Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What can you say about Mitt Romney.

I will like him, I will not speak ill of him, I will vote for him, I will try to talk others into voting for him. If any of you have a drop of patriotic blood and want to save this country as we know it, you will do the same.

And just where did you pull the fact out of, the Oracle At Delphi or the Orifice between your gluteal cleft??? But, for the sake of discussion let us take your ridiculous posit as actually true. Then we need not worry about him being corrupted by special interests groups since he has no interest in financial gains or a philosophy to fundamentally change destroy the country like the marxsist you voted for has. Then again that's what you've made patently obvious you and the rest of the socialists here want.

Yep, the only hope was to nominate someone who truly fires up the conservative base, and they went for a Massachusetts, Rockefeller, Republican. Unbelievable!

You have to wonder how that happened, since I never saw any enthusiasm for Romney from day one. Paul support rallies were record breaking in terms of numbers, while Romney had a hard time getting a couple hundred to his. I never see Romney bumper stickers, but Paul stickers were on cars everywhere around here. How does that work out to a Romney victory?

Only thing I can think of is that the majority of Republican primary voters are easily manipulated by the banker-owned MSM, and the banker-owned MSM kept telling them that Romney was the man (inevitable) from day one, so that's who they voted for when they got into the booth. It's a natural drive to wish to be associated with the guy who's going to ultimately win, assuming there's nothing else strongly motivating you to support someone else.

Picking a challenger who is only not quite as bad as the incumbent is not generally a good way to defeat the incumbent. You need to fire up the base, as Reagan did. For that, you need a true believer, recognized as such by the philosophical base of your party, i.e., recognized as such by "movement" conservatives.

How do you know this? Can you see into the future or are you just guessing like everyone else?

Fact is nobody here know's exactly what kind of president he could be until he serves in the position.

Don't you watch the news? "Citizens United" ring a bell with you? Howabout "money IS speech"? Ever heard of "Super-Pacs"?

Let's review, unlimited money allowed into campaigns, rich guys have a lot, rich guys give a lot, rich guy gets nominated without popular support.

Must be a coincidence? Right?

Sycamore

You may be right about his ambition. However, the dude has always taken great pride in every thing he has ever done. For that reason, I suspect that he will try to be the very best President that he can be. His ego won't allow otherwise.

What can you say about Mitt Romney?....he had a dad......and got spanked a few times.........unlike the chosen One that could'a used a " belt or a old hot wheel track"... across his back side more than once.

You know I don't support the whole idea of a banker run world, but you are on to one of the two main factors that he is the lone man standing.

The First is that he was consistently shoved down our throats as the only one capable of beating Obama. I personally didn't buy into that hogwash, but many Republicans did. Obama is so feared that they choose to eat excrement in order to remove him from office.

The Second reason is that the Republican Establishment still has not gotten over the Goldwater lashing. They simply do not believe that a true Conservative stands a chance at ever winning the office of President. Even if they WANT to support a Conservative, they just see it as a losing strategy. Idiots, if you ask me.

Anyways, nobody else right now has the power to unseat Obama but Romney. For that, he gets my support. I refuse to allow any slight benefit to Obama by not voting.

Nor do I. It's about an undue, and broadly unrecognized, influence.

I disagree. Obama has fired up the conservative base more than any GOP nominee would, and they will turn out in droves to defeat him. The left will support Obama or stay home, depending on their mood. The middle is where this election will be won, and the middle isn't looking for a hard-core conservative. In addition, a hard-core conservative might fire up the left and actually increase support for Barry.

I'm not saying Romney is the best option the GOP could have mustered, but Ron Paul would get smoked by Obama in a landslide.

That's inconsistent with my personal experience. Also, even if true, the base being fired up like that isn't going to attract much attention from independents.

Are you talking about third-party independents or moderates? I'd much rather attract the moderate vote, because it will win the election.

Reading through this thread seems to support my view that people are fired up to get rid of Obama. I'd argue that The Fire, on average, leans to the right and is a pretty decent representation of GOP voters.

That's just another way of saying that your candidate is a lesser evil than the one in there. Historically, that hasn't been enough to unseat incumbents.

What I said about Romney is my take from listening to him speak without presenting a platform.

In the OP I asked what you can say about him. Hug, you're the only one to give some reason to support a vote. What you said had crossed my mind.

In my view, those are two different issues. Obama firing up the conservative base says nothing about the relative strength or weakness of Romney. Romney is a moderate conservative who will likely do a decent job as POTUS. Conservatives didn't get their wish for the next Ronald Reagan, but they're warming up to Mitt and realizing that he isn't a bad choice. Romney reminds me of vanilla ice cream. He might not get the most votes as a favorite, but most people will still like him.

Historically, we haven't had a POTUS behave like Obama. I don't give much credence to past results this time around, but YMMV.

"Not a bad choice" isn't near enough to fire up the "movement" conservative base. Certainly not in the sense I'm speaking, i.e., such as to catch fire among the independents. For that you need a "true believer" conservative candidate, not a smart politician who makes a reasonable effort at pandering to conservatives when he's among conservatives and looking for the nomination.

I'd rather win the election and have a decent president than fire up the independents and lose in November. You seem to want Ron Paul, but he would absolutey get smoked in a general election.

Republicans are a minority, therefore they cannot win the presidency without getting the attention and interest of the independents. The only way to do that is to fire up the conservative base. Only when the conservative base is fired up (about conservatism, not about voting for the lesser of two evils) does it become a "force multiplier," i.e., a self-motivated spreader of enthusiasm for the candidate.

Reagan was my first presidential election. I personally observed this dynamic take place when he became the Republican candidate. The enthusiasm of the conservative base was palpable, and I saw how this inspired curiosity on the part of the ordinarily non-political, and eventually spreading to them.