The Anti-Romney Vote and the Liberal Media Spin
The liberal media continues its frantic search for anybody but Romney. The anti-Romney fallacy was created by the liberal left very early on in order to damage the most formidable of the republican candidates. It’s too bad that some on the right have also bought into this fallacy.
“Liberals never dreamed that they would get so much assistance from alleged conservatives in undermining Obama’s most formidable opponent.”
Publius Prime 
nice try but you have not answered my question – your WV dynamic does not even come close as my response to it explains…. as i’ve also said, i like Rick because he was a very successful and principaled 2 term Senator who compromised where he could but stuck to his guns & coming from lib PA reminds me of Reagan… and on Newt you really need to do some better research because those ethics charges were shown & proved to be a false & bogus witchhunt! Newt took one for the team in leaving and has an awesome record as Speaker! – strike 2 – also MittMcCain whom you support authored romneycare which inspired obamacare -strike 3 – THESE are the facts and accept them or not – will still be the facts.
Why would we want the Loser to the Loser in 08, be our 2012 nominee??????????? and why does the lib media continually attack the conserv candidates while praising MittMcCain????? hmmm must be to secure the conserv nom huh?
Answer is below. However, YOU haven’t answered the “Loser” question yourself! Why would you want the “Loser” of his own Pennsylvania senate seat? Or why would you want the “Loser” who was the former speaker of the house who left disgraced under charges of ethics violations??? Hmmm?????
the so called anti-romney fallacy is a figment of MittMcCain Nation! and not to be confused w/ the anti-ronmey conservative driven Reality!!! sometimes the truth hurts but is still the truth….
also in application of your conspiracy theory we have the rightful Rick being spoiled by naughty Newt w/ default Mitt picking up the nom or maybe rightful Bush getting harpooned by Perot and crafty Clinton sneeking in the backdoor…. wow your theory has endless application but same need remains that trumps these old as hills political games: a strong Conservative will inspire/persuade and attract all stripes and is best qualified to be our president – lets see how mod Mitt holds up to continued conserv base scrutiny…. hopefully we won’t get DEFAULTED w/ him this time round! ps Rudy shouldve got the nod in 08 but he F’ed up strategy wise early on 😦
this whining over the “rightful” 08 nominee getting the shaft sounds like my guitar wahwahcrybaby pedal…. but let’s run through: Mitt the “rightful” candidate gets taken out by the moderatemushhead mccain because the conservative huckster collaborates and spoils…. i think i got the mittmite nation conspiracy theory right?? i think this is absolute ridiculousness but even if it did happen it would be more due to Mitt not being a strong conservative and Mitt not providing a strong contrast to secure the nom. So the question remains on the table and unanswered: why do we want this loser to be our nom now??? makes NO sense if he could not overcome the political games… the current dynamic is also very different in that you have 2 conservs fighting it out (not collaborating) and Mitt via default is benefitting… totally different “spoiler” dynamic in 2012 but still a 3 man race and whoever the nominee is will ultimately have to earn it BEYOND the political games and dynamics – this is why we see mitt holding steady but unable to secure the base conservs, while the others come up & down w/ the base support…. like i said, us conservs dont care what the lib media spins – that spin only influences the mods which populate mitt nation… your fallacy theory is just that, a fallacy. ps santorum had a very successful 12 yrs in the senate rep of a pretty liberal area and he did very well sticking to his core principals while comprmising when he could – he eventually got beat wow it happens …. he stuck to his guns unlike romney who governed by authoring up the blueprint for obamacare! and applying his private sector job creation experience in leading Mass to ranking of 47th in growth! yikes!!!
Also, it was the liberal media propping up all of the “anybody but Romney” candidates from the start–from Bachman, to Perry, to Cain, to Newt, to Santorum. If you listened to the press at the time, they kept asking the same question, “Could this be the non-Romney” candidate that everyone has been searching for? What they really meant was can we prop this candidate up long enough to take Romney down? However, once anyone of the candidates were propped up and at his or her peak, they could not sustain the scrutiny of the public as being a viable or strong enough candidate overall to be the nominee. The only one to sustain and maintain has been Romney.
the so called “anti-romney fallacy” is a figment of Mittmite Nation and is actually eating away at any core he may have and is certainly Not attracting any new significant conservative support (see his faltline #’s) – There is however an “anti-romney Reality” based in conservative-teaparty ranks and goes back to the 08 cycle… (the MassMod just does not inspire conserv’s!)
Conserv’s will pick their nominee this time around and will fight the Repub establishment throughout the primary process so there in not an 08 repeat! and we don’t give a rats ass what the Libmedia spin out is (repub estab does though).
This “fallacy nonsense” is offensive to conserv’s & only alienates us from rallying behind romney – coulter’s rantings are counterproductive to her desired outcome….
Is the Libmedia stirring the pot? sure, but their generated fear & attacks have been targeted on Palin, Cain, Perry, Newt and Rick – they DONOT want a conservative as this would pose greatest threat to obama & liberalism (see Reagan) – do you really think these attacks are aimed at promoting & securing their nomination??? makes NO sense!
they DO want Mitt though because he is a weaker more vulnerable moderate and they definitely have Traps & a strong track record against “these types” (see obamneycare & 1%er poopupier movement) – also the endless favorable left commentary……………………
remember the #’s; Santorum plus Newt support equals a conservative nomination and Mitt goes home 😦
Question from the Right to Mittmite Nation: why would we want the 08 Loser to the Loser, to be our 2012 nominee??? answer that riddle and you’ll be starting your journey back to reality.
The answer to this question that you continue ask in the comments section on all of my posts has already been answered, but for the record, here is the answer again:
The McCain and Huckabee campaigns collaborated with each other through the 2008 delegate process in order to keep delegates from Romney who was a strong contender for the republican nomination and rivaled McCain throughout the 2008 primary. It was widely thought by many that the McCain campaign instructed their delegates to switch over to Huckabee in order to avoid a Romney victory. In the state of WV, Romney was ahead by a wide margin in the polls. Since McCain was significantly ahead of Huckabee nationally, but only ahead of Romney by 17 delegates, McCain could easily give up the WV delegates to Huckabee, but not to Romney. In the end, Huckabee won the WV vote with 52%, Romney finished second with 47%, and McCain–whose support went to Huckabee–with only 1% of the vote.
See also what Beck and others have said on this same topic:
http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2011/04/mike-huckabee-did-collaborate-with-john.html
See also section “Relationship with McCain campaign”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee_presidential_campaign,_2008
By the way, you haven’t answered the question of why you want the republican nominee in the general election to be the senator who lost in his own Pennsylvania senate seat?
Also, it was the liberal media propping up all of the “anybody but Romney” candidates from the start–from Bachman, to Perry, to Cain, to Newt, to Santorum. If you listened to the press at the time, they kept asking the same question, “Could this be the non-Romney” candidate that everyone has been searching for? What they really meant was can we prop this candidate up long enough to take Romney down? However, once anyone of the candidates were propped up and at his or her peak, they could not sustain the scrutiny of the public as being a viable or strong enough candidate overall to be the nominee. The only one to sustain and maintain has been Romney.