Skip to comments.Free Republic's Jim Robinson Makes the Turn
Posted on 05/08/2012 8:13:53 AM PDT by haakondahl
Free Republic's Jim Robinson Makes the Turn
punish RINOs in the House
I respect those who are still die-hard for beating Romney, but that is yesterdays fight. The danger is not in seeming inconsistenttrust me; we left marks all over that Romney fellow, and he will not forget us. Maybe next time we will unseat him like we are about to do to Lugar, and a number of other RINOs. And this is the fight for today: punish RINOs in the House and especially Lugar in the Senate. Tomorrows fight is back to the White House to get Obama out of my chair.
their friends could use the help
Those who still toil in the fields of Newt are at great risk of becoming irrelevant, the one thing they must not become. They poke and stab at the bodies of friends and enemies alike from a long-finished battle, while their friends could use the help a valley away, where the fight is now.
to engage on the next fight, disengage from the previous
Jim at Free Republic did the right thing, and must pull his readership back together to allow Free Republic to become once more the hammer of the right. He could stand on the conservative Jihad, stabbing at thee from the heart of Hell etc etc, but the fact is, Freepers need to engage on the next fight, and in order to do thatthey must disengage from the previous.
(Excerpt) Read more at haakondahl.com ...
I can see your type a little later on, accepting the Mark of the Beast, agreeing to close churches and alter Christian theology, supporting the prosecution of ministers who refuse homo marriage ceremonies, etc., tossing all principles basically, just so you can say you didn't help elect a socialist.
It’s a Hobson’s Choice of the worst kind. Vote for Mittens and it’s Socialism-Lite. Don’t vote and we end up with Obama again and it’s all over. We’re done. Finished. I’m no tough-guy type and I don’t say this lightly but God help us, we might be the generation that has to use the one remedy The Founders left us. And Freepers know what that is.
News flash: there’s not a conservative running.
We have to make do this time because we couldn’t/didn’t influence the process enough to make sure there was a conservative running.
It may feel good to stand on our principles and refuse to get rid of 0 because his opponent isn’t what we want. It’s going to hurt like hell if 0 gets reelected. For a long time. And, those principles you’ve been standing on get soiled and sad.
As I said before, can you really believe that this Congress would impeach Obama?
They might impeach Palin or Newt or even Reagan if he were still around. This group of slimeballs won’t even go after the low ranking criminals in their midst, especially the one’s “spreading the wealth around”.
As John Adams said ‘”Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. It seems that Mr Adams believed that our form of government was only meant for a self governed people; a people who know how to live morally right.’
Which one was at the top of the ticket?
Did they have bumper stickers?
That would be cool.
No, the GOP apparently is so comfortable with Romney they believe he can win eithout my vote.
If BHO is re-elected the fault lies ENTIRELY with the GOP for never giving me someone to vote for and then expecting me to fall in line like a good little RINO.
It applies here, too.
The Constitution Party is running a candidate. So, yes there is.
We have to make do this time because we couldnt/didnt influence the process enough to make sure there was a conservative running.
Rewind to 2008. I tried it your way, and the candidate I supported told me it wouldn't be a bad thing if his opponent was elected President. How does that advance conservatism?
It may feel good to stand on our principles and refuse to get rid of 0 because his opponent isnt what we want. Its going to hurt like hell if 0 gets reelected. For a long time. And, those principles youve been standing on get soiled and sad.
I'll repeat the request I made upthread to a different poster. Please explain how a vote for the known progressive Mitt Romney will advance conservatism. I'm curious to have your thoughts. Thanks.
You still haven’t explained why you excerpted instead of posting in full.
Most of us will not click on a MySpace blog. I know I didn’t.
But we all really know why you didn’t.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)
Not voting at all (or voting for someone lacking a snowball’s chance...) is doing nothing. The ABOs don’t like Romney, but recognize he’s the least bad & most capable option for stopping something much worse.
If you’re not with us, you’re against us. Even JR knows that, and has made peace.
Precisely what happens when you vote for the "lesser of two evils".
I work my a%% off to make sure we get a better candidate next time, and we have more conservative candidates running and winning in local and state elections.
How about you?
Col. - it will be later before I can get back to you with my answer. Don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you.
False on its face. Voting for a conservative is voting for a conservative. Nothing more and certainly nothing less. I will vote for the most conservative candidate I can find across my ballot -- especially for President.
As for peace, yes, that's what JR said. He's also said he's not voting for Romney, and neither am I.
Thank you, Suzy. I appreciate that. I do want your opinion. I'm not trying to be intransigent.
I detest 0bama as much as anyone and my posting record shows that. It's just that Romney isn't appreciably different by virtue of his demonstrated record, especially in the area of abortion and social issues, and therefore not worthy of my vote.
But again, thanks. :)
For starters, I AM NOT A ROMNEY republican so get that out of your tiny mind. Vote for whomever you want and dilute the conservative totals or don’t vote at all and have the same effect.
Because not enough people were willing to get behind any one good candidate, the POS primary process left us with the candidate with the money to buy the nomination. I am as unhappy as anyone with the candidate but being a realist I know that Romney is infinitely better than throwing away your vote and in effect throwing the election to obama. This is not a case where we can survive another four years of our would-be National Socialist Democrat dictator.
We have him in part because we allowed the same things to happen in 2008 and too many refused to set aside their “conscience” and vote for McCain, as odious as that was.
I’ve had it up to my back teeth with your flawed argument that somehow voting your “conscience” for a better good, whomever that candidate might be, will be good for the nation and good for the Constitution. Get it straight, A WRITE-IN CANDIDATE WILL NOT WIN! Not in your fantasies and not by any stretch of anyone’s imagination. Wishing it to be true will not make it happen. It didn’t work for all of the the people who proclaimed the same thing in 2008 and it will not work this time either. Those who thought that we could ride it out in 2008 with BO and those who took this flawed path of logic then are the same people who despise BHO but seem willing to step into the same pile of turds they did then.
I wish that you could at least see your way clear to try to save the Constitution and Republic from what will probably be a death blow but I’m afraid that you are too consumed by your disappointment that you didn’t get the candidate of YOUR choice. So it’s boo-hoo, take your dolly and go home. Good luck with that.
It is not a vote for good, it IS a vote FOR obama.
I wouldn’t vote for her either although she would not have been infinitely better choice than BHO.
We are not dealing in woulda, coulda, shoulda hypotheticals here. BHO is the president and he IS destroying the Constitution. We cannot take another four years of this Nazi Socialist assault.
Your candidate and mine did not win the nomination because like 2008 conservatives have allowed themselves to be balkanized and left with a candidate that nobody really trusts. If you want to look at mitt as a pawn then so be it. I don’t see it that way. He has many flaws and views that I don’t like but he is still a better choice than BHO.
With a conservative House and Senate there are still controls over what he can be allowed to do. Even with both houses BHO will do what he is already doing; issuing EOs and finding ways to bypass the legislative and Judicial branches as well as the Constitution.
Go ahead, vote your conscience because we know that has worked out so well in the past.
It's OK, you earned it.
Some of us are still trying to defeat Obama.
Who here isn't?
For starters ... you are. Why don't you admit that. You ABOs seem to reject any 'any' except Romney. You're voting for expedience. Be grown up enough to admit it.
I vote my conscience as a Christian. I cannot and will not vote for an abortionist. My accountability to God is more important to me than your cheap insults. Get THAT through your head.
As I posted to SuzyQue, I did it your way in 2008. I'm done doing it your way.
You have failed to show how a vote for a conservative candidate is a vote for Obama. A vote for a conservative is a vote for a conservative. Period.
While you’re at it, do you care to have a stab at the question I posted to you here?
If the shoe fits...
So tell me, will Mourdock vote to convict a President? Would Lugar?
I think you see the difference eh!
OK, Col., heres my answer. Not particularly profound, but thoroughly and painfully thought out. And, theres probably nothing that hasnt already been said here.
This election is the big one. We can either go straight off the cliff, or pull back on the reins, and accept FOR NOW a less than fully acceptable candidate. And, it will be a cliff dive that we wont recover from for a generation at least. Our kids and grandkids are the ones who will have to pay for our wrong actions or inactions. And, contributing to the election of 0 again will be a wrong action.
If we thought that he would exponentially expand government spending and power, and devalue our global influence, and deliver our sovereignty to the UN and/or highest bidder, we aint seen nothing yet. In a second term, with no need to do the bidding of the citizens, 0 and his buddies will do whatever they want. And, what they want isnt good for us.
It is our duty and responsibility to see to it that conservatives are advanced and helped to win elections. We have to take back the Senate. We have to keep the pressure on our career politicians and bureaucrats to do the right thing. All that wont matter if 0 gets in again.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I do appreciate it.
In reading your answer, I find nothing with which to disagree until I get to your last sentence. How would electing a ton of conservatives to Congress not be helpful under ANY circumstance? Why would we not work as hard we we possibly can — and I will certainly do so — to elect conservatives regardless of who the President is?
Too, it doesn’t advance the cause of conservatism to have the Republican Party and its considerable apparatus controlled by a pro-abortion, anti-traditional values, pro-mandate, pro-bailout liberal. I can’t support a candidate like that on the abortion issue alone, and I can’t vote for a candidate like that because fiscally he espouses the same philosophies that got us into this mess.
I understand why there are ABO people on this site. It just makes me wonder why the only “any” some are willing to support is Mitt Romney, rather than a conservative. But I truly do appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for them.
I was of the opinion that I would never vote for Romney. Come November, I may change my mind. It could get a lot worse.
Because he has been and will continue to circumvent Congress, and so far, Congress has rolled over and played dead.
Hey, did you see this one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2881688/posts ?
I see the MoveOn.org/Axelrod sleepers are working hard for The One
However, since virtually no one on this board seriously believes Romney is a real improvement, how does a vote for him advance the conservative cause?
Everywhere I look on the ABO threads, I see people saying "I despise Romney, but...
At which point, it's no longer necessary to read. Any "any" except Romney is shouted down.
For example, if the conservatives in Indiana who sent Lugar packing yesterday -- and admit it, it's a move we ALL applauded -- stuck to those same principles for a conservative candidate for President, what might happen to the Republican Party?
What might happen if an unabashed conservative candidate appealed to conservative Southern Democrats who have no reason to vote for a Northeastern liberal like Romney? What might happen if the foundation of the Reagan Coalition performed one more great service to its country?
More importantly, what happens if we simply cave in to Romney and let such a man control the apparatus of a major political party? What happens if we don't try?
I respect your decision, though. We all have choices to make.
“However, since virtually no one on this board seriously believes Romney is a real improvement, how does a vote for him advance the conservative cause? “
First, that’s hyperventilating. Of course he is an improvement, in that he is much less bad than the only other current alternative.
And, it won’t advance conservatism - it will help make sure it doesn’t get bombed back into the stone age, and allow us to continue to work toward a more conservative future!
It would cease to have any meaning, but so would any other party besides the democrats, because the marxist would have four more years to complete his destruction of the United States of America.
POTUS is a traitorous bastard bent on destroying this country.
Anybody, and I mean anybody, who enables this traitorous bastard, through action or inaction, is the same.
And, it wont advance conservatism
Thank you. That's my point. A vote for Romney won't advance conservatism. In fact, it will regress the movement in terms of its most important objective, which is reclaiming the Republican Party for its base.
You’re a real charmer.
I’m voting for a conservative. Sorry.
If the shoe fits...
“A vote for Romney won’t advance conservatism.”
Col. you obviously don’t want to be dissuaded. While a vote for Romney won’t advance conservatism, it creates an environment where WE can advance conservatism. We can’t just elect a prez and then wash our hands and sit back. It is and always has been up to us. We the People.
And, at this point, a vote for a third party candidate or not voting at all, advances 0. Me - I would hate to know that I was partly responsible for a second term of 0.
It doesn’t, but you’re welcome to use that broad brush.
If we’ve come to the day where saying I will vote for a conservative equates to treason, one of us is on the wrong website. And it ain’t me.
Just like the brave Southerners did 150 years ago, glad you've come to your senses.
But, Suzy, it does no such thing. It gives control of the Republican Party to a man even more left-wing than the last nominee this site detested so much. That doesn't advance conservatism.
And, at this point, a vote for a third party candidate or not voting at all, advances 0.
And so, the argument comes full circle. Mathematically, that argument is in error and can be discounted on its face.
But to the larger question, why is it that the "anyone" ABOs talk about is ONLY Romney? You can float the name of Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling, who posts on this very website ... they are also "anyone but Obama" but people don't seem to want to talk about genuine conservative options that still remain. It's always Romney, and, yourself notably excepted, it's name-calling after that.
I've got another poster on this thread calling me treasonous. What do you think, Suzy? Am I disloyal to the United States of America for advocating a conservative on a conservative website?
I never said anything about treason, and I’m not going to go back through the thread to see who said what in what context.
I am very unhappy that Romney is our putative candidate, but am willing to accept that and move on in order to advance the cause of conservatism and Constitutionalism, AND to save us from a much worse fate than having a NE liberal Republican in the WH.
You don’t have to go far, Suzy. Less than ten posts up will do it.
Please believe me. I respect your opinion. I also respect the civility with which you pose your argument. Thank you for that.
Those two things are mutually exclusive. It's like saying you're going to save a patient who is bleeding to death by slicing open another artery.
Yeah, just as soon as he wins the election and gets that out of the way, he will impeach himself. Got's to put things in order of importance and all.
Sorry, EV, but that’s nonsense. You ignore all of the many other points, and sweep them aside for a “feel-good” expression of contempt and anger. While I may empathize, we just don’t have the luxury of doing “feel-good” this year.
No. I made a simple statement of fact. You don’t advance conservatism by supporting liberals. You don’t advance Constitutionalism by supporting those whose entire careers have been devoted to destroying every principle and purpose the Constitution is premised upon.
It’s just common sense.
The problem of course is that the net is the same, regardless of the purity of intention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.