney tards aware that the entire conservative establishment…not the Republican party of course…but the conservative establishment that you all pretend to ascribe to…National Review, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and so on and so on….supported Mitt Romney is the LAST PRIMARY ELECTION.
Not the evil stupid Huckabite. Not the rino McCain. But, Mitt Romney.
So, if Romney is such a flip-flopping rino, how come the conservatives supported him out of the bunch.
Now, a few of the same people like Sarah Palin…as do I…but none have ever supported her, as of yet, in any election (except in the general when she was the vapid VP nominee).
So, how come you really smart Hot Air posters, living in your trailers, know so much more than the conservative icons that you claim to support?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
Oh yeah, thats right. Yer tards.
The Wall on April 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM
What is wrong with admitting when Obama may do something not completely wrong. I too, need to remind myself that in some ways Obama’s failures are the US failures now. And I have no interest in failure of the US.
It is counter productive to criticize absolutely every move Obama makes. Have you ever heard of keeping your powder dry?
I hate hate hate this budget that passed in the dark of night to avoid the eyes of We the people. I am shocked at the level of complete totalitarianism that has taken over Washington.
The Democrats win again–with their strategy of divide and conquer. And there are many here who play into their hands. In fact I wonder if you even care about this country at all.
Is hate all that motivates you? Hate for anyone who disagrees with you about religion so much so that you are willing to kill America over your hate?
I wish we could have the benefit of Romney’s business experience without the bigotry of the Primary coming through.
Relax. It’s very doubtful that he will run again. There will not be any fewer bigots next time around. You prove that. And Romney’s wife will be sicker and he will be older. And he like me does not have the stomach for the haterd that is an article of faith for some on this message board.
For the next two years can we just work on consensus about the economy and forget the stupid 2012 election?
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 11:07 AM
“Hell, Huckabee won more states than Romney did.”
Wrong. Huckabee won 8 states, Romney won 11.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Hmmmmm…I’ll double-down on that. Passed on how things have been trending so for,I’m pretty he will always be wrong.
Fed45 on April 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Whoa.. that’s not win/win.. that is win/win/win/win..
Way to think out of the box.
DaveC on April 3, 2009 at 11:16 AM
I think that Tom Tancredo, whom Romney reportedly made promises to, may be regretting having endorsed him
MB4 on April 3, 2009 at 2:22 AM
This punk is a troll- what conservative on God’s green earth links to the New York Times for their opinion on Romney? MB4, what does the NYT have to say about Bush, Reagan or Goldwater? Go back to your mom’s basement you liberal bitch. The hysterical thing is, the NYT piece blasts Romney for being a hypocrite on immigration because he’s on the board of a company that hires illegals. A hotel company. By that logic, anyone who watches Glenn Beck is a closet Mormon.
drballard on April 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Oh and another thing. Huckabites… didn’t Huckabee practically endorse Obama in the General because his feelings were hurt!
TALK ABOUT FLIP FLOP!!!!
petunia on April 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Since you are quote Rush.. Remember when he said that the future of the Republican party is Sarah Palin?
no?
you must be a special kind of tard then.
DaveC on April 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM
quoting, even
DaveC on April 3, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Why would you want to elect another inexperienced candidate? Look, I like Fred. Have found very little with which I can disagree from a position perspective. He was not a very charimatic candidate or campaigner.
But more to the point, no governing experience. Senators do not learn how to govern. I hope Barry has taught us that electing senators for President is a recipie for disaster So, yes, we have a number of possibles the would make great candidates on the surface. But I want them to show me they know how to govern, not just come up with a true Conservative platform
Fed45 on April 3, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Lose this story, it’s making me nauseated.
marklmail on April 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Haven’t read anyone here yet, but my 2 cents is BO has a right to dictate to anyone taking govt $$, even me when I took ag disaster aid some years back.
If you are taking govt whore $$ don’t ever be surprised when the govt comes & wants to tell you your business.
You earned it yourself.
Businesses need to stop lining up with their hands out for the govt $$ & run themselves, for better or for worse. Bcs in the govt steps in you know it’s gonna get worse.
Badger40 on April 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM
How ’bout John Hoeven for Pres?
He’s cool. And an ex-banker with governing experience.
Badger40 on April 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Romney is a has-been. He has no chance of winning the nomination in 2012.
My local county GOP did a strawpoll back in February. Result: Sarah Palin got 90+%, Romney had 4%. This same county voted 60% for Romney back in the 2008 primary.
Norwegian on April 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM
We must acknowledge when ROMNEY IS WRONG! especially on extra rights for gays and infanticide, partial birth abortion and abortion, Romney’s not just a flip flop but apparently does not tell the truth.
mathewsjw on April 3, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Love Sarah…..but I don’t think she’ll have recovered from the beating she received as a VP.
She was portrayed too often as not ready for even the vice presidency let alone the presidency.
She won’t recover from that kind of branding in 4 years.
It’s a pipe dream to think she’ll make a suitable candidate to run against Obama.
All that said I think someday she’ll be the first female POTUS.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Wow, slammin’ “trailer trash” and “retards” all in the same post?!! Following in your socialist icon’s footsteps, eh? Very niiiiice. The reason for the last minute, full-court press for Mitt — are you listening now or still playing Nintendo — was to avoid the nomination of McCain. But, a genius like you would have already known that, or something.
littleguy on April 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Hey !!!… I know what let’s do !!!
Let’s demonize Republicans !!!
You know the ones… The ones, who just voted en masse, against the Democrat’s humongous budget/spending bill.
File Under: be careful what you wish for
franksalterego on April 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM
“but apparently does not tell the truth.”
Neither do you. Everything you are projecting onto Romney is a falsehood.
And don’t try to post any “facts” that you think you might have about this because it’s probably just slanted opinion from those Steve Deace nuts….those guys are like “9/11 truthers” when it comes to Romney.
sheryl on April 3, 2009 at 12:03 PM
If the goal is to govern with correct conservative principles then Romney is absolutely right!
Its called positive reinforcement.
When you praise conservatism you may get more conservatism. We need to positively reinforce our immature president. We need to guide him as a parent guides his child.
Lori on April 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Okay you fool, since you seem to be one that enjoys insults.
Reread your sentence again…now read the last six words, now reread the last word.
And you have your answer…because at one time he was the best of a weak bunch. At one time, which soon passed after he was shown to be a political loser.
Everyone one of them had a weakness…but Mitt’s ultimate weakness is the most tragic, he can’t get elected.
As much as he spent (a record amount for a primary), he is still Cardboard Mitt. And he is still not a conservative, he doesn’t know what he is. He has flipped more often then a dolphin at Sea World.
He basically begs and buys votes, not the best standard for a leader.
So if Mitt was such a great “leader”, where are all those other Republicans that he has carried on his coattails? Why after the multi-millions of dollars he spent, he never earned any voter respect?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
right2bright on April 3, 2009 at 12:19 PM
>
Well so far he hasn’t been, so no problem there.
N4646W on April 3, 2009 at 12:21 PM
TREASON is never RIGHT & today’s Democrat Party is run by MARXISTS who by their very nature are anti American. SUM of Obama’s programs will be a Soviet Amerika where individual rights are eliminated.
Max47 on April 3, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I understand Mitt is trying to be the nice & conciliatory guy here, but I’m through with being nice & supportive.
Screw this.
Mitt, I love ya, but not enough to back you on this.
Badger40 on April 3, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Fill in the blank:
Mitt Romney was for/against ________________ before he was against/for it.
A debate between Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be one hell of a show.
Just as the late actor Lon Cheney was known as the “man of a thousand faces,” Mitt Romney is the “man of a thousand positions.”
This guy spent tens of millions of his own money and couldn’t get the nomination.
bw222 on April 3, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Even if Barry were right regarding whether or not the CEO had to go. Barry was completely wrong in how he went about doing it.
Do we congragulate someone for paying off a debt, if they used stolen money to do it?
MarkTheGreat on April 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM
They don’t want or need the “‘tard” vote, don’t you see. They can win just fine without it. Now go back to your double-wide and dream about your cousin.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM
So, only ‘tards support Romney?
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Hmmmmmm*
Perhaps he’s really thinking about a run again.
AnninCA on April 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM
so mitt will you be voting for bobby jindal like the rest of us.praising obama when he is right is like thanking the guy who is cutting your throat for using a sharp knife.
wade underhile on April 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Okay. He was right on track when he left the country… Shame is he’ll come back.
RalphyBoy on April 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM
Praising Obama the few times he is right adds credibility the rest of the time when you attack him for being wrong. I, for instance, would be a lot more likely to pay attention to the arguments of someone criticizing Romney if they were people who gave him credit when he’s right. Some people commenting here would fall into that group, some would not.
thecountofincognito on April 3, 2009 at 5:52 PM
Is Mitt a flip flopper? No, that argument is old. Is Mitt a conservative? No, stop selling that as well.
President Obama was not right on this issue, he wasn’t right with the bailouts either…and Mitt, you had my vote, but your policy on Guns and your luke warm position on socialism does not bode well with me.
Like they say in business, location location location. With politics Mitt ( unless you are a Democrat ), its Principles Principles Principles. If the constitution isn’t your guide, then you are not fit to run. The President should never never never have the authority to fire any ceo in a private business.
Conservative Voice on April 3, 2009 at 6:22 PM
Romney: “We must acknowledge when Obama is right.”
WHY!?
GFW on April 3, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Romney is playing it extremely smart. No GOP candidate is going to win in 2012 unless they are able to win over some of the Obama voters. He is going to do it with stone cold logic, and politely rip Obama to shreds. Leave the red meat trashing of the administration to the Rush Limbaughs of the world, at this point it would only make Romney look weak and bitter.
He is setting himself up well for 2012.
Romney 2012!
joncoltonis on April 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I think you might be missing Sheebe’s point. We got Mac because the media trashed all the viable candidates. Unfortunately there are more voters out there that do not research their candidates as we do and just take what the media puts forth. To go along with that, you have all the media telling the populace that all the conservative talk show host are idiots and have no idea what they are talking about. I don’t say it was a conspiracy, but a well manipulated strategy.
N4646W on April 3, 2009 at 8:21 PM
joncoltonis on April 3, 2009 at 7:32 PM
Making Rush Limbaugh the one responsible to serve your red meat is how we ended up with McCain. The candidate needs to sell themselves, and they do it with either lies and charm…Clinton and Obama and for that matter both Bush Presidents, or by showing that you are governed by principles and have no fear to say it how it is…Reagan.
Conservative Voice on April 3, 2009 at 8:40 PM
Romney will win those Obama voters by being sorta kinda like Obama. So why won’t those Obama voters just go ahead and vote for Obama again? I never do get that “moderating” tactic. In 4 years, no matter what shape the country’s in, Obama will be able to trump Romney on experience if nothing else.
ddrintn on April 3, 2009 at 8:58 PM
When Obama is right, we will acknowledge him. But so far, he hasn’t been right.
Sxyrzrbck on April 3, 2009 at 9:12 PM
I sincerely wonder if President Obama looks down the pike to 2012, and knows that he is going to get reelected because there is no serious threat from the G.O.P.
**I supported Romney in the Republican primary, but he comes off as too polished and plastic.
**Huckabee irritated a lot of conservatives with some big government populism, and his shanking of Romney in the Republican primary.
**Palin is damaged goods, and is too polarizing because she has already been painted as a weirdo from Alaska. (eventhough she has truly rose to the Governorship from the bottom up)
**Pawlenty is a yawner, and will get blown away by President Obama’s charisma (unfortunately it matters).
**Governor Sanford is a possibility, but I do not know if he is articulate enough. (I have only seen him on Fox a handful of times…and I loved his principled stands)
**Will Jindal run (still really young) into an incumbent presidential campaign buzz saw? (doubtful).
Good Lord, does the GOP even have a bull pen anymore?
Who else is available? Mike Pence?
sDs61678 on April 3, 2009 at 9:16 PM
I admit that I was never was taken with Romney. It did not help that he once referred to his sons serving America by serving in his campaign; my sons were and are truly serving America by being officers in the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines. Comments by Romney such as reported here don’t help if one looks ahead to 2012. It reminds me that while Romney talks currently the conservative talk, he once walked a fairly liberal walk. The GOP need a leader who is a knowledgeable fiscal conservative who knows his stuff on foreign policy, military matters and national security.
My suggestion about 2012 is not to try to pick a GOP Presidential candidate yet. Romney spent a lot of money in 2008, but he did not get that many votes for the expenditure of that money. He once was the pro-choice Governor of Massachusetts whose actual record of judicial nominations is NOT one to endear him to conservatives. But most of all, Romney has thin credentials with respect to foreign policy, military matters and national security; and in 2012, those subjects may be huge after Obama’s idiocy in foreign policy, military matters and national security causes us all to realize that the POTUS needs to know his stuff on those subjects.
Phil Byler on April 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
To sDs1678 re your April 3 9:16 PM post: I am afraid you have a point.
Phil Byler on April 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Phil Byler on April 3, 2009 at 10:19 PM
So what foreign policy/military/national security expert is running in 2012?
thecountofincognito on April 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Senator Gregg w/ Palin or Jindal
JeffVader on April 4, 2009 at 12:18 AM
For The Wall:
Mitt’s whole speech is now posted at his PAC.
http://www.freestrongamerica.com/speeches/item/governor_romneys_remarks_to_the_national_republican_senatorial_committee_spring_dinner
Excerpt:
And so revolutionaries, like Republicans today, believed that the individual and the citizens should remain sovereign. Republicans are the revolutionaries of today, because we fervently, passionately, ardently believe that the individual is what accounts for the strength and capacity of America today and will always account for the capacity of America in its future. We want individuals to realize their dreams. We welcome people who come here as immigrants because they seek opportunity. We want that opportunity to be fulfilled. Republicans want individuals to be able to start businesses. We want individuals to be able to keep as much of their money as they can. We want them to be able to choose their own doctors. We want them to be able to choose their own schools. We want them to be able to grow and thrive in businesses and enterprises or to be able to select by secret ballot whether they want to have a union or not. We believe in the rights of individuals. That’s what Republicans stand for.
Excerpt:
Now occasionally, the odds look a little long. But in the end, we’re going to win, because the cause of personal freedom and citizen supremacy and sovereignty is far too compelling to be overthrown by big government. That’s our fight. We are going to make it happen. Thank you so very much.
sheryl on April 4, 2009 at 2:15 AM
I see that the DailyKOs underground is here taking potshots at Romney again. We post these things and they just come in here trying to antagonize fighting between us every time. It is especially pronounced on the threads about every prominent Republican that might run in 2012.
Hawthorne on April 4, 2009 at 3:55 AM
Your complaint about Romney is that he is too polished and plastic? I don’t feel that way and there a whole lot of other folks that don’t either. Besides, that is the kind of thing you can change rather easily.
Hawthorne on April 4, 2009 at 3:59 AM
What percentage of AIG’s value is the US Government investement, and should that percentage be able to take over the running of the company. At the same time making the USG shares preferred with no payout to other shareholders.
While you may say absolutely with regard to AIG, what about the banks that were forced to take government money to hide which banks were in trouble.
I read that the the government’s investment in some cases was less than two percent.
davod on April 4, 2009 at 7:37 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »