Free Republic's Jim Robinson Makes the Turn

haakondahl.com/blog ^

[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 yesterday’s fight. The danger is not in seeming inconsistent–trust 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. Tomorrow’s 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 that–they must disengage from the previous.

[smoothsailing]

I thank you for the pimp juice.

It's OK, you earned it.

Some of us are still trying to defeat Obama.

Who here isn't?

[Colonel_Flagg]

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.

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.

[so_real]

We cannot take another four years of this Nazi Socialist assault.

All socialists share a common agenda. Quit voting for them and we won't have to endure them. For as long as people put socialists in office thinking one is some how less bad than another, we will continue to "take another four years", and "another four years", and "another four years" after that.

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.

I'll fix it for you : "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 the GOP-e felt confident that by patiently forcing their man down our throats we'd eventually roll over and vote party lines like good little republicans do." The attitude you've expressed is living right up to their expectations for us.

Go ahead, vote your conscience because we know that has worked out so well in the past.

I have a pretty solid history of voting for the lesser of two evils in general elections. Probably you do to. We all do. That hasn't worked so well for us. It's brought us down to this day with "our" candidate being a self admitted "progressive" (aka, socialist). For the sake of future generations I'm going a different route this time.

[Colonel_Flagg]

While you’re at it, do you care to have a stab at the question I posted to you here?

[wtc911]

If the shoe fits...

[muawiyah]

We are discussing two different things. THIS CONGRESS ends this year, then there is THE NEW CONGRESS which we elect in November!

So tell me, will Mourdock vote to convict a President? Would Lugar?

I think you see the difference eh!

[SuzyQue]

OK, Col., here’s my answer. Not particularly profound, but thoroughly and painfully thought out. And, there’s probably nothing that hasn’t 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 won’t 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 ain’t 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 isn’t 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 won’t matter if 0 gets in again.

[Colonel_Flagg]

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.

[stevio]

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.

[potlatch]

*

[SuzyQue]

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 ?

[devolve]

I see the MoveOn.org/Axelrod sleepers are working hard for The One

[Colonel_Flagg]

I did see it, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

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.

[SuzyQue]

“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!

[wtc911]

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?

_____________________________________________

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.

[cajungirl]

agreed.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I don't hyperventilate. I work too hard for that. Take a good long look around the board and see the relative level of support for Romney.

And, it won’t 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.

[Colonel_Flagg]

You’re a real charmer.

I’m voting for a conservative. Sorry.

[wtc911]

If the shoe fits...

[SuzyQue]

“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.