« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney is Done.

By: quill67 (Diary)  |  February 10th, 2012 at 11:14 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Romney voters support him because they think he has the best chance of winning.

N   O    T         A   N   Y         M  O  R  E  !

Rasmussen shows Santorum down by 4 to Obama but Romney DOWN BY 10!
I stated in earlier diary that Romney would be done if Republicans ever thought he did not have best chance to win. I will therefore stick with my original analysis and say:

R    O    M    N    E    Y       I   S       D    O    N    E ! !

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • rbdwiggins

    to a truly consequential nominating convention in Tampa.

  • Ender

    while Santorum is down by 12.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/fox-news-poll-methodology-santorum-surge-obama/

    So? Big deal, you got 1 pollster showing what you want to see, and suddenly Romney is done. You wish.

  • jamesm

    like a mannequin in a carpool lane. They are driving now. They need to get to the convention where. But his he is through as a candidate that can win over the republican majority.

  • quill67

    I want the government out of health care.

    You are right one poll does not show much. But if it continues, Romney’s only justification for being our nominee goes away.

    Of course, I never believed that Romney would perform better. Moderates always poll better early on. There are always voters who are upset at the Democratic President. I’ve talked to these people. Died in the wool libs. who pretend to be open minded and say they support X moderate candidate (Dole, McCain, Huntsman, Romney) but these people will never vote for a Republican.

    The candidate who wins needs to convince the majority of Americans who never watch news, who have no idea what is going on and simply support the Dem because they do not know their views and actions. It takes a conservative candidate to draw the big distinction and convince them that the direction the Libs. (and moderates) want to take us is wrong.

  • Viet71

    a candidate considerably to the right of, say, “read my lips, no new taxes” GHWB.

    That’s fine with me.

    The reality is, the two major parties, at the upper levels, are hardly distinguishable. Is it any surprise that (a) the Republican Establishment backs Romney, or (b) Romney is just a variation on Obama? Look at Obama’s finance ministers. Romney’s would look just the same.

    There’s a LOT of disaffection on the Right. There’s also a LOT of disaffection on the Left (e.g., lots and lots of the Occupiers loathe Obama).

    I call for leaders of the two disaffected camps, such as Erick, to work to see if there’s a common ground. After all, we’re all Americans.

    • paladin1

      Politics is a plane, not a circle. The far Left and the far Right connot come together on common ground. They now war over both candidate Romney and President Obama because each is seen by their own party as being to much the collaborator. The Right must show the Left’s ideas to be poison to the nation and eradicate their power once and for all. Romney cannot do that; he would merely manage the decline as the Republican leadership wants.

      • Viet71

        And I agree, if people sit in hostile camps unwilling to talk to one another.

        Reagan showed how easy it was to reach out to the other side without giving up his principles. Even more recently, Clinton and Gingrich worked together. Gingrich mainly got his way.

        I’m pretty much a Reagan type of conservative. I find it very easy to discuss flashpoint issues with people who vote Dem. Have to say, however, I’ve never had to deal with Leftist activists (the hard core types).

        • Flagstaff

          too much sometimes.

          There is no hope of compromise or “reach[ing] out to the other side” with today’s entrenched Democrats because the ideas we represent would be their undoing. They aren’t interested in doing what’s good for the country, only in what’s good for them, and the end result of an effective conservative movement is their removal from office. It’s already happened for many of them as a result of the Tea Party movement. They’ve either been defeated or they chose not to run.

          The result is that they won’t budge at all, and it doesn’t make sense for us to compromise with them–it just lets them entrench more.

          “Look at Obama?s finance ministers. Romney?s would look just the same.”

          I disagree with you. There is a big difference between what Obama hath wrought and what Romney would do. If anything, Romney is more conservative than was Bush 43, and far more conservative than Bush 41. As near as I can tell, the disaffection with Romney on the right is because the right, such as you, don’t believe him when he professes his conservatism. That’s a very important reason to be disaffected, but is it a reasonable fear?

          What is the difference between his shortcomings and those of Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich? Not much, and if anything, his are less problematic that those of Newt and Rick. I won’t list them.

          Consider: Newt has always been a conservative icon, a leader. Santorum has always been or claimed to be conservative. Romney admits that he started out as a social “moderate,” but a fiscal conservative. Ronald Reagan started as a Democrat, and not just a Democrat of convenience but a true, liberal Democrat.

          Both Reagan and Romney told us that they moved right as they saw it was also “right.” We believed Reagan, even though he had done some things as governor of California that would be considered liberal. He told us straight up, “If I can get 80% of what I want, I’ll take it.” By implication, that means he wasn’t a “true conservative” by today’s standards–he wouldn’t hold out for 100%.

          Romney did what he did. Some people don’t like the fact that he won’t disavow his own actions. Others would call him a flip-flopper if he did. But did he go back on his word to his constituents? Did he say, “Read my lips; no new taxes,” and then raise taxes? Did he make all the campaign promises of an Obama and then flat out ignore them? Did he do anything but give his best for the people of Massachusetts? Whatever the answer, he did it while making a journey from social “moderate” to social conservative. Why do we now refuse to believe he isn’t committed to conservatism, both fiscally and socially?

          OTOH, both Gingrich and Santorum have never had to make that journey. They’ve always been conservatives (they tell us). Yet they, too, have made some significant concessions to the left on many issues. Why do we believe they won’t do so again?

          Why do we believe their words and not those of Romney?

      • Flagstaff

        With all our guns pointed towards the inside of the circle.

        Wish they would follow your advice.

        “The Right must show the Left?s ideas to be poison to the nation and eradicate their power once and for all.”

  • redmymind

    since he’s a moderate.