I'm painfully aware of the flaws of all the candidates this primary season, but I can't give Romney any serious consideration based on his history of flip-flopping on abortion. That's a deal-breaker for me.
At this point, Gingrich looks like our best chance of defeating Romney. I wish we had better alternatives, but the choice is between Santorum and Gingrich, and unless something happens quickly for Santorum, Gingrich will be the last alternative left to Romney.
The question for me is first, who can defeat Obama in the general election, and second, who can defeat Romney in the Republican primaries. I realize since both of us live in Missouri, it's more complicated for us (as it also is for voters in Virginia) because Gingrich didn't get on our state primary ballot — and while the Missouri nonbinding primary is coming soon, by the time the Republican caucuses get held in Missouri, the race will likely be over.
62 posted on Monday, January 23, 2012 10:55:33 PM by Charles Henrickson: “At this point I am undecided between Romney and Gingrich. There's lots that I like about Romney, and there's lots that I like about Gingrich. I cheer for both men when they say something good at a debate. I also recognize flaws in each man, I have reservations about each. I think they're pretty much on the same page on the issues. Either one would be much, much better than Obama. I'm ABO. The main question for me is which one has the better chance of defeating Obama. May the best man win.”
As I've said all along, I will support whomever is the Republican nominee, and if that's Gingrich, I will back him wholeheartedly. I have not bashed or trashed, and I will not bash or trash, Newt Gingrich.
At the same time, I will give consideration, at least, to other possible Republican nominees, as long as they are campaigning as conservatives and seem to have a chance at defeating Obama. If there are things in their past that cause me to doubt how conservative they really are, I will remain skeptical and I will need to have those doubts overcome. But I will ar least give such candidates a hearing. To give a candidate a hearing, weighing his pros and cons, and evaluating his current conservative rhetoric vs. his past less-than-conservative record--that is not the same thing as promoting or supporting that candidate.
Now, Darrell, you say that abortion is a deal-breaker for you. Same here for me. In fact, in 40 years of voting, if a candidate is pro-abort, that has always been my #1 automatic disqualifier. I have never voted for, and will never vote for, someone who is avowedly pro-abortion. I have worked against, preached against, taught against, and written against the evil of abortion for decades. I want a president who will seek to have Roe v. Wade overturned and who will nominate Supreme Court justices accordingly. It is both a constitutional and a moral issue for me.
However, if a candidate was previously pro-abortion but then "flip-flopped" over to the pro-life side, I could possibly vote for such a candidate. For example, I voted for just such a candidate in 1980 and 1984--a candidate for president who had formerly been a pro-abortion governor but who later "flipped" to the right side of the issue. Of course, if someone *says* they are now pro-life but had previously been pro-abort, I will want to hear more to convince me of the sincerity of their current position, before I could support them.
Also, Darrell, as you say, this time Missouri does not have a binding primary, so that renders our votes rather moot. I will have to wait and see who our Republican nominee is, and I will then gladly back him, because my goal is to defeat Obama.