West: Romney lacks enthusiasm and energy, isn’t sealing the deal

Allen West was interviewed by Newsmax recently on a variety of issues, but a couple are worth noting. First he was asked about if he was surprised that Romney was doing well among Tea Party voters:

It’s pretty interesting because, as we sit here now, Governor Romney finished third in Alabama and Mississippi. Of course, with the proportionality, he’s still getting the delegates, but he’s really not sealing the deal. He’s doing okay in some spots, but he’s still not bringing forth the type of enthusiasm and energy that is necessary.

He was then asked about Palin’s mention that he should be considered as vice president. I think he almost blushed, and then said he would consider it if asked:

I will always serve my country. If someone will make that call to me, I’ll pray about it, talk it over with the family, and then we’ll step up to do our best.

Here’s the full interview:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

124 thoughts on “West: Romney lacks enthusiasm and energy, isn’t sealing the deal

  1. Allen West is my representative. But, it cracks me up how people keep saying how Romney lost in Mississippi & Alabama.

    If Mitt is “still not bringing forth the type of enthusiasm and energy” obviously neither are the two of them.

    In Alabama Santorum only won Mitt by 5%. Mitt was nearly tied with Gingrich. In Mississippi, Santorum only won Mitt by 2.2%. Gingrich won Mitt by 0.6%.

    They should have won by huge margins in the evangelical states, but neither of them did. So I guess they lack enthusiasm as well.

  2. Hallelujah! It really riles me the way Romney has been acting like he is the anointed one in this race and doesn’t need to worry about appealing to anyone besides independents and moderates. Trash all your opponents and spend zero effort trying to sell yourself to the base of the party. If he gets the nod, he better pick a really outstanding VP or he is going to bleed a lot of support. Assuming that all conservatives will rally to him may not be a safe bet… and it’s a bet he shouldn’t make.

    Edit – BTW, West would be a great VP pick. 🙂

    1. I just can’t picture West agreeing to run with Romney. I can picture West’s people avoiding Romney’s $1000-suit. mormon mafia at the convention. And it’s not because Romney is a fraud, it’s because Romney is SUCH a fraud.

  3. I love all of the possibilities of Rep. West paired with different individuals and I love to dream. But we are going to have Romney shoved down our throats by the Republican Establishment with the help of “hes the most electable” crowd. Sigh!

      1. You may want to be careful with that argument. Reagan lost to Ford who lost to Carter. Then, Reagan took the country by storm in 1980. Just saying that there is much better arguments out there in opposition to the “severely conservative” candidate.

  4. West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West…..West………..

    Tampa Bay, Aug 27, 2012

    1. Yeah, I’m a bit iffy on West, myself. I’ve liked an awful lot of what he’s said, but there’ve beena few things that caused me to pull back a bit from him. However, having liked more than I’ve disliked, I could get behind him serving in a greater capacity. I think he’s been railroaded out by the Republican establishment, and I think that’s a downright shame.

  5. I would argue that it isn’t enthusiasm or energy lacking, it’s core values and a conservative record that’s lacking.

    1. You know what? I’d settle for just knowing the man’s core values, at this point. He doesn’t appear to have any that I can latch onto, Conservative or no.

    2. Yes – the point is “why” no real enthusiasm. Some might say charisma, but we conservatives are never really ga ga about that. So why?

  6. “[Romney’s] still not bringing forth the type of enthusiasm and energy that is necessary.”

    Are we looking to elect a “messiah” or a president? I want a president who will balance the budget, fire some czars and SEIU people to reduce the size of government, and fix the many problems that Obama has created. That’s not very exciting to the average voter. You can whip up a crowd to a frenzy by telling them lies and promising them things you can’t deliver, like Obama did, but I thought we had learned our lesson. I guess not.

    1. You have a point. All of this talk about Romney not connecting doesn’t bother me. I want someone who can cut government programs the same way he must have had to downsize businesses.

        1. Maybe, but that is his task now. The libs in MA would not have tasked him with that, but he is campaigning on balancing the budget, and cutting spending.

          People say he has no core. I am not sure I believe that (based on his family and clean lifestyle), but it may just be that he does whatever job he is hired to do. I don’t think there is any doubt in his mind about what we voters expect of him. He has promised to repeal ObamaCare, and balance the budget, and cut spending. He would have a hard time reneging on that.

          1. Once again, we find ourselves at the pro/con impasse.

            How are we to believe that he’s a cost-cutter, especially based on his work in MA? That’s highly unlikely. Having been in a position where I’ve had to consult with fairly large businesses in the act of ‘rightsizing,’ those cuts are not as functional as one would like them to believe, so, while I can appreciate what you’re saying, how am I to know that he’d cut what genuinely needs to be cut? The only thing he’s said lately that I strongly support is his bit about Planned Parenthood; however, as we all know, saying it is one thing, doing it — especially in DC — is another.

            Again, no sitting President can repeal anything. It doesn’t work like that. The best he can do legislatively is write out a bunch of waivers. That’s it. Latching onto his promise to “repeal Showbamacare” is a canard; Presidents don’t repeal anything.

            Also, Showbama promised to balance the budget. Look where the political promises get us?

            1. While I am willing to ascribe bad motives to Obama (and I don’t do it lightly), I am not willing to do that with Romney. I think he will want to succeed as President, and he has defined success as repealing Obamacare, balancing the budget, and cutting spending. I don’t know how he defined success as a governor, except that they wanted a solution to healthcare and he gave it to them. They liked it, but hey, it’s Massachusetts.

              No matter who wins, it will be just as important to keep the House and try to win the Senate.

              We had a governor here in MN that used to be a Democrat, but he governed very effectively after he switched parties. His cap and trade talk still drove me crazy, but he quit that after a while. He was really able to control spending, and I think it was simply that he was elected by Republicans and he knew that he had to govern like one.

            2. Sadly, Romney’s defunding of PP could just be his refusal to give them a donation. He did not stop their funding with his Romneycare.

              As long as this man refuses to admit to the biggest mistake he has ever made (Romneycare), he is unworthy of being president of the USA.

      1. Please…a President has to have great communication skills and connect with the American people-that is who the President serves.

      1. That’s exactly what you’re going to get if you’re looking for a president who is exciting enough to make people faint.

        What’s wrong with a boring president who will work with conservatives in congress to fix the boring problems this country faces? Cutting spending and untangling job-killing regulations are not exciting. It’s the promise of more spending for things like free birth control, stopping the rising seas, or establishing a colony on the moon that excites people. Spending other people’s money is the only thing that makes a “social liberal” exciting. They would have absolutely nothing to offer without it. If Romney’s not generating enthusiasm but is still winning the vote, that’s a good sign in my book.

        1. Exactly what has Romney done in the past that would even warrant the idea that he will work with conservatives on anything. In other words, what has Romney done in promoting anything Conservative. Unless one still wants to argue that the individual mandate is “severely conservative”.

    2. I think — like most — I’d just like to know what Romney stands for, other than himself. That’s the only thing I’ve heard him consistently defend.

    3. Well if that is your criteria why don’t you support the conservative Gingrich and not the liberal? He sure has a better record of conservative accomplishments than Romney has….

  7. No, Col. West. That is NOT why Romney can’t seal the deal. We aren’t idiots. We don’t need someone to woo us out of our vote by being “exciting” or “enthusiasm”. We just want a conservative. Can you dial that up for us?

    1. Yes, it is. Who is going to get excited over a waffling, middle-of-the-road skunk like Romney?

      Yes, that’s exactly the problem. Even among the ABO crowd, there is zero enthusiasm for Romney. ZERO. Obviously no one is enthusiastic for mush.

      1. True. The point I’m making is that Romney’s lack of style has nothing to do with why he can’t close the deal. He can’t close the deal because he is not who he portrays himself to be.

  8. If I were a female, I would be swooning over this guy.

    He’s right about Romney. I had the feeling when Sean Hannity was interviewing him before the Alabama and Mississippi primaries, he was interested in Newt, although he didn’t openly endorse him.

  9. Allan West is surprised that the Tea party is supporting Romney because he doesn’t know ANYBODY can join the tea Party and it has been infiltrated by Liberals/leftists and Paulbots to promote Romney!

  10. I’m a fan of West. I admire his commitment to “become a statesman”, as he has called it, rather than have a career in politics. I’m as desperate for leaders of quality and character as anyone, but I won’t mind if West continues to develop his skills in the House for a little while longer.

  11. I would to see Lt. Col West debate anyone from the
    “Twilight Zone” in DC

    Whoever the nominee is – should consider him seriously

      1. why not? Santorum’s got a good economic, he has the cleanest record, excellent on foreign policy,and is a full spectrum conservative. what don’t you like about him?

            1. Porn is just long-distance sex-trafficking turned into a drug. It is as addictive as a drug and devastates people’s lives, families, ability to relate normally.

              It is just. plain. evil.

                1. that is part of the reason why you can’t throw out the Church entirely.

                  “It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.” ~ George Washington

                2. Thanks for quoting- I was trying to quote George Washington myself, along with another early American, but had trouble.

                3. They were pretty good, except for the fact that they advocated certain contradictions (particularly with their moral code) which have ultimately allowed statism to flourish and capitalism to wither away. It was those contradictions which the statists managed to exploit to slowly implement statism on America.

                  And Conservatives are making the same mistakes today; advocating the same contradictions, learning nothing from the mistakes of the founders. Alas.

                4. ummm what mistakes did the founding fathers make? seems to me that we started to get #$% up as a nation when we threw off religion (roaring 20s and the 60/70’s sexual revolution anyone?)

                5. It’s been exciting to discover a number of things they had to say. It is sad as a nation, we’ve strayed so far from God.

                  Here’s another quote from Washington and someone who lived more recently:

                  “(T)he propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained” – George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

                  “If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under.” – Ronald Reagan
                  Here’s my source for these quotes: http://www.thelandofthefree.net/quotationchristian.html

                6. I would argue that what they really meant was that you cannot govern a nation without a morality/moral code. I think the quote mentioned that you can’t govern without “religion”, rather than god and the bible, but whatever. I’d say that the important point is that the founders made the same mistake that many people do today, which is to claim that you can’t have morality without religion. I would point out that morality pre-dates religion, since even primitive cavemen had a code of values that guided their lives.

                7. Your first quote, questionably attributed to Washington, cannot be traced any further back than 1835 and then only by passing through several variations through several authors and does not appear in his farewell address as many have maintained.

                  Your second quote appears abridged or edited as it should read;

                  “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ~Washington’s Farewell Address-1796


                  One should always include the accompanying context of a quote, lest we be accused of playing fast and loose with the truth. As in the above quote from Washington, he appears to in fact list Religion and Morality as separate “entities”, separate but related and he feels necessary to the nation. Not all the founders were as well disposed towards Religion (in the organized institutionalized sense), there are many less than favorable references in the personal letters and published works of several of the founders on Religion. Just as there are writings advocating Religion. Washington was a very private man when it came to his faith and in truth there is very little written of his religious views that can be directly attributed to man himself. Jefferson was an enigma when it came to religion and his beliefs, even with the vastness of his personal papers, and letters, although it is clear he did not look on the institutions of religion favorably while at the same time never begrudging another their religion, which is where “it neither picks my pocket” comes to us from. Because Jefferson was so indifferent to Religion and opposed the supremacy of any particular sect over the others (he was rather vehemently opposed to Calvinism, he consistently labeled the Five points of Calvinism as blasphemous in several letters), his candidacy was vigorously opposed by a rather large group of New England clergymen.

                8. Note, the quote you have here points to something very important, morality cannot exist apart from God. He is the One who has written the law upon our consciences. Those who reject God are given over to immorality. Another important item- the quote from Washington was given evidently very publically during his farewell address.

                  Secondly, here are some quotes from Jefferson from the following site, which references where the quotes are taken from:
                  ‘Thomas Jefferson
                  3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

                  “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
                  –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

                  “I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
                  –The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.’

                9. Firstly it is apparent you “skimmed” my comment, as what I stated was my own observation, not a pronouncement;

                  he appears to in fact list Religion and Morality as separate “entities”, separate but related and he feels necessary to the nation.

                  Considering it is sourced from his 1796 Farewell Address, well yes, it was very public, obviously.

                  As to Jefferson, and my point on his beliefs I never stated that he did not believe in God, nor did I infer such a thing. However, it is quite clear from his writings there was no love for any particular sect/institution of religious faith. You may want to go back and take another read of that first quote of Jefferson’s you posted. As the last line suggests a belief that God has little interest in steering the destiny of nations;

                  That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”

                  As to your second quote, typically incomplete, comes from a letter to a C.Thompson circa 1816. Let’s give it full context shall we?

                  I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics of deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature.

                  This reads as a denunciation of the organized, institutionalized Christian sects, not an advocacy of any branch of Christianity as practiced then or now. This is made very clear in his editing of the Bible, while producing what is known as the Jefferson Bible, in which he sets down the moral teachings or doctrines of Jesus, but omits the mysticism or “miracles” if you prefer. This was typical of Jefferson’s views on religion, that a man’s religion was between him and God, at the same time he was a champion of religious freedoms, the freedom of the individual to worship in the fashion best suited to their belief as long as one sect did not become dominant to the exclusion of all others, which was his point in his letter of 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html ;

                  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

                  Jefferson, was a complex man, a deep thinker in all things, a true man of the enlightenment. My point in this is, that to abridge, edit or attempt to separate the context from is his words is nothing short of disrespect for the man, not to mention what it does to one’s argument, by lending an air of disingenuousness to it.

                10. Regarding Washington- it is true that the basis of morality is God’s Word & His law is written on our consciences.

                  I used a website that had the Jefferson quotes as you saw them- they had no more context on the site than what you saw. So if there was disrespect for the man, it was on the part of the website from where I got it.
                  For Jefferson to edit out miracles from the Bible points to his rejection of the God of the Bible. It is notable that the letter from which you quote was neither present in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. I understand that in its context he was concerned that America not be like the country that they declared independence of, where the Church of England dictated to the people.

                  Your claim about the last line of this quote I believe is wrong when one looks at this broader context:
                  “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
                  –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237
                  It indicates to me that Jefferson felt God is very involved and feared His wrath should the people remove the firm basis of liberties in the nation, the conviction that they are the gift of God. He feared God’s justice and that that justice would surely be executed if people failed to recognize God as the source of their liberty, as God would not take side with America if America turned her back on God.

                11. It is notable that the letter from which you quote was neither present in the Declaration of Independence nor in the Constitution. I should think not considering the date puts its authoring during his term as President. However the point it makes is as valid as anything else that has been quoted on the subject.

                  As to Jefferson and his Bible, it does not amount to a rejection of God so much as it is a rejection of the inferences of the men who wrote the Bible. He clearly felt that the moral teachings of Jesus contained within the New Testament could stand on their own.

                  As to the context of the quote you posted, I did read it several times, to take in the context of it, however my observations on it were to illustrate the complexity of Jefferson. Jefferson was a seeker of knowledge, always searching and learning, as evidenced by his changing views laid out in his mass of writings. In the end, it comes down to a matter of liberty and individual rights, that and a mutual respect for the rights of others. While one is free to follow the teachings and doctrines of their chosen faith, we are not given a right to impose our particular interpretations of that faith upon others. Why do you suppose the founders would place a prohibition against religious tests into our Constitution? This is in my opinion, what Jefferson points to and encourages us to continue. I would not seek to impose the doctrines and teachings of my faith upon you, nor should you be seeking to impose yours upon anyone else, that is what the Freedom of Religion is all about and what Jefferson elaborates on in his letter to the Danbury Association, along with many other of his writings. The results of the type of thinking, that one faith, Christian or otherwise should hold sway is what drove our forebears to this country, case in point, the Church of England and the theocracy developed from it. Jefferson wrote, warning against the consequences of this. Do the Wars of the Reformation ring any bells? Our country was founded on the precept of liberty and freedom from tyranny, religious and political. To suggest that Christianity or any other faith or sect found therein holds sole claim to what constitutes morality and should dictate what moral behavior should be, is akin to the type of tyrannic behavior those that came here sought to escape. To pursue such a course of sectarian dominance would place us in the company another “religion”, care to hazard a guess? It would stand us right beside those Islamic “Fundamentalists” we all despise, that is not company I would chose to keep.

                  Granted the teachings of Jesus Christ have and continue to contribute a great deal to moral behavior, and are one of many contributors to what we perceive as such, Jefferson does not deny this, he championed it. However, at the same time he stood squarely in the path of those that would place any one sect of Christianity above all others. Jefferson was very much opposed to institutionalized religion, and clearly understood how men could and did profane the practice of faith, this too appears through out his writings. We could go on for weeks posting and counter posting quotes of Jefferson, pointing out contradictory passages til we passed out of this life and into the next. But for better or for worse this is where I stand on this issue, with Jefferson’s ideal of that “wall of separation”.

                12. I mention about the letter not being in the declaration of independence nor in the constitution because liberals like to weigh in a lot with ‘separation of church and state’ misinterpreting its true meaning and even try to get the courts to make rulings on something not in our official founding documents (including the rule of law- constitution that is supposed to be used).

                  Jefferson did reject the God of the Bible. The Word of God is inspired. II Peter 1:21, II Timothy 3:16. Furthermore, miracles were recorded for a very specific reason according to John 20:30,31.

                  My faith cannot be imposed on others. Faith is the gift of God and mankind is incapable of imposing the faith God gives on anyone. (Ephesians 2:8-9) However, proclaiming the Gospel is commanded by God. (Mark 16:15) Additionally, according to one of our founders, the basis of freedom of religion in our country is the Gospel.

                  ‘Patrick Henry
                  Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

                  “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
                  –The Trumpet Voice of Freedom: Patrick Henry of Virginia, p. iii.’

                  God is the basis for all morality. His laws are found in His Word, the Bible and He has written His law on our hearts. Romans 2:15

            2. That isn’t surprising. All three are collectivistic in nature, speaking of promoting “the family”, rather than promoting “the individual” as the founders intended. Also, obscenity laws are a violation of individual rights – If there is initiation of force, then it’s none of the government’s business being involved. End of.

                1. I would argue that people who advocate/support “obscenity laws” are the real statists/collectivists here. Social conservatives are not consistent advocates for the individual rights of Man. It’s as simple as that.

                  You know, one of the individual rights is the right to pursue happiness. But what of the Man who pursues his happiness through watching, making or distributing pornography? The social conservative turns around and says: “Sod his pursuit of happiness! I believe that my religion says people shouldn’t do these things, so therefore I shall use government force to suppress his pursuit of happiness!”

                  Social conservatives have to learn that the individual rights of Man trump their religious views/beliefs. If you disagree with this then you deserve to be in the camp with the liberals and progressives who want to control people’s lives too.

              1. John Witherspoon was one of the founders of our nation, having been a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

                Here is an excerpt of something he said I got from: http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers_3.htm

                “…he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind.

                Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.”
                –Sermon at Princeton University, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” May 17, 1776.”

            1. Yeah, people have latched on to the media hype that he’s not a fiscal conservative.

              These are the same people that make fun of other people being “sheeple”.

          1. This and his lack of experience are what put me off of Santorum. I appreciate his conviction, but he really needs to mature some; temper his skills a little bit. Fiscally, we have our backs against the wall. It will take more than being “willing”. It will take knowing *how* and having done it before.
            Maybe I am just extra gun-shy after 0 (and I am in no way really comparing Rick to 0!), but he (and Romney) would need too much on the job training to make me feel secure.
            I could go for Gingrich/ Santorum though. Not my first choice (Gingrich/ Palin #1, West or Ryan 2 & 3, then Santorum), but definitely acceptable.

            Rick certainly has a much needed place in our public discourse. I would *really* like him for AG!

        1. Erm … I’ll have to look more closely at Santy’s record in PA. Seems to me he wasn’t all that fiscally responsible, but I could be wrong.

  12. Use to be years ago that it wasn’t unusual to have conventions were brokered. I think the last time that happened was in 1976. RR gave Ford fits. Then when nominated, the whole convention gave a collective, oops we just made a big mistake.

    If Romney chooses a carpet bagger like himself as VP, he’d really kill his chances of winning the hearts and minds of conservatives. If he chose a stellar candidate like LtCol West, different story.

    1. Romney ’12 is just McCain ’08. A strong VP then couldn’t carry McCain, and a strong West now can’t carry Romney.

      What we need to go along with West is a true conservative, not a mild, do whatever it takes, tell them what they want to hear, moderate as a Presidential candidate.

      I say let’s get to the convention, throw the bums out, and find West a strong leader to go along with his strong qualities – say some ex-Governor. We would then be in office for the next 16 years.

      1. Yeah, I totally agree that this is shaping up to be McCain ’08 all over again. Now we have Mc-er-Romney saying the economy is improving under Obama.

        Would we think less of West for running with Romney or more of Romney for picking West?

        1. McCain picked Palin to get the Hilary female vote, not realizing the full worth of Gov. Palin. It backfired on him and he lost an opportunity.

          Romney would pick West to get the Black vote, once again not realizing the full worth of a man like Col. West and once again losing a great opportunity.

          I did not think less of Palin for running with McCain, and I most certainly will not think less of West for running with Romney. I just don’t think it will be enough to win.

          1. Erm … I think McCain probably picked Palin to get the women AND Conservative vote, considering his record was not going to viewed as all that impressive by either possible constituent.

  13. I can think of no one who would make a better VP candidate. If he were asked and accepted, it could lock in a win for the GOP.

    But of course, if Romney wins the nomination, he’s ask Ron or Rand to be his running mate so…

        1. Such a turn could make the last 2 months of election season very interesting and it could set the Democrat/Socialist/Communist/Muslim conglomerate twisting on their Axelrod at the last minute.

  14. Mittens is a liberal republican, like his father was(gov of Michigan in the 60’s).

    Four more years of Barry Soetoro – aka, our Marxist-Moooslim in Chief.

  15. Okay,,,,yes,,,,,I can daydream.

    Wouldn’t it be something if the brokered convention all of a sudden popped out Sarah as the candidate and upon the announcement, (with Sarah being there) she hopped up on stage and said ‘Colonel West why don’t you come up here and stand right next to me?’

    1. (In my sweetest Irish tenor in honor of St. Patrick’s day) “Fairytales can come true, it can happen to you, when your young at heart”

    2. Draft Lt. Col. Alan for POTUS. I can’t see any other way or any other person that is strong enough today to handle the job. He’s that good.

      As an RVN combat Vet, retired cop and businessman – – white trash Irish Catholic, married 41 yrs., father of five – he’s the only one folks!!! IMHO.

      Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all.

      1. I agree wholeheartedly, then Obama would really sh– his pants, excuse my French!! However, I will vote for any republican running against the self proclaimed Messiah/Obama.

Comments are closed.