Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President Campaign Manager Beth Myers issued the following statement regarding the outcome of West Virginia's Republican Party convention:Oh, why don't you take your own advice, Mitt, and stop whining? You said it yourself: the first rule in politics is "No whining."
"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.
"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."
You lost! Deal with it! Be a man and suck it up.
UPDATE: Look at this press release a bit closer. Notice that it does not even mention Huckabee by name. That's how little Mitt Romney respects Mike Huckabee. What arrogance!
18 comments:
Slick Mitt has become the biggest crybaby, I wish he would drop out already.
Go Huckabee
get over it mitt and romney supporters, this is the way caucuses work. there was no back room deal, if you don't like the caucus system then change it in your state. no way mccain or huckabee supporters are going to vote for you, NO WAY!!!
What's this I hear? Mr. "No Whining" Romney is whining again?
"McCain and Huckabee had a back-room deal! No Fair! Waaah! I can't win on my own! I've been double-teamed! Waaah!"
It's just too obvious, especially after yesterday's tit-for-tat. Everyone is seeing the same thing, how hypocritical and thin-skinned Romney is, how he can give it but not take it, how he lives in a glass house, etc.
I'm sure if something like this helped Romney, Sean and the others would be PRAISING the caucus system, how it brings people together to form a "consensus", and all this great stuff.
The hypocrisy is so deep you might drown in it this election season.
Boys, boys! Get a hold of yourselves. You're all sounding like teeny tiny kindergartners who are still breast-feeding and mommy's gone shopping. There's more whining in this blog and in the comments section than from any of the candidates. Tsk, tsk. I think it's all of YOU who should get over yourselves.
Hey, Anonymous....
Mitt started it.
(LOL!)
Hey "The MatMan" -
You've joined the party just in time with your witty "Mitt started it!"
Such a grand addition to our small-minded quorum.
I'll even wager even money that you lost your bet on the Super Bowl... also.
Keep 'em coming, guys. It's so much fun in this sandbox.
Actually, I was pulling for the Giants....
1. I didn't want Mitt's team to win.
2. I didn't want cheaters--ala "spygate"--to win.
3. I love underdogs.
4. And, I am from Mississippi, so I like Eli.
Everyone here must want the republican who approached John Kerry to be his running mate to be our President. He was for open borders until he saw that polls showed Americans want the borders secured first...still hasn't said what he'll do about those still here....probably back to amnesty with Kennedy and the like. BTW he did get the endorsement from the only Republican Kennedy....Gov. Swartzenager. Romney is the closest thing we have to a conservative. Don't let the press choose our President.
"Slick Willard" is even a flip-flopper on "whining" in politics!
I guess he can't stay consistent on virtually anything . . . .
Matman-
I'm giggling spritely now. And, like you, I had my money on the Giants (since I always rooted for them, even when they were in "the basement" when I'd go to their games at Yankee Stadium -- when Allie Sherman was their coach). I'm an old-line conservative, and try never to apply vitrol to any candidate of my party (no matter if he is a fool or a liar). Far be it for me to criticize. "Judge not lest ye be judged," is the motto I grew up with. I just want what is best for our (and your) country, and would hate to see a repeat of the 1976 debacle when "We, the People" were held hostage by wilderness politics and outrageous decisions (by Jimmy Carter), such as allowing the overthrow of the Shah of Iran (our stalwart ally at the time) to al-Qaida and raising taxes until recession moved in like a smelly relative -- small matters (wink-wink).
We had four LONG years of that administration's catastrophes. And then finally, FINALLY, the Republican Party gained their senses and nominated Ronald Reagan, and he pulled us out of that spiral.
So, yes, I certainly am for the "underdog" referred to in his blog. We need his financial expertise, his calm and his focus. He isn't owned by anyone, he owes no one, and, like me (and I'm sure like you) wants only the very, very best for the United States of America.
The problem with the underdog you are presumably referring to is that he is inconsistent with his own positions. Moreover, his Nixonian approach to interpersonal relations is not the right way to build consensus in a divided Congress, much less a divided party.
Beyond this, Romney tends to support "demand-side" approaches to economic stimulus. (Let's give people rebates right now!) Huckabee's approach is more "supply-side" in that it builds infrastructure which is necessary to bring excess supply to market.
And why is the party divided? Why are Congress divided? Why has the abject hatred between people within the same parties (or opposing parties) from 2000 and 2004 carried over so far to present? Someone explain that to me. And then we can talk about positions and excesses. Before we can talk about solutions, we first have to address the symptoms, such as over-spending, and a present Congress whose approval rating (11% the last time I looked) is less than half of what I pay in taxes every year.
I don't want to hear salami politics: one slice at a time. I want to see the whole canvas of any candidate's proposals. I don't care to hear "I can lead. I know how to lead" or another railing on wealth and the wealthy. As a matter of fact, I'd like someone in the White House who knows how to accumulate wealth and to share that knowledge with the rest of us. Yet there are some candidates who have publicly scorned people with big bank accounts during their campaigning. What the hell is that?
What a lot of us object to isn't accumulating wealth. It's thinking that your wealth can buy you power. It's the type of attitude that makes a person say something like, "A vote for Mike Huckabee is a vote for John McCain." Well, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Hillary Clinton.
Mitt had better accept the notion that his Patrition ways and sense of entitlement won't win him what he wants. This primary is going to the convention floor and Mike Huckabee, sans money and entourage, is either going to be the nominee or is going to have something to say about who the nominee is
Phil-
The correct spelling is Patrician.
Hey, Prairie Phil-
I hear what you're saying. Yeah, wealth can buy power, and it's a good thing if that power is used resourcefully. It's the same kind of wealth I'd love to have that would allow me to send my kids to private school and college later without sacrifice, to buy a brand new car for cash, to purchase my own health insurance, to enable me to give 10% of my earnings to my church -- to wake up every morning knowing I don't have to answer to anyone ... to have the power to buy a house, to help my neighbors, to give a chunk to the USO. I could go on and on.
So, there's nothing wrong with having money, and there's nothing wrong with that money giving you power. It's the American dream, man. And there are some candidates (and we all know who they are) who resent the fact that a certain other candidate has that kind of money, that kind of power. Heck, I'd trade my lot in life with him in a New York second -- and he can toss in his financial acumen, too.
So don't knock wealth and power until you've had it. Believe me, it works better than any Tylenol PM. I'd love to be able to sleep like a baby at night knowing I don't have bills to worry about.
That kind of freedom is the ultimate, baby. And certain candidates don't have that freedom, and never will, because for them to demean being rich means they don't give a rat's ass about the rest of the country.
Fine if McCain (the old coot) and Huck (the religious bigot) want to play it that way. I hate both men and will vote Democratic in the general, regardless of who wins their primary. So you Mccain and Huck-lovin' idiots can try to figure out why Obama or Hill became your next president for 8 years, after which McCain will be dead and Huck will be back to preachin', I suppose. Good luck with that!
I agree with Anon's comment about the "old coot" and the "religious bigot." Anyone who supports McHuck doesn't want to accept the fact that these two clowns only want to grab and run with the nomination, and if they succeed they'll do nothing, and I mean nothing, that's right and decent for the American people.
Mark our words: if either of those two -- or, God forbid, Hillary or Obama -- is nominated and elected, we'll all be looking down the barrel of 1976 all over again.
So everybody had better stock your ammo and keep plenty of cash on hand, because we'll be overrun by illegal aliens given amnesty, and terrorists will strike and run our economy into the ground. And it'll be McHuck supporters who will whine and cry "SAVE US!" louder than everyone put together, only the wrong guy (or, ugh, woman) will be in the White House.
Post a Comment