Posted on 12/13/2011 6:24:38 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
HAIL OBAMA!!!!!!
Any candidate or "news analyst" that suggests this third party crap is either a retard, or deliberately promoting a spoiler.
Doesn’t Joe try to play a conservative on some kind of TV reality show?
From that screen capture it looks like Mika has his junk in a lock box. Leave Joe. Please!
obvious that Scarborough is nothing but a rino hack being paid for by his master nazis....but Beck is another story....
we're supposed to "love" everybody now...dontcha know...just love...
let it be known that romney is not my cup of tea, but I'd vote for him over any nazi,dog faced egomanic like bamby......
If he is the nominee I will vote for him.
I think Paul is a whackjob.
If he is the nominee I will vote for him.
IOW, either a whackjob or a corporate tool of greed is better for this country than four more years of 0.
Longer answer: often in politics you find groups of people who are incredibly childish, in the sense that if they don't get their own way (i.e., what they think is the ideal, perfect candidate), they whine and stomp their feet and run away home with their ball and bat, instead of recognizing and fighting the real enemy. That is the first childish reaction. The second is to mercilessly flame those who point that out. Now watch what happens.
People are free to vote however they like. NEWT would not be my first pick for the Republican Nomination but OBAMA must be beaten!(He who must be beaten? LOL) I think NEWT will do well in the early primaries and be in the race for a while.
However I think some of the lower tier canidates still have potential....To reverse the argument.. Would you stay home if somehow RON PAUL won the Republican Nomination?? (I think he would need a strong VP with Military or foreign policy experience.....Bolton?)
Principled perhaps, but foolish and therefore ultimately unprincipled.
This is politics, not moral philosophy.
If you have the near mathematical certainty that your vote will send the common good called “THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” back into the arms of the undoubtedly MORE (most?) damaging candidate (not to mention his gang of unsavory buddies, i.e. Zars), well, how can you avoid keeping that in mind? Baby bathwater?
Never mind the fact that it would be most unprincipled of Ron Paul to run against the winner of the very same primaries he participated in. The losers should graciously step aside, congratualte the winner and offer at least symbolic support to the man chosen by the people.
I personally hope that Ron Paul does well and I have no trouble saying that - heaven forbid - Romney were to win, I’d hold my nose and vote for him.
ABO - anything but Obama.
Anyhow to vote not caring that the consequences will OBVIOUSLY deliver even worse is saying: “I believe in utopia more than reality”.
How about option C? A compromise? NOT voting at all then?
We’re being Goldwatered.
This isn’t about Gingrich. ANY candidate not named Romney would be getting the EXACT same treatment.
In 1964, when conservatives failed to fall in line and put the GOP establishment candidate on the ticket, the Rockefeller Republicans disavowed the conservative candidate (Goldwater) and worked to undermine his election.
It’s clear that Romney is their guy, and if he doesn’t get the nomination, the GOP RINO’s/old-guard will work to undermine whoever is the nominee.
This is NOT about Gingrich. This is about the GOP old-guard struggling to hold power. If they can’t pick the nominee (Romney), then they will undermine their own party (as the did in 1964) rather than let conservatives get a foothold on politocal power.
Why is it that any quasi conservative jmoke with a microphone says ‘third party’ and it’s big news?
Two dem bigs write in the WSJ that O should go, and it is never heard again?
Fantastic post. I agree.
It’s for this reason that I won’t vote for Romney.
But seeing the things Gingrich believes, I can’t vote for him either. Who knew that the republican party had so many big government people in it?(rhetorical question)
This is not about Gingrich.
ANY candidate that had a lead over Romney at this point would be getting the exact same treatment.
This is 1964 all over again.
This is a fight for control of the party aparatus. The GOP old-guard has gone all in for Romney. If another candidate (ANY candidate not named Mitt Romney) should secure the nomination it will be viewed as a blow to the GOP old-guard and a major shift in GOP power. They can’t let that happen.
Again, this is not about Gingrich.
Several weeks ago, Hannity’s radio show stopped its intro that was saying “Making Obama a one-term president”.
I think the word went out that Hussein is in for another 4 years no matter what anyone does, and many prominent right wingers are worried about their careers.
If you start from the idea that Gingrich can’t possibly beat Obama anyway, which these people are, the idea of supporting a third party challenger becomes more understandable. I agree with them that Gingrich would lose versus Obama no matter who they personally decide to endorse.
I’m not sure where I see endorsing Ron Paul is helpful, though. For every one of his positions I strongly agree with there are two others that go way too far in the wrong direction. Yes, a Ron Paul presidency would lead to a smaller government (if he could get ANY of his ideas through congress, that is) but it would also weaken us dramatically just through his role as CIC.
In 1964, when conservatives failed to fall in line and put the GOP establishment candidate on the ticket, the Rockefeller Republicans disavowed the conservative candidate (Goldwater) and worked to undermine his election.
_____________________________________________
At the 1963 GOP convention the vote was
Goldwater 800
Romney 40
George Romney stomped out of the convention hall young Willie Mitty in tow...
George helped Johnson with funds and support to beat Goldwater..
The Republican Party needs to give us an acceptable,electable candidate. I can vote for Ron Paul,but I understand that to the mainstream Republicans,he is not acceptable.
Give us an acceptable,electable candidate or don’t complain when people reject the liberals the Party puts forth as the front runners.
1963=1964
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.