Romney is not my first choice in the Republican primary. Nor is he my second. On some days, he is not even my third choice.
It does not bother me that he is rich; I have no problems with the sort of work he does, but I do abhor dishonesty, and it riles me that he is buying this election with a staggering number of dishonest ads.
I also have problems with Romney’s core. Is he really a conservative, or is he just portraying himself as one because he thinks that will get him the presidency? Bachmann, Santorum, Palin, Cain, Paul? I know where all of these people stand and I trust that what they say is what they actually believe. Romney got elected in a blue state saying some very liberal things. He passed the precursor to Obamacare, so he’s done some very liberal things.
Some people change. Some people govern, find themselves, and become more conservative. But Romney’s dishonest negative ads make he think, maybe this guy is dishonest himself,
You see, conservatives Republicans see their candidates very differently than Democrats see theirs. You talk to any Democrat about Barrack Obama and his shortcomings, and he will defend Obama to the hilt, blame Bush or blame Republican obstructionism. Those liberals who might say something ill about Obama might admit, “He just isn’t doing enough;” as if putting 2 car companies, the entire housing market, the student loan sector, the banking industry and soon the medical sector under government control is not going far enough. Or, appointing two Supreme Court judges who could care less about the founding principles or the constitution; they will vote for their left-wing ideas every time, and write supporting opinions for same even if they have to quote Venusian law in order to support their position. Not nutty enough for some liberals. That is the worst you will hear about Obama from his fan base/supporters.
For most conservatives who are paying attention, if you ask them what’s wrong with Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, McCain or Bush, make sure you have 30 minutes each, at least, to allow them to unload. That’s how we’re different from liberals. We don’t like our own guys most of the time, and we’ll let you know why.
Conservatives aren’t looking for a messiah; conservatives aren’t looking for a utopia; we know that this is a real world with flawed candidates; so we just want someone who will actually uphold the constitution and protect our freedoms.
Many of us would love a government that was so not in our lives that, we might even forget to vote.
We all know that Romney probably doesn’t have a conservative core. It’s possible that he does, but I doubt it; and about 60% of the Republican electorate seem to feel the same way. This is why he may get a majority of the votes, but not over 50%. Even though he has been campaigning now for 6 years and even we have heard for the past 6 months that he is our inevitable nominee. We still don’t like him much.
But, who we like less? Obama. After 3 years, with our economy not really recovering, with food stamp usage soaring, with the most anemic “rebound” from a recession in American history, this guy is not able to re-calibrate. It is not in his DNA. None of his programs are really working and there are a stack of ignored jobs bills stacked up in the Senate—but, it would never occur to President Obama to try something different. It never occurs to him to take one of the small jobs bills and say, “You know, I disagree with this in principle, but I believe as President of the United States, I should at least give it a try. Reid, let this come up for a vote, and if it passes, I will sign it.” Not going to happen. Not now. Not next month. And not over the next 5 years. For whatever reason, Obama is so steeped in his political theology that he cannot even consider that he is wrong. He cannot even consider an alternate approach, even though half of the country would like to see him try something different.
When the American people sent him a message in 2010, and trounced the Democrats in the House, in historic proportions, President Obama never thinks, “Okay, this is what the American people want…maybe I should listen to them?” All he does is try to set himself up politically against the House, and “run against a do-nothing Congress.” It is political strategy to him; nothing else.
Now, he will use a conservative vocabulary when he gives a speech. He knows that polls well. He’ll talk about tax cuts all day long, but he has never proposed any tax cuts at any time ever. The best Obama has done is he has gone along with the current tax rates or he does something known as tax credits. A tax credit is, “I, the government, will give you, the taxpayer, money, if you do what I tell you to do.” That is not a tax cut. 2 or 3 years from now, the same people who pass these tax credits will rail against them as evil tax loopholes for the rich. Just in case you didn’t know, this has already happened. Democrats have come out against tax credits which they themselves passed a few years back. Most voters did not even know.
So, back to Romney. Probably not a true conservative; probably not a true conservative core. But he may be our candidate.
What are our options? Stay home and don’t vote? Send a nasty note to the GOP saying revoke my membership? Vote for some 3rd party candidate?
Here is the end result for all 3 of those approaches: Obama gets elected for a second term, and he may even see this as a mandate for more of the same.
I know one person who suggested a mass exodus from the Republican party to a 3rd party so that we would keep this discussion alive. You do know about Ralph Nader’s party right? Do you know its name? When was the last time you heard Nader spout his viewpoints?
In the past year, Ron Paul has done more for the libertarian cause than all of the libertarians added together over the past decade. I am not a libertarian, but I do know their positions, and this is because of Ron Paul—who is a Republican running as a Republican. If Ron Paul recognizes that he is more credible as a Republican than as running for the Libertarian party, maybe he knows something?
Don’t try to tell me Congress will control Obama. We have spent around $1.5 trillion more than we take in for each of the past 3 years, and one of those years was with a Republican-controlled House. Do you really think this will change in Obama’s second term? The House, theoretically, could shut this spending down…but they did not.
We already know who Obama will nominate for the Supreme Court. Do you think that will change?
We already know that Obama will do everything in his power to take over more sectors of the economy. It is in his DNA. He believes that if government runs the show, that things will be more fair. He believes that if we just take a few more dollars from the rich and give that to his rich cronies and to the poor, that things will be better.
Here’s what we get with Romney. It may not be his first instinct to move in a conservative direction. Fine. However, it will not be in his first instinct to take over any sector of our economy. What about Massachusetts healthcare, you say? That is with an 80% Democratic state congress. The likely makeup of Congress this coming term, if he gets any grandiose ideas, is to say, “No you don’t, Mr. President. That’s not happening.” Well, we can hope, anyway.
When it comes to a Supreme Court nominee; we will have to take Romney’s word on that. He has named off legitimate, constitutional justices as his preferred choice. Maybe he’s lying? I don’t know. But, at the very least, he gives a full-throated support to our good justices. Do you think Obama would ever appoint a Scalia, a Roberts or a Thomas? Never. Not on your life. However, there is a reasonable chance to suppose the Romney would. That 5th constitutional vote on the court is EVERYTHING. That will affect life in the United States for the next 30 years.
Next, legislation. It is my understanding to the House has passed 30 jobs bills and they are sitting in the trash can over at the Senate. They won’t be looked at, they won’t be debated and they will not be voted on.
Let’s say that Romney was in charge. Do you think that Speaker of the House Boehner might talk to him about this? Do you think that there might be a push from the House for him to support these bills? Again, under Romney, that is likely; under Obama, not a chance.
Let me remind you about FDR. He took a tough recession and drove us into the Great Depression. Did he change his mind? Did he try something new? For 12–13 years, even though some of his own cabinet began to disagree with his approach, he determined that the solution is government. Government is always the solution. Do you think that Obama is any less an ideologue?
So, sure, Romney is an establishment Republican; he’s a country club Republican and I’m a Sam’s Club Republican. I have no problem with his wealth; I just don’t trust his core.
But I know that he will be better than Obama. At the very least, Romney can be pushed to the right and he will probably select a good judge or two. But as the saying goes, we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good.
This Article will be in the Conservative Review #214 when it is published this Sunday (2/5/2012) (HTML) (PDF)
A retired math teacher who spends most of his time exegeting the Old Testament and, once a week, puts out an ezeen.
Good for you! Keep rewarding the GOP for trotting out liberals and eventually that will convince them that we want a conservative. And the definition of insanity is what, again? If Romney is elected there will be no, zero, natta chance of a conservative nominee from either party for the next twenty years.
Congratulations, puttying party above principle is a very fashionable thing in some quarters.
I’m not conceding to Mittens the Hun (my new moniker for he of the scorched earth campaign) until at least the Wednesday following Super Tuesday. But you are right, if we get the Establishment’s Mr. Inevitable, it’s incumbent upon us to elect him as the Not-Obama, elect as conservative a congress as possible, and help that congress keep him on the straight and narrow. It takes more than one or two cycles to clean house on a moribund political party. Team Leftie has been hollowing out the Donkey Party since ’68. We just got started, really, in ’10. (I can see the day when Allen West is competing with Marco Rubio and Rand Paul for the nomination, e.g.)
d(^_^)b
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
“Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”
I agree with your analysis regarding Romney being at least better than Obama. I personally don’t thin he’s honest, because Romney is anything but a conservative.
The GOP is already preparing for a 2nd Obama term – why is that? They know that Romney can’t win, and we know it too.
The DC GOP is not much different from the left; protecting their ‘power’ is more important than our interest-the conservative base; they disdain us as much as the left. Their ‘selection’ of Romeny is no different than it was in 2008 when they attempted to force McCain on us.
It is the same ‘spiel’ over and over, somewhere we need to draw the line and say ‘enough’.
Otherwise, we’ll see the country going over the cliff-it doesn’t take much more. The DC establishment believes that we will be voting for Romney – the only choice we have – over Obama, knowing we need to get him out of the White House.
The condescensions they have for us is more visible than ever, and in my opinion, I think we should let the chips fall where they may, and not giving into their demand of voting for Romney. They need to learn that we too have reached the limit of tolerance for their games, and rather allowing them their ‘guy’, let Obama have it.
Another issue that infuriates me is the fact, that Boehner has put to leash on Issa regarding ‘Fast and Furious’, not to rock the boat as much. Why??
The GOP can to to hell as far as I’m concerned, otherwise they’ll never learn.
My opinion may cause anger, but it is my opinion, although not a popular one, which I’m gladly stand by.
You go right ahead but I’m not. I will vote. I will vote for the Senate on down.
If we continue to let the establishment bully us into keeping them in power out of fear, we will never make any change in Washington. This is all about power. Those in power want to stay there. Whether they are Democrat or Republican makes little difference. They agree among themselves and lean a little to the left and then a little to the right but all the “pieces” stay in place. I don’t want tinkering. I want the swamp drained.
I am very comfortable that we will pick up the Senate. Then we just do what we did when Clinton got a 2nd term. We tie Obama and his adminstration up in investigations. There is plenty there to investigate. Fast & Furious, Crony donors whose companies received billions in bailout money. Wall Street/Washington conections.
The Senate will no longer be blocking all those bills from landing on Obama’s desk. He will no longer have cover of a do-nothing congress. He will have to sign or veto. Even Clinton had to sign Welfare Reform.
The Supreme Court: Who do you think is going to resign? Ginsburg? She is already liberal. Breyer? The same. God forbid a Justice dies in office. They do still have to be aproved by the Senate. And if we have sent a sufficient message to the squishy Republicans that if you want to be re-elected, you will vote conservatively.
In my opinion, if we do not plant our flag and risk losing it, we have already lost.
Everyone has to make their own choice but I am no longer going to be used as a pawn in this game.
I still remain convinced that the most effective way to influence the GOP is from within the party rather than try and build a new one from the ground-up. If all the angry-as-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore conservatives picked up their balls and stay home or start a 3rd party does that really send a message to the so-called “Establishment” (and how is Newt Gingrinch not a part of this “Establishment” anymore than those backing Romney? Isn’t he the epitome of a “Washington insider”?)? Has that ever, ever worked? Teaching the GOP a lesson? Did they learn their lesson in ’08 from conservative movement activists?
JustAl:
How is it a principled position to intentionally lose elections to show the GOP a lesson, allowing another 4 yrs of Obama transformation of America?
How many conservatives actually voted for Reagan that first time around rather than held their noses and put their votes in against 4 more yrs of Jimmy Carter? Are the hardline, badass conservatives so sure Reagan would be Reagan enough for them in today’s clime? Are there enough of you out there with enough votes to win future elections? Since when is shrinking the party a winning strategy anymore than it is to dilute a party from being indistinguishable from that of the opposition camp? Do some of you see no difference at all between the two parties today? Dems and Dem lite? If that’s the reality, then the conservative majority is not a majority at all, where they see RINOs (CINO is more accurate) all around them, and in leadership positions (“the Establishment”).
How many independents out there are actually conservatives disillusioned with the GOP and how many independents are liberals? And how many are mainstream moderates who are independents because, unlike pretty much everyone who comes to FA, don’t feel passionate at all about politics and could be swayed either way, voting for person over party affiliation?
@JustAl:
It is not a reward; it is just a fact. I am adult enough to realize that I may have to choose between the better of two bad options.
I won’t be voting for Romney in the primary, but he has my support against Obama.
@Tercel:
It is not the establishment that defeated Gingrich, Santorum and Paul in Florida; it was Romney’s huge and dishonest ad campaign. That is a problem with the voters, not with the Republican establishment.
The same was true of Cain. I think he would have made a great president. Voters are at fault here.
@Wordsmith:
I respect how you feel. So far, I feel double-crossed, but I cannot blame the party alone for this.
And yes, it has worked. Remember Reagan?
@Gary Kukis: It is the establishment types that have funded Romney so that he could put out all those negative ads. Like it or not, money talks. Which leads me right back to those in power, want to stay in power at any cost. The average voter does not spend the time that most of us do learning about the issues and the candidates.
I can not out fund the establishment but I can withhold the one thing I do have control over. If enough of us just refuse to go along then the power shifts. Besides. The negative ads that the Romney camp paid for to trash Newt had the undesired effect of tamping down the turnout. This will be the case in November and Romney will lose.
There is so little difference between Romney and Obama really except degrees.
@Wordsmith:
I heard the same thing in 2008. “Let’s just vote for McCain and rebuild the party from within.” McCain chose Palin and that helped, but he was still McCain. Then he ran as hard to the right as he could in 2010, got back to the Senate and is once again Mr. Blah.
I cannot stand the current GOP field. I cannot stand Santorum, and I’m Catholic. Romney is doing whatever he can to win this primary. I’m not a Newt fan, but I believe he would shake things up in a big way, but I have been disappointed before. I like Ron Paul, but I just wish his foreign policy was a tad different.
I really haven’t decided what I’m going to do in the general if Romney gets the nod. But I know one thing for sure and that is that he should not count my vote as a guarantee. He should not count any of our votes as a guarantee just because he is the nominee.
@Wordsmith:
I’ve explained in my original post why another term of Obama is preferable to another liberal, “compassionate conservative” I don’t see how you missed it.
It all comes down to the best way to boil a frog, in that regard your man Mitt may be the better of the two, “W” may have “abandoned free market principles to save free market principles,” but it was the over reaching “O” who galvanized the TEA movement. The same movement the “go along, get along, stay on the GOP plantation folks (sound like anyone in this thread?) want to reduce to a bumper sticker (or a cartoon as the author here did).
Well, if, as you say, there’s no way to “teach the GOP a lesson,” so be it. . . I’ve learned mine.
@Gary Kukis: You said that “It is not the establishment that defeated Gingrich, Santorum and Paul in Florida; it was Romney’s huge and dishonest ad campaign.” It hasn’t dawned on you that the establishment provided the political cover for Romney’s dishonest statements? Wake up.
I speak for lots of people when I said that I wouldn’t vote for Mitt. I didn’t just make an emotional appeal. I did my homework for this article. If we vote for Mitt after the TEA Party uprisings of 2009-10, then we’re admitting that the TEA Party was just a hissy fit fad.
I don’t buy that for a split-second.
I’d rather form a third party than give into the DC GOP Establishment. I won’t belong to a party who talks about limited government during campaigns but who governs like big government-loving progressives.
If you want to be unprincipled, not stand for anything & not have a positive impact for the next generation, that’s your choice. It won’t be mine.
@Tercel:
I think you may be understating the difference.
No matter what we do, money is going to play a big part in the political process. McCain tried to solve this problem and just made it worse. For this situation, I don’t have a solution. I know it is not going 3rd party because no 3rd party candidate goes anywhere.
@Gary Gross:
I am quite awake and I stand by that statement. Sure, the political establishment played a part, but they do not choose our candidate for us; we do as voters. If 3/4ths of the voters allow themselves to be swayed by Romney’s ads, then we are to blame for that. A good democracy requires an educated electorate. Obviously, there are people here and elsewhere on the internet who have taken it upon themselves to educate themselves. But, that is not true of the population as a whole, and that is the fault of the electorate.
I would support some kind of civics test which would be required in order to vote. If a person cannot name the president, vice president, the 3 branches of government, and be able to identify the majority party in one of the houses or in his local representative, then he does not know enough to vote.
However, I think that we are foolish idealists to think that we can expect a Sarah Palin, a Herman Cain, or a Paul Ryan as a Republican presidential candidate every time around. Sure, we can be frustrated over this, but reason ought to prevail, even if we are faced with the choice of Romney versus Obama.
@Gary Kukis:
I’m not advocating for a 3rd party. I’m just not voting for Romney. I’ll vote Republican down the rest of the ticket IF they are conservative Republicans.
I absolutely believe there was/is a concerted effort by the establishment/beltway types evidenced in part by the one day organized blast by pundits against Newt after he won South Carolina.
I don’t think that we can make a race “fair” and I’m not advocating for that either. Negative ads work. When power is involved it is ugly. But the establishment/beltway types should have thought about the fallout before they “nuked” the place.
If after this election and the establishment/incumbent type keep the reform minded new Republicans from accomplishing anything, I will be very interested in a 3rd party. I am a conservative that has always voted Republican (since 1980) but I will never put party ahead of policy/ethics.
I will start out this post by stating that, concerning the mood and attitude of liberal/progressive voters and conservative voters, you are right on track. If Obama and the GOP nominee, at one point in their lives, had done a very similar thing, the liberal/progressive voter would defend Obama at all costs, using any means necessary to justify Obama’s actions, even as far as leveling racism charges. The conservative voter, on the other hand, would not attempt to defend the indefensible, and it would be another sticking point in whether or not the conservative voter decided to vote for the GOP nominee or not.
Now, consider this; IF Romney is the GOP nominee, then we will get the same scenario I described. Romney with Romneycare and Obama with Obamacare. We have already seen the justifications for Obamacare on FA by many of our resident liberal/progressives, even when presented with mountains of opposing evidence. And we have seen, at the same time, conservatives criticizing Romney on his Romneycare actions.
In the end, come general election time, that is a severe mood dampening fact for conservative voters, while liberal/progressive voters will still turn out in droves in their unrelenting quest to hand over their lives to Obama and government. The key, then, is the “moderates”, who are the actual ones who voted in Obama in 2008. I just don’t see them enthused enough to make enough of a difference, no matter what the conservative base voters of the GOP would do. Their choice would be, assuming they have a lean towards conservatism, of someone who gave their state a state-run medical plan, or someone who gave the country a state-run medical plan. That might be enough to dampen their mood and keep them home on election day. My guess is that it will be a significant enough effect to end up re-electing Obama. But that is just my opinion.
What’s this “we” stuff, kemosabi? LOL
Me? I guess I have to say it again. A choice between Romney and Obama is a choice between tea with arsenic, or coca cola with rat poison. Neither, thank you very much for asking.
And considering that the majority of your post falls distinctly short of any legitimate reason to vote for Romney, other than your erroneous assumption that Romney is the one “we like less”, I can’t say you swayed me at all. But you sure did a bang up job of admitting resignation, and buying the Party propaganda that *they* know what’s best when picking a candidate.
uh… ain’t that some of our biggest problems? Those who don’t want to notice that more than half the nation’s electorate finds Romney unacceptable, and that they don’t care?
I’ll vote, as I just did in our special election, for local and Congressional seats. Something I think is basically our only hope these days. We’re going to get Obama anyway. The ever-campaigning POTUS is just in idle mode… the you ain’t seen nothin’ yet period. Already Mittens has fallen behind in the match ups, contradicting those “electable” prior numbers. Why? Because every time he opens his mouth, he gives Obama more fodder as the perfect foil.
Just wait until the SEIU/Obama SuperPAC starts kicking into gear.
Hey, if you don’t mind losing while selling out your principles, have at it. I choose to lose with my honor intact, thank you. My principles are not for sale. And running the Godfather of the mandate (which he still supports) – one of our largest single issues – is a perverted act I will not perform upon request.
In the meantime, I shudder when I watch conservative talking heads, furiously back pedaling on mandates and conservative principles to dress up the pig with some cheap lipstick. Truly sad, watching individuals stripped of their beliefs by desperation.
It’s a rare moment when I find you and I on the opposite sides of the fence, Word da man. I agree that I don’t support a 3rd party, and prefer to replace the GOP leadership with those that actually believe and advance the conservative principles that are supposed to be the platform.
But there is no “within”, Wordsmith. The “party” *is* the base. The base doesn’t need the Party, the Party needs the base. They can accomplish nothing, without the support of the voters.
As @Gary Kukis pointed out, when the base sufficiently rebelled and recoiled with the GOP choices, we catapulted the much bally-hooed Reagan to the nomination. The Party wasn’t happy. But the electorate was. The WH was won and genuine change for a similar economy was to be had.
Romney is light years from Reagan conservatism. Listen not to the lip service. Examine the real performance, the lack of strength when dealing with the opposition. The man would sell my grandmother when faced with opposition. He caves easily, politically moves with the wind, and then makes excuses for it.
Because the voters *are* the Party, and not the other way around, the only “from within” change is putting your foot down hard and firmly when they sell out the platform for crystal ball polls that say “win”. Polls are not the opinions of people. They are designed to manipulate the opinions of people. Most of all “electability” polls. If anyone believes that one man can win over another in a future election, it’s because someone else told them that.
You accept Romney with merely a shuffle and a wimper, then “the Party” has aptly demonstrated they can bully, cajole and thrust unwanted candidates on the base over and over again. Then begins the public humiliation of defending the indefensible as magically acceptable, and pretending you have any principles that matter.
Selling out for what? That he’s not Obama? Do you find similar governing more acceptable just because Romney has a pseudo “R” behind his name?
I don’t.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m done with the mushroom imitation. I’ve been bullied one time too many, Wordsmith. I choose to stand with the the generation of conservatives who said “no” to the Party in 1980. The one’s who refused to buy in to the “electable” myth, and just said NO.
Apparently what looked like a genuine conservative influence and success after the midterms and high Tea Party profile hasn’t translated to enough conservatives that demand real change. Maybe, when the Party loses again with a guy even more unacceptable than McCain, there will be enough voters with convictions to get a genuine conservative on the ballot in 2016. The nation will survive Obama, because he’s not greater than our founding. But the Republicans, masquerading as conservatives with Romney as their figurehead, will not… and may destroy the conservative brand in the process.
The GOP “establishment” and punditry, desperate for “a win”, has made a mockery of the Tea Party and all values Conservative. A Romney presidency will destroy any credibility that conservatives have convictions. They merely want power, and will run anyone to get it.
Wordsmith, think back thru history, and do not assume that just because a politician served in Congress, he is an “insider”. Is Ron Paul an insider? Dennis Kuchinich? Shelia Jackson Lee? Bernie Sanders?
No.. because all of these people are viewed as “extreme” by the “insiders”. Newt was and is the same way… viewed as extreme. Why do you think so many express their vehement hatred? “Inside” or “Outside” is a mentality, a methodology… not a job position.
When Reagan won, much to the establishment’s dismay, those like Newt and those that helped with the Contract with America, continued to carry that “outside the Party” convictions into Congress. They also won big in 1994 by doing so. It was bold, it was extreme. And it wasn’t middle of the road weak.
Today’s Republican Party is not so bold as to run the “extreme outsider”, and prefers to race to the middle, hoping for a different outcome. They have no leader who is fearless – Reagan, Palin, Newt, all taking heat from their peers in order to accomplish the turn.
Yes, Newt is an outsider. But he was an effective outsider in performance – a compromiser in the style of Ronald Reagan, the ultimate and great compromiser. Palin was an outsider, and a compromiser. All turned trends to the right against the odds.
Ron Paul is an outsider… but less effective in leadership abilities. Bachmann, Santorum? All bit player insiders.
Romney? Was an “insider” personality as a Governor, and will be an “insider” as a POTUS. He also is the great compromiser. But unlike Reagan and Newt’s compromise, he took the easy path instead of facing adversity – turning things left instead of right because it was too hard to accomplish something close to conservative principles. He will do the same at the federal level. He can play the “outsider” card all he wants, but it’s not true. His an “insider” mentality, and is just attempting to move to a newer and richer neighborhood.
My first post was about the effect a Romney nomination would have on the electorate. This post is about what I see as the effects of a Romney vs. an Obama candidacy.
If Obama is re-elected, the effects we would see as a nation are pretty straightforward, and Gary touched upon a few of them above, in his OP.
-Another possible/probable far-left leaning justice of the Supreme Court. This is a major hit for conservatives, even if it is essentially a 1-for-1 replacement of one or both of the remaining liberal justices. The bad thing is that it would give the liberal half of the court essentially 3 to 4 justices who, barring the unforeseen, would sit the court for the next 30-40 years. Meaning, we end up with split courts for that entire time, assuming the conservative justices remain the same in number, and that is NOT a given. So yeah, Obama nominating another liberal justice would have far-reaching consequences for the future, even if a 1-for-one replacement of the current makeup.
-Obama, due to his messiah complex, and the general liberal mindset of never being able to admit to failure, would double-down on pushing the liberal/progressive agenda. Sure a GOP Senate majority, along with a kept GOP House majority could limit the damage somewhat, but remember, Obama has essentially proved, throughout the 3 years of his first term, that he will go around, above, or below, the law in order to push his agenda. His willingness to do so would essentially neuter Congress, and the GOP hasn’t shown guts enough to reign him in, yet. There is enough prior evidence that one could believe they wouldn’t ever do so, in fact.
-The makeup of the leadership in the ME. Obama has shown a willingness to support “regime change” in ME countries. The problem? The leadership he supports for taking over those countries is NOT friendly to US interests. The most recent comments have been directed at Syria, and Obama and his WH are going to push for Syria’s leader to step down. Now, while that, in itself, is a good thing, the flip side is that, judging by past similar instances, the ones that Obama will support taking over may be as bad, or worse, than Syria’s current leadership. And with Obama essentially thumbing his nose at Israel every chance he gets, I don’t see how changing two countries’ leadership to worse people, immediately surrounding Israel, will end up any way other than with war. Throw in the forced withdrawal of troops from Iraq, despite the Iraqi’s desire to continue our presence there, and we will have a powderkeg next to a bunch of chainsmokers.
Now for Romney;
-My view of a Romney presidency is neither one of good, nor bad, concerning individual actions accomplished during his term. I see it as a rather blah sort of Presidency, and the country neither going into bad economic times, nor good economic times. While that may be a good thing for those four years, the effect of such could be far-reaching into the future. As in, the push in 2016 for either another Obama run, or possibly even a more liberal Democratic nominee(believe me, they are out there) would be great, especially by the liberal/progressive voting bloc. And a loss this year, with their Billion dollar campaign, would sting greatly to their egos. I could see the left pulling all the stops in that case, and the Philly voter intimidation in 2008 would look like a congenial disagreement between friends in comparison. The result? Not only would their 2016 candidate have the backing from their base, in ever increasing violent fashion, but the “moderates” would have two recent GOP datapoints being pushed at them from the MSM, above the actual truths of the situations, leading to a run of liberal/progressive presidencies beyond a decade.
In other words, I see a Romney presidency as leading to Democrat dominance in the WH for the next decade or two. Romney just isn’t that inspiring of a guy, and I see a presidency by him of being similar to that.
This isn’t really a case of “the lesser of two evils”. This is a true lose-lose for conservatives everywhere, in that, no matter which way you vote, and the country goes, in November, if Romney is the GOP nominee, our country may actually be, lost. Call me a pessimist if you will, but I have looked hard to see any light concerning Romney, his probable nomination and possible presidency, and I haven’t found one single thing to like.
The one lasting effect of another Obama presidency, even if the country is damaged severely, is that I can see the liberal/progressive ideology hurt so much by it that in the future, a liberal/progressive leaning politician won’t be able to sniff presidential nomination, much less win. Why, you ask? Well, even though I’ve stated before that the liberal/progressive mindset cannot allow for any admittance of failure, and that it would be the case still, we have to remember that those liberal/progressives aren’t the one that got Obama elected in 2008, nor will they be the ones to elect him this year. It’s those voters in the middle that really matter.
And another four years of Obama imposing his outside the law way of governing won’t sit very well with that middle. It may just be enough to finally pull the curtain open on the liberal/progressive ideology, leaving that ideology looking in from the outside for a long, long time.
Do NOT take this as a promotion of another Obama presidency. I would not advocate that for anything. What I would advocate is that the GOP establishment desperately needs to have their blinders ripped off and see that their base is unhappy with the choices they are given, and that we won’t stand for it anymore. The only effective way of doing that is to make it as obvious as possible about the way their conservative base feels. And voting Romney, as an anti-Obama vote, won’t do it, as the GOP establishment will be able to make excuses to justify their loss in the general, rather than look critically at the results and why they ended up that way.
Responding to this separately because you are assuming something that is better examined by the numbers historically provided. But I’d suggest that there were few that were “holding their noses” because they were bucking the establishment pick of Bush the elder in that race.
In the primary popular vote, Reagan ended up with 59.97%. The dissenting vote was split between Bush the elder (23%) and IL’s John Anderson (12%). When it came to the POTUS convention tally, it was 97.44%. I doubt Romney will ever enjoy that margin. Even in the close 1976 primary, Ford only walked away with 52% of the convention tally.
Holding their noses? The numbers say enthusiastic support.
What is also telling is that the conservative base tried the same with Reagan in 1976, but didn’t quite get enough. In a primary that resembles this primary, 1976 showed that the voting constituents were not thrilled with the POTUS by ascent, Ford (after Nixon resigned – genuinely in disgrace) as the nominee. Reagan stayed in the primary to the end and ended up with 1070 delegates to Ford’s 1187 delegates. Obviously Ford was the assumed anointed one in that primary (winning the first six primaries), but he ended up besting Reagan in the ’76 primary with only 53.29% of the delegates.
Four years later, the conservatives in the Republican Party backed Reagan again, despite establishment wishes for HW Bush. And that time, enough of the conservatives weren’t going to settle for another Party choice not to their liking… and history was made when the GOP was effectively told to take their candidate and shove it.
This should be our 1980 primary year… but the electorate is too weak, too desperate to stand up for even the simplest of convictions. Another problem is we don’t have a Ronald Reagan to choose from in the menu.
But one thing is for sure… over half of all voters are willing to rally around an alternative candidate to Romney (save for Ron Paul, of course.. but he’s not a conservative, but a libertarian). While it may not be a 97% support, I’d guess that it would be more support than Romney will end up with.
Hi Mata:
I’ve written what appears in the last paragraph (below) before. I grew up in Michigan and thought that George Romney was a great Governor. Mitt grew up in Michigan at the same time, being precisely one month older than I. We both grew up in Oakland County, albeit Mitt in posh Bloomfield Hills, only about 7 miles away but the difference between Beverly Hills and Culver City, socioeconomic wise. Cranbrook School (posh prep school) vs Berkley HS (working class public school). We’ve both been married for 42 years. None of this is important, except to say that I really do think that I understand where Mitt is literally coming from.
Mitt idolizes his father — I saw a huge poster of George Romney in a prominent position in Mitt’s bus (where he sits to give his media interviews). Those who want to know Mitt’s real political convictions should study George Romney’s political career. Interestingly, George started out as a Vietnam War hawk but became an anti-war dove. This led to his loss of the nomination race to Richard Nixon, when George, in explaining his flip flop, gave his famous “brainwashed” quote.
P.S. Just found this quotation about George Romney in Wikipedia. Sound familiar?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
I will not vote for Romney under any circumstances. It is better with the devil we know than the one we don’t. I will vote for the Green party candidate if Romney is the nominee. That way, it empowers the Green party. If they get enough votes, they split off from the Donks.
Gary K. Well written. It seems that Word and Mata ,in agreement with Ron Paul, feel it easier to “change” The Repub. Party from within. Others, like justAl, GaryG and yourself feel a 3rd Party or Conserv.Party vote is the way to go to send a very clear message to the Party.
Was,in fact, the Tea Party movement just a “hissy fit” or has it got legs? Jury is out.
Will a vote for Mitt against BHO be a positive statement or a capitulation?
I have no qualms voting for any Republican who gets the nomination, unless it was Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s dishonesty and greed has been exposed here often.
Today a new wrinkle has come to light.
Ron Paul has been double-dipping to be repaid TWICE for his flights.
Roll Call found dozens of duplicate payments for travel from 1999 to 2009, totaling thousands of dollars’ worth of excess payments.
His organization paid his American Express Card’s costs for the flights while the US House reimbursed him personally with taxpayers money.
Again Ron Paul claims ignorance.
How many times will he claim not to know what he is doing and his supporters believe it?
I used to simply disagree with Ron Paul.
As his record has come to light I have come to despise him.
I’m glad he doesn’t stand a chance to get the Republican nomination.
I do hope a few of his ideas get adopted by the Republican Platform.
@Tercel:
Let me make certain I understand you….are you saying that if you withhold your vote, that will somehow damage the Republican party or the Republican establishment?
@Tercel:
I think that voting Obama into office by not voting is a serious mistake, for the reasons that I outlined above. I don’t believe that am any more happy with Romney than you are.
Romney has promised conservative judges; he has promised to repeal Obamacare, he has even talked about a balanced budget. That is far, far better than Obama is proposing.
Given the things that you have said, it sounds to me that you are [not] voting as much with your emotions as with your thinking.
Once we have Romney and, hopefully, Republican majorities, then we push our local Senators and Representatives to move to the right. We know what will happen if Obama is president–what is happening right now.
My point is, like him or not (and obviously not many strong conservatives like Mitt), he is going to act in America’s best interests more likely than Obama will. He can always be challenged from the right in 2016.
What surprises me is, how many conservatives actually think that Romney will not be much different than Obama. That’s just wrong.
@MataHarley:
I certainly am admitting some amount of resignation, but I have not in any way bought into the idea that the Party knows what’s best. I don’t know how you could have gotten that impression.
Furthermore, I gave a number of extremely important reasons why Romney is better than Obama: judges, a balanced budget (or moving in that direction) and repeal of Obamacare. These are not minor issues. We know where Obama stands on these issues; Romney has at the very least told us what we want to hear on these issues.
Let’s say, for instance, after 6 months, Romney has not made any move to repeal Obamacare…what do you think will happen? Do you think an obedient electorate is going to say, “Oh, well, too bad.” TEA party activists are not married to the Republican party. I predict that there will be marches all over demanding these things: repeal Obamacare and balance the budget.
We know this will not affect Obama; it is reasonable to believe that it will move Romney.
@MataHarley:
Don’t tell me that this is your argument for not voting for Romney?
This is going to be a tough race, despite the utter failure Obama has been.
Judges, repeal of Obamacare, moving toward a balanced budget. Romney will probably do these things; Obama will not.
@MataHarley:
No argument from me, in this regard.
Great leaders do not come along each and every election. We have in this previous century, 2 that I consider to be great leaders (in the U.S. presidency).
There is one more thing–we have seen how much unabashed bribing has come out of the present White House to their supporters. Obama’s push is going to be for more bribes to his supporters to the end that, he builds up a +50% majority in the voting population. We are nearly there. 4 more years of Obama and we could be there.
You can certainly claim that Obama has been a “disaster” or whatever, but you can hardly claim that he was a “failure,” given his notable success in getting the key elements of campaign platform passed into groundbreaking laws.
On the other hand, to be fair, Democrats were fond of claiming that George W Bush had a “failed Presidency.”
I would personally define “failure” in terms of a President setting out to do something in his campaign and then falling very much short of the goal. Even if you want to claim that Obama somehow “failed” with regard to the economy, it’s notable that the narrative has changed from Obama claiming that, absent his policies, things would have been much worse to Romney now having to claim, that, under policies which Romney favors, things would have been much better. So it’s changed from Obama having to prove a negative to Romney having to prove a negative. It’s a subtle but important shift in the way the Obama economic record is being interpreted.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@Gary Kukis:
Actually, it would be more correct to state that with Romney, we have a chance at accomplishing those things, but I would agree that Obama most certainly won’t give us a chance to do so.
@johngalt:
You had me pretty much nodding my head in agreement until you said this. If Romney goes left or middle-left, I think he will face a lot of TEA party demonstrations and challenges from the right.
Apart from FDR (and Obama is more like him than anyone else); there is none of this “decade or two” of either side dominating. That simply has not happened before.
FDR and LBJ both did almost irreparable damage to our country; I am amazed that so many here think that a second term of Obama is going to be okay. Perhaps you think in 2016, only a perfect conservative candidate will emerge as well, right?
Given the incredible damage done to our country by FDR and LBJ and Obama, it seems only logical that the fewer years that he is in power, the better.
I am quite surprised that this is not clear to the other conservatives here.
@MataHarley: #17,
“Romney is light years from Reagan conservatism. Listen not to the lip service. Examine the real performance, the lack of strength when dealing with the opposition. The man would sell my grandmother when faced with opposition. He caves easily, politically moves with the wind, and then makes excuses for it.”
You’ve nailed it, IMHO, this statement goes to the heart of it.
You cannot trust someone who lacks self-confidence. I don’t mean someone whose self-admiration or narcissism is dismissive of others. Confidence doesn’t destroy others, nor does it need to. The confident individual will not stab you in the back, he/she doesn’t need to, nor is it in their make-up.
Romney demonstrates no real self-confidence. He therefore cannot be trusted. He is not a leader.
However, he is so similar on so many fronts to Obama, that the guys who control money, Wall Street, might be just as happy with him as they are with Obama. Both can be manipulated and will do what they’re told. A majority of Americans know that Obama is not a leader. That majority knows he’s an indecisive wimp. It seems a majority also knows that Romney is a wimp.
I think that the fear which conservatives feel of Newt’s non-electability against Obama, is the big hurdle. That fear is an illusion supported by the MSM. Newt is less likely to be bought than Romney.
The biggest fight the political leadership will face for the next decade is the multi-front battle that will have to be waged against those who control Money. That will take self-confident leadership which isn’t bought by Wall Street. If this isn’t dealt with, all other concerns will become irrelevant. All ideological tendencies, personal beliefs, etc., will play a back-seat role in the rebuilding of the Nation.
@Gary Kukis:
You are forgetting one little thing, Gary. That is, that the shift amongst the Democratic Party, in it’s entirety, has been sharply left, and continues to be so. I don’t have much faith that the Democrats as a party will be anything but completely liberal/progressive in the future. What I am getting at is that I don’t think that a ho-hum Romney presidency will do anything but embolden those on the left to even greater heights of liberal lunacy. Add in the disheartened middle by such a presidency, and you have the makings for liberal dominance in this country for quite some time.
Now, Romney could go in and make a turn to the right, and that could entirely discount what I see happening. However, as Mata has pointed out, Romney’s record is littered with everything but conservative actions, and that being the case, I have no confidence that Romney will do anything substantial to make things better. Just my opinion. And, for the record, I still have no idea if I would vote for him in the general, assuming he gets the nomination. I do know, though, that I will NOT vote for him in the primary, just as you stated for yourself in your OP.
@Nan G:
I meant to make this point, but forgot to. Both he and Santorum and Newt will all be able to make their contributions to the Republican platform. How I would like to see a balanced budget as being part of our platform! When it comes to the fed, I have to admit, I might be frightened of what will be found by an audit, however.
There were a lot of people who did not support McCain for the same reasons–he was seen as too liberal. What a different world this would be if McCain had been elected president. We’d all be complaining still, but do you think that he would have picked the far left judges that Obama picked? Not hardly. Do you think he would have passed McCain-care? Hardly. Do you think he would have seized the student loans or control of Wall Street? I doubt it.
My guy was Cain; and it was a sad day for me when he dropped out of the race. I could have supported him with great enthusiasm. It is possible that he could have been great. After him, on most days, I like Newt. Barely. And he has said so many things that make me want to yell at him.
I did not like Romney in 2008; and I don’t like him now. But, I just can’t buy any of the arguments that somehow, another 4 years of Obama is going to be better and really teach the Republican establishment that we mean business.
Maybe we should threaten to hold our breaths until they select someone to our liking? That would work just as much as not voting for the presidential candidate.
According to Reuters, there are more ‘blind-ear plugging people’, than there are people ‘holding their No’s’
Snerd
@Gary Kukis:
Happy Birthday, Mr. President! 🙂
@MataHarley:
And will voters be able to get anything accomplished without party unity after the primaries are all said and done?
Conservatives seem to keep hoping to field their dream candidate. But where in the litter did we have one? Perry? Cain? Are their failures to gain traction due to “the Establishment”, the media, or due to shortcomings of their own making?
@Aqua:
The stars were aligned such that no Republican candidate in 2008 would have won. The rank-and-file Republican voters might not have been happy with holding their noses and pulling the lever for a RINO, but in ’08- especially after the economic crisis hit- which of the GOP candidates would have done better? Who were the alternative challengers? Let’s see…Romney, wasn’t it? He was the last alternate choice to McCain. Fred Thompson was perhaps the only one I can think of right now that the rank-and-file seemed eager to vote for. But in ’08, how would he have done against the rock star candidate fielded by the Dems?
@MataHarley:
Thanks, Mata.
I got my history confused with some conservative grumblings during Reagan’s 2nd term, criticizing him over some compromises.
Happy Birthday, President Reagan! 🙁
@johngalt:
I get sorta the same conclusion as Johngallt, but for different reasons:
* ‘If’ Romney was elected, no one really knows what they are getting … including Romney himself, I would suggest. He just wants to be President. However if the past is the best predictor of the future, history shows Romney is a liberal pretending to be a conservative, and if President, he’d probably continue in the same duplicitous path.
* Soros certainly thinks Romney is sufficiently liberal, that he can live with either Romney or Obama, and so sees no real change in policy direction.
So if Romney were President, the Bag(R) base would be expecting some Bag(R) policies, but would not get them from a Massachusetts-mo(D)e(R)ate. They’d be like the ch(R)istian base was for the “W” admin., a big joke. Recognizing they’d been had, that they were and are being used by the Establishment, Bag(R)z would fracture the GOP …. ergo, creating a liberal dominance in their wake.
The only hope I see for the GOP, is they stay outta power so the Establishment- Bag(R) schism doesn’t get exposed. Right now it is ‘bearly’ being held together by the Obama-(D)rangment- syndrome. Remove that, and the GOP falls apart.
However, with Romney as President, at least we’d have another (R) able to fill bloop-(R) highlight reels again …
Snerd
LOL! Now *that’s* funny!
Gee… I dunno, Gary. Could it be your title, “Why I’ll Pull the Lever for Romney” perhaps? If you accept the choice the Party has made for you as the best choice… especially with only 7-9% of the delegates allocated… it’s hard to assume any other way. It becomes ironic when you couldn’t really even sell yourself on Romney in your entire post.
States have to balance budgets because they can’t print money. For Congress to balance a budget, it takes Congressional will and legislation for a POTUS to sign. Romney’s history shows he merely caves to the Dems pressure during his leadership.
Romney’s advisors have already said they aren’t going to repeal all of O’healthcare. Tho that is what a desperate Romney says out of one side of his mouth, then says he’d like to keep “the good” out of the other. Romney thinks mandates are just dandy… as long as they are at the state level and not the federal level. Which brings me to your statement:
Congress has to repeal O’healthcare. Romney can only sign a bill. Romney, since he doesn’t find all of O’healthcare objectional, will not be pushing very hard for a complete reform, but a line item reform. And I seriously doubt if I disagree with him on the legitimacy of a mandate at any level of government, that I’ll agree with what he thinks is “good” enough to keep.
This all goes back to whether Romney has any history of being able to lead a left powered chamber to the right. He doesn’t.
As far as judges, as I said… forget the lip service, and look at the performance of record. Romney did not recommend judges that resemble what conservatives want from strict constructionists. And why would you feel he’d do any differently as a POTUS?
And you call Romney’s purchase of the nomination… what? Don’t see much difference in Obama’s pandering via cash than Romney’s. Only that Obama’s coffers are far more full.
If he’s ignoring them now, along with the Republican leadership, why do you feel they won’t ignore them in the future? Especially when everyone is willing to vote for him…. Obviously the TPers then could only be ID’d as easy pushovers.
There’s that crystal ball/parallel universe again. But since every one wants to play political seer, I’d say a McCain win would just be setting us up for a Dem win this 2012.
Must have been a great blow when he endorsed Newt, then. You like him, but discount his support for someone other than Romney? *And* at this early stage? huh?
No one said another four years of Obama would be better. What I have said (since I won’t speak for others) is that four years of Romney would not be better. It’s the ol pick between arsenic and rat poison bit again. Neither are good, nor appealing. But, as johngalt says, four years of no better with Romney at the helm is two guaranteed results:
1: loss of credibility for conservatives in genuinely having any principles they’ll fight for, and
2: another notch in the GOP’s belt that they can dictate a RINO to the base, and everyone will willingly give it another shot, falling dutifully in line… because they don’t have any principles for which they’ll fight to honor.
Did the Tea Party, bucking the GOP establishment in the 2010 midterms, get “anything done” with their united blessing? Last I looked, yup… they did. Their problem in Congress is there still aren’t enough Wests and Rubios. But 2012 is another attempt to bolster the numbers. Eventually, with dedication to true conservative principles, and not buckling under Party pressure, they’ll outnumber the RINOs.
Nothing to do with a “dream” candidate, Word. Has to do with a “nightmare” candidate who is an abomination of every principle we hold dear. Thus the “anyone but Romney” majority that everyone wants to ignore.
Exactly… and while Newt is no Reagan, he’s closer to that style of leadership – something we need these days – than any one else on the stage. Risky? Yup…. but out of the menu of hamburgers and meatballs, he’s the least risky throw of the dice to actually effect change to the right, and have a POTUS who doesn’t let popularity govern his politics. Like him or not, he has that record under his belt. He led a Congress that mostly despised him into moving right, coerced concessions from the Dems and Clinton, and never worried about whether he got the Miss Congeniality award. And, of course, they used the false ethics charges to betray him.
Hold your “No’s” or not, the current GOP is a temporal anomaly … the Collision of the UnWilling. How long can it last, before the current fissures in the GOP become a full blown ‘fractu(R)e’?
Will the fracturing be completed by ‘the Newt’, or will the Obama admin … errr … I mean Super PACs have to do some work too!? Or will the progressives have to wait for a Romney win, to complete the inevitable, for them?
Mata re “Congeniality award” Over 50% of American voters are women. I believe most women( with some notable F.A. exceptions) appreciate a congenial manner in their chosen candidate. I’d compare a Clinton,Reagan,”W’,Obama to a Goldwater,Dole,Dukakis type.
Personality and appearance play a role in people’s choices. May not like it but you can’t ignore it’s existance.
Hi Richard (#39): There’s an article which looks at something like a robotic quotient for politicians. People are said to be repulsed by a high robotic quotient and attracted to a high human quotient. Gingrich, for whatever faults he has, possesses about a zero robotic quotient — he is almost beyond human with his humanness. Romney — not so much.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/the-uncanny-valley-what-robot-theory-tells-us-about-mitt-romney/252235/
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Want to see a robot-politician at work?
22 seconds of amazing!
I’m with you 100%. I’ve grown sick and tired of Eeyore Republicans who moan and groan that their candidate is not ideologically pure, who proclaim from on top of their soap boxes that the party deserves to lose to “teach them a lesson.” As far as I’m concerned, they can go DIAF. Next are the “one candidate” idiots who think their guy/gal is perfect and sweet, and if they don’t win the nomination they are going to go take their ball and go home, presumably to hold their breath and pout. They can go on the same fire as the first group.
We *know* what Obama is going to do in a second term, and it will be far *worse* than what he has done in his first term. Thank God the Republicans took the House in 2010, but even if they take the Senate too in 2012, they would still have both the filibuster rule (which Republicans have at least some respect for) and the Presidential veto standing in the way of any real progress, without a Republican in the White House. Any Republican, even (shudder) Ron, and with that in mind I plan on supporting my favorite candidate in the primary, and then going to the polls to vote for Republicans in November, even if I have to crawl over broken glass. Regardless of the whiny brats that troll the comments.
@Georg Felis: You run a liberal masked as a conservative and you want me to give up my principles because your candidate ran the most dishonest expensive race in any primary? Go f yourself. Romney is anti-gun, pro-choise, and will raise taxes. He has not claimed he will reduce the footprint of government else he would not be the establishment choice. You jellybacked unprincipled cowards can try to get the rest of us to vote for an someone who is little difference from Obama. I will follow the advice of those believe there is a better way. I will not hold my nose and vote for Obama lite.
First of all, Georg Felis, the only ones using the phrase, “teach them a lesson”, are those of you who ready to bug out and pronounce the war lost when the primary is only 7% into the process. And, oh yes, and to insult any of us who don’t act like political Stepford Wives. I’m afraid to say your clumsy attempts at guilt, nor your incorrect characterization of those like me, will not work. Some of us just aren’t for sale.
Which then begs the belly laugh for your other point of being anti-Romney because he is “not ideologically pure???” LOL! OMG.. is satire your expertise as a stand up comedian?
I’d say most of us would be happy to entertain any one that at least bore a slight resemblance to a conservative in their career. In fact so many have already run thru the entire line up, attempting to dodge the most obvious faux “Republican”.
But hey, if you think you can sell the Godfather of O’healthcare as a candidate who is only just a slight notch below ” not ideologically pure” – dang, that still makes me laugh! LOL – instead of the conservative aberration he is, then you may be right…. given the right audience. I’m looking around, and I see lots with their pre-sale price tags boldly advertised.
But I take solace that more than half of all voters still say “no” to Romney. He only wins in moderate states where the voting turnout is low (down 14% in Florida and down over 25% in Nevada). So I’d say there’s a bunch of us that have little enthusiasm for being the GOP’s paid escorts or ladies of the night in this primary.
The repercussions of not caring how the majority of “not Romney” voters feel – or attempting to guilt/shame them into selling out – plus ignoring the bullseye you paint on yourselves while trying to redress the moderate MA donkey in an elephant suit, will become all too evident in the future… just as it did in 2008. If the enthusiasm gap was supposed to be the saving grace over any GOP candidate’s smaller campaign fund, it ain’t happening with Mr. Mandate. You can repackage that defective package all you want, and it will still be an imitation of reality.
You might as well just nominate Hillary. At least she’d have better fund raising capabilities, and probably could beat Obama. She believes in the mandate too.
I will not vote for a RINO…. Sorry been there and done that. I will vote down the ballot for conservatives only.
Not sure if elections can fix the US?
@Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:
Well Mr. (R)agshaft, you are (R)ight. However, by not holding your nose, you are bring about a schism in the GOP, that is probably unavoidable. Up until now, Bag(R)z and the (R)eligious (R)ight have been used to scare the (D)z into accepting (R) lite policies.
As long as the Bag(R)z do NOT have sufficient principle to demand a voice, in a party that up until now has just used them as foot soldiers, but never really allowed them to sit at the policy table, the Establishment will continue to use you, then ignore you.
Snerd
@Nan G: I agree with you on Ron Paul. His dishonesty evidently runs so deep that he is willing to abandon his principles and make a deal in order to get a prime time slot at the GOP convention for him and his son, Senator Rand Paul.
Mark Levin covered this on his radio show last week.