« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Cowardly Romney

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  December 21st, 2011 at 10:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Huntsman did it.
Cain did it.
Even Santorum did it.

But Romney? The next potential leader of the free world. The man who will have to beat the Obama? Where is he? To busy? Cannot find time in the schedule?

Of course I am refering to Gingrich’s call for a one-on-one debate. I believe Romney has a glass jaw. He showed it in the last debate his eyes teared after those mean attacks by Michelle (Bachman) Oh come now Mitt. Can’t take a little punches? Afraid Newt will point out how as governor you were not a conservative?

Reagan debated third party candidate John Anderson. He did not have to. But he was going to be President and if he could not take a little heat from John Anderson, how was he going to stand up to Russia’s Leonid Brezhnev?

So Romney how will you stand up to Russia’s Putin or Iran’s Ahmadinejad if you cannot handle a little debate?

Defend your record Romney. I dare you. And you are supposed to be more electable? Even Perry said he looks forward to debating Obama and I believe him. You see Perry grew up poor and learned that he has to EARN his rewards. I am sure he also learned a thing or two about standing up for yourself growing up in rual Texas.

But Mitt, I understand you grew up in a different environment. Or is it perhaps because you really do not have a strong a record. You were only a one term governor and your “great” accomplishment was imposing liberal health care reform. You did a great job at running the Olympics and you were very good at running your business—gee but so is George Soros. Don’t think I would support him to be President either.

Only wish it was Perry who called you out–would be just like those good old fashioned westerns. Maybe Mitt, you should ask yourself why those sheriffs came out to face the possiblity of death? Because leaders have to stand up for what is right. Now the stakes for you are not so severe. No bullets or weapons will be used and I doubt Gingrich will throw a punch at you. All you have to do is stand up and talk and defend your record.

Besides you might do very well and quickly eliminate any doubts people have about you or your record. You could cruise to the nomination and have earned our respect and perhaps even our support. You see, you claim to be a changed man–if so prove it. Debate Gingrich or heck debate Perry if you think you can.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    ….a Newt-Romney or Newt-Perry or Perry-Romney L-D debate, now that Perry is warming nicely to them thanks to all the practice.

    • lizzie

      on Jan 8, which is the NBC debate scheduled for 9:00 am ET?
      yes, the morning after the ABC NH debate at 9pm ETon Jan. 7.

      participants are both TBD, but that Sunday morning debate is a bit odd, almost like a debate to assess who can rebound ten hours later.

      As to whether Romney is a coward?
      That word is really stumping me because of the segue from Newt to Perry and all I can think of is Gary Cooper in “High Noon” when I want to be thinking of Clint Eastwood in “The Unforgiven” where the sheriff was corrupt and ultimately a coward.

      I digress. I have many reasons to not want the GOP to nominate Romney, but I can state, as a longtime resident of New York and, since 2006, part-time in Massachusetts, that Romney had to have been a real fiscal conservative as governor because Pataki sure failed on that metric in his twelve years as governor of New York, where the per capita tax burden is at least twice that of Massachusetts. NY Medicaid model was used in the Obamacare to come, making the individual mandate seem benign, and Pataki knew it was killing New York, and did nothing.

      I digress again, because this is my last online moment for a few days and I am still thinking about that Romney hand on Perry’s shoulder moment several debates ago. Where Perry first exposed Romney’s glass jaw ( for Pete’s sake!) By standing firm, using specific hand gestures and then lowering his voice at the kill second to say “Have at it”

      Well, Romney can not even defend his “I understand how the economy works” because, if he did, he would never have gone for that Harvard MBA/law degree, never would have gone into Big Idea consulting (when I was doing gritty technical consulting, I always thought prostitution was more honorable), certainly would never have gone into private equity, and would have done something besides run for the nomination the past four years, like actually implement some new job-creation concepts.

      In 2008, when I was wrestling with my vote instead of settling, it finally came down to “who would risk his life for me?” I knew Obama would probably do so for his daughters, but not even 100% certain of that.

      Perhaps the absence of courage is a better word choice than cowardice.

      You have to have moral courage to walk into enemy fire whether that fire is words or bullets.

      When Rick Perry tells Iowans that he’ll have their back, some of them say they have his back.
      But I know Perry really means he’s got your six. Pilot slang.

      see y’all

  • samcoastie

    Romney’s path to the nomination is akin to a game of whack-a-mole with the other potential anti-Romney candidates playing the role of the moles. Only with a split electorate does his 25% look like a good number. For him to voluntarily do anything that would change the race to a 1-on-1 would be stupid, not courageous. Unless the Anti-Romney were Ron Paul……

    Could this race be going any better for Romney? The only person that wouldn’t be hurt by a Paul victory in Iowa is Romney.

    If Newt’s ascension had continued and he were now polling in the 40′s Romney would likely accept. But that wouldn’t be courage, it would be desperation.

    • clowngirl

      It’s not going to be a 7 person field much longer and Romney’s ceiling has consistently been 25%.

      To break through that he needs to take some chances and quiet doubts.

      One persistent concern with Romney is that he can’t talk at length, in depth about issues — he can only handle short scripted responses.

      here’s his chance to prove those concerns baseless.

      If he can.

      Hmmm., Yeah, you’re right. Romney knows his limits and sticks to what he can handle.

  • williamjameson

    yet to impress voters with anything more than style. We need substance not the alleged conservative who can’t handle tough questions.

    People should take notice at how Romney has talked down to voters time and again. That’s a bad sign and a sign of a man whose so called family values should be called into question. You don’t talk down to voters, nor overshadow them with shouting = rude, condescending and elitist.

    Newt saves it for the failed media who usually say something that deserves being chastised for. Newt has detailed answers that pass most scrutiny while Romney comes up the liar or poorly addressed.

    • samcoastie

      There are plenty of valid and effective ways to attack Romney, but for anyone, much less a Newt supporter to attack Romney on family values….really?!?

  • Common_Cents

    The media are saving their sharp knives for him and hoping he’ll face obama.

    Romney will continue to hide behind his ad attacks and surrogate attacks on Gingrich. Romney is not man enough to face Gingrich in a debate. Romney played Mr nice guy in the last debate while his attack ads ran. Is this what we want for our nominee?

    Romney, man up and take on Gingrich 1 on 1.

    You won’t, because you are weak.

  • Common_Cents

    We need someone to take it to obama and the passive aggressive media machine that also has a glass jaw. They’ll finally be exposed by Gingrich, for the frauds they are.