Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney has given us reasons to vote against Obama, but what are his reasons to vote for him?
6/3/2012 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 06/03/2012 1:05:25 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

Is being AGAINST Obama enough reason to vote FOR Romney? (Caps for emphasis only). Obama's policies are to be loathed, but a emotional reaction that is fueling many to vote against Obama isn't enough reason to vote for Romney. Sound, cogent reasons are needed to vote FOR Romney:

Romney has repeated enough what Obama policies he is against, but has he given enough detail as to what polices he is for and spelled out line by line what exactly he will do as president and how?

1.) Romney will cut spending? Will Romney cut spending by $1.3 trillion per year - where Obama is right now above that taken in via taxes? Will Romney support any borrow and spend - ANY - or will he follow what was proposed by many Tea Partiers (among whom was Michelle Bachmann), that we should only spend what is taken in with taxes - with no borrow and spend at all? Will we continue to get the same old, same old?

2.) If Romney will end burdensome regulations that stifle business, will he couple this with a pledge that there will never be another banker bailout under his watch?

3.) He will enact Keystone XL legislation? How? Would he control all three branches all by his lonesome self? Does anyone honestly believe that Dems will be driven below 40 Senate seats, much less 43-44, if the remaining so-called "centrist" Senate Dems are ran out of office? What will Romney do when this is tied up in court for 10-20 years?

4.) Will there be no more Solyndra's under Romney's watch? But what about his support for the Massachusetts Green Energy Fund whereby when he was governor of Massachusetts tens of millions of dollars went to several "Solyndra's" that went belly up? Has he changed his spots?

5.) Will Romney keep to the Norquist pledge? If so, how could he support ANY federal subsidies going to oil companies much less "green energy" companies? The giving away of any federal handout/subsidies collectively shifts the burden to the taxpayer. Just as Stossel has reported many times, tens of billions of dollars (even hundreds) goes out in federal subsidies to a host of businesses (taking place for some time now under both Republican and Democrat administrations), thus violating the Norquist pledge.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: 2012; elections; obama; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 06/03/2012 1:05:35 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Romney has given us reasons to vote against Obama, but what are his reasons to vote for him?...

Ok, I’ll say it, “He is not Obama.”


2 posted on 06/03/2012 1:07:26 PM PDT by Hang'emAll (Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Would it be better to have more Tea Partiers elected along with Romney being elected? In this scenario, would we see fighting between Romney and the Tea Partiers over the direction of this country as we have seen with McCain and the Tea Partiers when McCain compared them to Hobbits?

Whom would the LMSM side with, Romney or the Tea Party?

Or was Reagan right that it is better to stick to basically stick to bold colors versus losing the message among pale pastels?


3 posted on 06/03/2012 1:10:06 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

I will not vote for Romney or the Kenyan bastard if a gun were put to my head.


4 posted on 06/03/2012 1:11:49 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

IOW, he is one of the two Tweedle’s, thereby making a distinction without making a difference?


5 posted on 06/03/2012 1:12:50 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
6 posted on 06/03/2012 1:13:08 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
Yes, Lassaiz is talking about the typical Romney "will do" while neglecting the "he has done" fact of Obama.
7 posted on 06/03/2012 1:13:21 PM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Is being AGAINST Obama enough reason to vote FOR Romney?

YES.

I would have been against FDR, but for him in the fight against Hitler.

8 posted on 06/03/2012 1:13:35 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

1. Obama


9 posted on 06/03/2012 1:14:33 PM PDT by John W (Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

While I certainly despise Obama’s regressive policies, I do think that you have made an apples to oranges argument there. I don’t think a comparison of Obama and Hitler can be made.

Dems comparing Bush to Hitler is no better, and gets us no further than comparing Obama to Hitler.


10 posted on 06/03/2012 1:16:04 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
There's no way in heck that I will vote for him, but in his defense he did a good job turning around the Olympics and there is evidence that he is a competent or at least successful businessman. Of course, Soros is a fairly successful businessman, too.

I can't believe I just said something positive about mitt.

11 posted on 06/03/2012 1:16:55 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (Goode or Evil, that's the choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Don’t need one. He’s not Obama. For now that has to do.


12 posted on 06/03/2012 1:17:38 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

13 posted on 06/03/2012 1:19:14 PM PDT by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer; All

But....But... Romney is following the model of “I will do this and that” if elected, while he focuses on what Obama HAS done. He does this, while not wanting us to focus on what Romney HAS Done as governor.

We need what Romney has done and will do to BOTH be focused on, just like we need to also focus on what Obama has done and what he says that he will do.

Both for both candidates...

Do you support focusing on what BOTH canadidates have done and what BOTH candidates say they will do?

I do.


14 posted on 06/03/2012 1:19:32 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Laughing loudly at your MEH poster!!!

MEH trumps foreign commie usurper though.


15 posted on 06/03/2012 1:19:44 PM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

I’ll repeat that:

“He is not obama”.


16 posted on 06/03/2012 1:19:56 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Then you will continue to get the following:

Liberal Dems (Clinton) versus RINOcrat (Bush Sr.)

Liberal Dems (Clinton) versus RINOcrat (Dole)

Liberal Dem (Obama) versus RINOcrat (McCain)

Liberal Dem (Obama) versus RINOcrat (Romney)

And next election the Dems will say “throw the bums out” followed by the GOP saying the same next time after that - all based upon emotion...Thus leading to more Liberal Dem versus RINOcrat.

Palin is right that the Establishment pretty much controls the things from top to bottom.


17 posted on 06/03/2012 1:23:49 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
I don’t think a comparison of Obama and Hitler can be made.

I didn't compare 0bama to Hitler.

Let's say FDR was running against a Rand Paul type, who vowed to get us out of WWII. FDR - whom I despise - whould have had my support to defeat an evil force. The evil of Hitler was greater than the evil of FDR's socialist agenda.

I believe Romney - lower than my last choice of any candidate - will fight to overcome the evil of 0bama.

18 posted on 06/03/2012 1:24:18 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

You have just explained two things clearly:

1) Why it is important that Mitt Romney win.
2) Why is it important that Sarah Palin win.


19 posted on 06/03/2012 1:25:48 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

Yet more of choosing between one of the two Tweedle’s...

Same old same old.

Yet another Liberal Dem versus a RINOcrat.

Fast train to socialism versus the slow train. Both headed in the same direction.

And yet we are told that we must always stay within the two party paradigm and never stray out of it and vote fore someone like Virgil Goode. Thus getting the same old same old every time.

If we keep voting for the same, we will continue to keep getting the same.


20 posted on 06/03/2012 1:28:17 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

That was just a quick photoshop job. I’ll have to come up with a better one.

As far as Romney is concerned, I don’t have any issues with those who vote for him but I don’t want to hear any crap about him being some kind of great conservative savior.


21 posted on 06/03/2012 1:28:17 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

No doubt... Romney is no conservative savior by any stretch of the imagination.

Just my two cents, even though this post wasn’t directed to me.


22 posted on 06/03/2012 1:29:42 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll

“Ok, I’ll say it, “He is not Obama.””

What else can we say?

If the past 4 years of Obama were as bad as we said, then you have only the option of replacing him.

If you got to defeat Hitler, you are going to have to make Stalin your BFF.


23 posted on 06/03/2012 1:29:42 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (If case you are wondering, I'm STILL supporting Newt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Ok.

Problem is, is that Romney is one of the two Tweedle’s.

90% bad versus 100% bad.


24 posted on 06/03/2012 1:31:51 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer); Laissez-faire capitalist; All
I will not vote for Romney or the Kenyan bastard if a gun were put to my head.

The way I see it, we have three options: vote for arsenic (Obama), vote for cyanide because it's not arsenic (ABO Romney vote), or vote to dilute whichever poison wins.

LF Capitalist asks: Would it be better to have more Tea Partiers elected along with Romney being elected? In this scenario, would we see fighting between Romney and the Tea Partiers ....?

If Romney lost because 25% voted third party, enough to give it to Obama on a 38% plurality, where a full 62% of Americans voted AGAINST him (and effectively 63% voted AGAINST Romney), conservatives will have have won a MAJOR victory.

If Romney wins, WORSE if he wins with a majority, he, the GOP elite, and Republican moderates (not to mention the liberal MSM) would dominate, saying, "Moderate won with a mandate! Sit down and shut up, conservatives -- we're the only reason the Republican party even has the White House." A liberal Republican president, the defacto head of the Republican party, especially one with a demonstrable record of playing political HARDBALL, would bulldoze conservatives, and Democrats would look noble "reaching across the aisl" to enact "bipartisan" leglislation advancing cap-and-trade environmental regulation on energy and food production, the homosexual agenda, government-run health care, and on-demand abortion, all things Romney ADVANCED while Governor.

When supreme court nominations came up and Romney proceeded to nominate a liberal activist judge of the type he appointed about 75% of the time in Massachusetts, and we saw our embattled conservatives in Congress frustratingly mute ... we'd be seeing a form of hardball in action. Romney is organized and financed.

I'm washing my hands of deciding whether arsenic or cyanide is better -- the vote I cast will be NEUTRAL as to that outcome, but it WILL be active in helping make it so whichever poison wins, is as diluted and weakened as possible.

25 posted on 06/03/2012 1:36:48 PM PDT by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent * By the way, Ted, voting for Romney is voting stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Reasons to vote for Romney: He's not Obama.
Reasons to vote for Obama: He's not Romney.

26 posted on 06/03/2012 1:39:46 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Romney will say whatever he thinks is appropriate for his audience at a given moment.

But hey, at least he likes grits.


27 posted on 06/03/2012 1:41:43 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

LOL. Abdul Alhazred for veep?


28 posted on 06/03/2012 1:42:21 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Ahb, so that Obama won’t be relected? So that Paul won’t be nominated?


29 posted on 06/03/2012 1:48:00 PM PDT by righttackle44 (I may not be much, but I raised a United States Marine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

4 reasons:

Supreme court justice Janet Napalitano
Supreme court justice Eric Holder
Supreme court justice Kathleen Sebelius


30 posted on 06/03/2012 1:49:14 PM PDT by BO Stinkss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Problem is, is that Romney is one of the two Tweedle’s.

Agreed. But at least Mittens is an American. He believes in American values. He (mostly) believes in capitalism.

0bama is actively working to destroy America. In 0bama's own words, "fundamentally change" America.

I believe(hope) Mittens can learn conservative values. But even if I'm wrong, the trainwreck will be slowed, and give us time replace all the RINOs. It is already happening.

31 posted on 06/03/2012 1:50:07 PM PDT by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
"Romney has given us reasons to vote against Obama...."

He's done no such thing.
Obama has given us reasons to not vote for Obama.

32 posted on 06/03/2012 1:53:45 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Is being AGAINST Obama enough reason to vote FOR Romney?

Yes.

General elections are a choice between viable candidates, not an affirmative endorsement of any particular politician.

We KNOW Obama will continue to be a terrible president - and one unshackled from having to run for re-election. Romney MIGHT be a bad president, but even if he does nothing at all during his entire term it would be better than 4 more years of Hussein.

33 posted on 06/03/2012 1:54:42 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Bambi:

1. Hates America. Check
2. Hates free enterprise. Check
3. Loves extremely stupid ideas. Check.
4. The dumbest president ever. Check.
5. The first gay endorsing president. Check.
6. The most job destroying president ever. Check
6. The most pro-muzzie president ever. Check.
7. The most pro-choice pro-culture of death president ever. Check
8. The most divisive president ever. Check
9. The biggest spending president ever. Check.
10. The most wealth devaluating president ever. Check.
11. The most incompetent president ever. Check.
12. The most unqualified president ever. Check.

And above all, let's make sure we don't vote for Romney...........:-)

34 posted on 06/03/2012 1:54:53 PM PDT by Lakeshark (NbIttoalbl,cRwIdtaa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Obama is more than enough reason to vote for Romney. I would much rather have Romney working with a Republican Congress than Obama. No matter which way this economy swings, Romney will do a better job than Obama is capable of doing. I think Romney will tear down Obama’s restrictions and barriers to drilling, to the pipeline, and he will stop squandering money on solar panel and windmill companies that go belly up when the tax dollars are all wasted. I think Romney will be better for defense. He might leave us with a nuclear deterrent, as opposed to Obama’s determination to disarm us. A Romney Attorney General will be better than Holder. Romney knows how to run things, and he won’t need a bunch of extra constitutional czars to run things for him. There might be a little truth in Romney’s conservative conversion, not enough to make conservatives feel all warm and fuzzy about him, but he won’t make Matthews’ leg tingle. ...The left believed they had turned the corner with Obama, and the direction they are going is not one America has gone before. Romney isn’t my first, second, third or any choice I would have made, if there were better choices to make, but there isn’t now, not even close. I can take my toys and go home, or go play where they won’t matter, or I can tough it out, knowing there is plenty of opportunity for the Tea Party to influence the Republican Party, and to continue turning things around. I wish we could have done it with the presidency this time around, but I also know it won’t be done at all, if Obama has another four years. That brings up another reason for voting for Romney, and that is Janet Napolitano. Remember the memo about right wing terrorists? It wasn’t a joke. It was the direction the left would love to take this country psychologically and institutionally. Romney won’t do that, and his pick for Janet’s position will maybe help turn some of that around. I don’t know who Romney’s Secretary of State will be, but whomever it is, he or she will be better than Hillary. Romney isn’t part of the Chicago criminal organization, and he will have better people around him than Obama has. When the Black Panthers put a bounty out on someone’s head, some Black Panthers will be prosecuted. Romney won’t be getting on TV to tell us some hip hop, gang bang wannabe, doper, street fighter is the kind of son he would want. Romney may be gay friendly, but he isn’t gay, and he may yet come to deeper understanding of how values work in culture, unlike being a dimwit like Hillary, telling us Democracy will bring Western values to Islam. Ann Romney will be a much better, less meddling, less expensive First Lady than Michelle, and she doesn’t look like a mean dyke. I don’t know what kind of president Romney will be, but I am certain the nation he leaves us with four years from now, or eight years from now will be better than what Obama will deliver to us.


35 posted on 06/03/2012 2:00:52 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

As much as I’m not thrilled with Romney, another obama presidency will destroy America. We can not allow that, hold your nose and vote for Romney if that’s what it takes.


36 posted on 06/03/2012 2:02:36 PM PDT by Lucky2 ( 0BAMA MUST GO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Its nice to talk about cutting taxes at the top but those top earners just invest elsewhere. (Not that I blame them) We need to cut taxes from top to bottom. We need tax and regulation elimination that will really spur on small business creation and self employment.

Along with the cuts we need serious spending cuts of virtually all nonessential services and projects. Stop skimming some 30% off highway funds to support public transportation and bike paths. We need to stop spending social security on other things and start weaning the new workers out of that system.

College should be for the fortunate few who can pay for it without help and those who get good enough grades to get corporate and philanthropist funded scholarships. We need diggers, drillers, drivers a builders. We need apprenticeships and trade schools.

I just don’t see Mitt Romney doing any heavy lifting. Instead I see him moving debt around.


37 posted on 06/03/2012 2:02:45 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

If Romney wants a second term, he will have to do drastic measures to get spending under control, and be willing to deal with riots from the people who get cut off.


38 posted on 06/03/2012 2:04:47 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can't be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

By the time of the election Romney will have a large portion of the democrat vote. Obama will have to seize it if he wants to keep it.


39 posted on 06/03/2012 2:05:39 PM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

What you say is true, but we need to get a candidate to win a primary, first. Waiting till the election and and writing someone in or not voting helps defeat our cause, pure and simple. We did not put a candidate up that could win the primary. Perry was our most conservative, and with the help of the “no one is good enough” people plus the media, he was put aside pretty quickly.
IMHO, Romney getting elected may put the conservative movement at a standstill for 4 years. Obama getting re-elected and retaining those in his administration for 4 more years will set the conservative movement back all the way to the stone age.


40 posted on 06/03/2012 2:13:47 PM PDT by Quickgun (Second Amendment. The only one you can put your hands on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BO Stinkss
Supreme court justice Janet Napalitano
Supreme court justice Eric Holder
Supreme court justice Kathleen Sebelius

Like a 2x4 blow to the forehead, I find your argument very persuasive.

41 posted on 06/03/2012 2:17:59 PM PDT by katana (Just my opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

So, can we compare Obama to Harvey Firestein?


42 posted on 06/03/2012 2:41:43 PM PDT by MuttTheHoople (Democrats- Forgetting 9/11 since 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
If the past 4 years of Obama were as bad as we said, then you have only the option of replacing him.

If you got to defeat Hitler, you are going to have to make Stalin your BFF.


In the U.S. political system, there is the Democrat candidate, the Republican candidate, and a whole bunch of other candidates such as the Temperance Party, the Communist Party, etc. The only one of these who is going to win is either of the first two. The extent that "conservatives" withhold their vote from the flawed Republican candidate is the extent to which they enable the Democrat candidate to require fewer votes to win.

Or as I put it earlier here:
"Don’t Get Suckered into Supporting the Republican Party" is exactly what folks like George Soros are saying. You can bet some of the biggest supporters (probably even financially if you could dig deep enough) of conservative third parties are liberal Democrats and other leftists who have taken over the Democrat Party and are busily at work to do the same to the Republican Party. They know that dividing the vote amongst a variety of "Hey, I'm more conservative than you cause I didn't vote for any Republican" nitwits is one their most effective ways to destroy their opposition and to solidify a political hegemony.

Over the past thirty years they have taken control of one of the two largest political parties in a country where winner takes all in elections and are busily working to fracture the only opposition they have by encouraging conservatives to leave the Republican Party in the hands of RINOS rather than working to take over the party apparatus as they, the Leftists, have taken over the Democrat Party. For those who say, "Well, I'm a proud member of the Constitution Party or the Declaration Party or the Conservative Party or the Southern Principled Conservative Party of Holy Ghost Fire on the Mountain Pre-Rapture Remnant of the Real Thing Party and someday we'll be big enough to replace the Republican Party, just like the Temperance Party or the Bull Moose Party did."

Doofuses: we don't live in a parliamentary system where representation is divided proportionally between the losers!

It's winner take all, baby, and the sooner you realize that and stop wasting time fighting like cats and Baptists to multiply the number of me-so-conservative parties the sooner you'll have turned back the liberal encroachment on the existing, main opposition party to their main vehicle for political power, the Democrat Party, instead of complimenting yourself on just how wonderfully more conservative your loser party is going to be than the one you deliberately abandoned to leftist takeover.
"Hey, I don't like these liberal bumper stickers on this fully functioning vehicle or the places its driver is taking us, right? So, I've got this great plan to deal with that, 'kay? Instead of tossing the driver out on his butt and getting some more appropriate body detailing and then driving it wherever we want to go, we're going to get out at the next corner, wag our fingers really hard at the driver as he speeds off, and then from scratch build our own new most perfectly conservative vehicle and, someday, maybe, enter that into the race! And won't that glorious day be, oh, so grand?"
And you think Jesus (or anyone else) is going to say, "Well done, good and faithful servant for refusing to take back the existing opposition party and, instead, throwing your vote to something that couldn't possibly defeat a known enemy because you thought being considered a more nearly "true" conservative party than any other was more important than actually conserving and preserving the Republic against an ongoing enemy onslaught"?

Dream on.

43 posted on 06/03/2012 2:49:11 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
Romney will BS everyone just as Obama is doing, we'll have
to elect him to see what he will do, first.
44 posted on 06/03/2012 2:52:08 PM PDT by MaxMax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
I will not vote for Romney or the Kenyan bastard if a gun were put to my head.

Then thanks in advance for providing Obama with one less vote he needs to overcome to win. See my previous post right above as to why this is.
45 posted on 06/03/2012 2:53:43 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pallis

I can go with you for much of what you said. However, somethings stick in my memory. One is that no matter how he and others spin it Romney-care was/is a pattern for Obama-care which certainly needs to be over with. Also ,if my recall is accurate, Romney’s father on returning to the USA from Mexico and becoming head American Motors rubbed elbows with the Alinsky gang in Chicago. That was the same crowd that Bill Ayres’ father who was CEO of Con Edison was cozy with. If Mitt would come out against the Chicago cabal of Ayres, Dornan, Alinsky, Axelrod. Jarret, etc. it would go a long way towards easing my feelings Mitt is not soft with the Chicago style of governance. And if Mitt would take West as his running mate I could veer towards believing he truly wanted an undoubtedly true NBC with capability to be a POTUSA. I recall that Truman was an Army captain and West was a Lt. Col. so West should be able to handle the CiC position.


46 posted on 06/03/2012 4:20:25 PM PDT by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I would certainly have no problem with Allen West as VP or President. West is still a young fellow, and has many years of excellence to bring to the table. Whomever Romney picks, he or she will be better than Biden. The only person who could be worse than Biden would be Biden.


47 posted on 06/03/2012 4:54:26 PM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
...but what are his reasons to vote for him?

Regardless of his lack of conservative bonafides, and it may be unfortunate, but Romney remains the leading alternative to Obama.

If there is another candidate, scheme, plot, or miracle that can take the lead from Romney, somebody/anybody please come out and state it or make your case as to how Romney can be bested at this point and Obama unseated. You need to come up with someone that conservatives, republicans, moderates, independants and some right-leaning dems will vote for instead of Romney. Like it or not, conservatives aren't the only folks who vote. We remain outnumbered by all the other demographics who also register as "Republican".

For this election, it appears the choice has been made (barring any unforseen miracles - and I'll take any) and we have to play the hand we've been dealt as best we can. So, why not begin an immediate call to primary Romney? We have four years to get our act together.

We all need to choose: lead, follow or get out of the way.

48 posted on 06/03/2012 5:25:38 PM PDT by jaydee770
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jaydee770

Milt is a backstabbing cheating poser.

Milt has UNDER 700 delegates at this point.

Milt CANNOT win, and was PLACED in this position
by the MSM, the GOPe, RNME, and the DNC.
Can you quess why?


49 posted on 06/04/2012 3:56:26 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

If each, Obama and Romney, get only their solid base then Goode would win with 40%.


50 posted on 06/04/2012 6:00:58 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson