Posted on 09/03/2014 1:53:57 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Do you live in a swing state? Do you know how the electoral college works? If no to the first and yes to the second, then why compromise.
I didn’t stay home, I voted against both and for a conservative. Not looking for a perfect candidate but would not be a hypocrite for voting for Romney.
And candidates with “R”s after their name can be just as bad (Romney was proof of that). I stand by my principles and yes I voted. I also left the GOP over Romney.
*Dons flame suit*
BRAVO!
Good for you. I applaud you.
“My only wish is the GOPe hacks would stop their incessant meddling, stop trying to control the process, pick winners and losers, and let the candidate best able to represent the rank & file win the nomination.”
If they do it again, it will likely destroy the GOP. We can only hope that something worthwhile will arise from the ashes.
I suppose I should clarify that I’d vote for Paul Ryan if the Dems run a woman like, say, Al Franken.
But losing elections was exactly what I was referring to with the Nixon comparison.
Nixon was not a very good politician either, in terms of relating to the voter in a national election. His wins in Congress aside, I also mentioned that his stint as VP where he was second fiddle on a ticket, led him to his win as president. I do not believe to this day, that he could have won the office in any other way.
So yes, he (Romney) does remind me of Nixon in so far as their election personalities and as far as their politics, they are also similar. Both are/were moderate to liberal Republicans. Nixon appealed to and took advantage of his popularity among the “hawks”. Just as Romney appealed to the neo- conservative movement. (new version of the hawks IMO)
I also voted for Nixon in his second term. First national vote I cast. I did it because I wanted continuity during the Vietnam war. Not because I am a liberal republican.
I can compare that support of Nixon, with the abuse I received here for supporting Romney. In Romney's case I was reading the tea leaves and viewed the electorate as being far too disengaged and anti-conservative. Totally back pocket voters and largely led by liberal views and women's issues. Totally unrealistic, as I saw it, and I believed Romney could negotiate through that, but he was tarred and feathered by both conservatives and liberals alike.
Today's tea leaves are not much different, except that there may be a anti-Obama factor. But that factor should have been evident in his re-election and it was not.(although everyone on out side expected it to be relevant)
Taking all that into consideration for this election, I think it's more important to run a conservative with great leadership ability and potentially lose, then it would be to run a moderate, thinking that a moderate would be more palatable to a more liberal, self interested, ignorant voter base and lose the Conservatives and the election again.
So in short, I am at the end of my rope..There is no more slack in it and it's pulled tight. I have already written off the United States of America as it was handed to me by my predecessors. I believe it is lost. I am not going to moderate that position in the face of total destruction if it comes to that and this next presidential election is going to be the equivalent of the Fat Lady sings...
So I would rather go down fighting, and fighting mad..
No compromises this time, and I believe most of us feel the same way, although we may have come to that belief using different routes.
No to Romney, no to Rove, no to National RNC..... ALL IDIOTS
Aside: people are forgetting Nixon’s ‘62 CA Gubernatorial loss that triggered his “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore” hissy fit.
Win/Loss elective office records tend to be poor indicators of good leaders. Look at how many elections Lincoln lost, for instance.
I don’t see the comparison.
I can tell you why Romney is lousy at politics, he is a pathological liar, with no center, no real identity, and it shows, people don’t trust him, and so they don’t like him, and they don’t believe him.
People don’t know why Romney wants to be a president or in politics, because they don’t see anything in him that indicates that he has any real interest in anything outside of his own isolated life.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you.
I will work like hell during the primaries to have a conservative candidate to vote for. I hope and pray that I will get to vote for a conservative candidate in the general election.
But when it comes time to vote in the general election, one of only two candidates is going to be elected, the one with the D after his/her/its name or the one with the R. If I have to, I will hold my nose and vote against the one with the D.
Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are both turning 80 in 2016. Clarence Thomas is turning 68. The next president is almost certain to replace at least one of the three. Any Democrat appointment will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
The Constitution says whatever 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices say it says. If the Democrats get to replace Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas then every 5/4 decision that we have ever won, including DC v. Heller (upholding the right keep to bear arms) and Citizens United v. FEC (upholding free speech) will be reversed.
In 1986, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to commit sodomy. In 2003, the Court reversed itself and found that a right to sodomy was in the Constitution all along. Ten years later, the Supreme Court found a constitutional right for homosexuals to marry each other.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
They could use some sane candidates on their side, as a change -- as opposed to the outright Commie American haters. I don't have a problem with Romney's character - he is just another big spending Lib -- he'd make a good Democrat.
The difference is that Nixon was a real politician with a record of winning, not that he lost two races during his long career.
He has already been a Congressman, a Senator, and a vice-President when he lost that Governor’s race.
Romney couldn’t even win reelection to his one elective victory.
Important point regarding SCOTUS nominees: there’s no requirement for all the seats to be filled. Assuming Ginsburg leaves first, a GOP Senate could sit on any replacement for her and one of Scalia, Kennedy or Thomas’ seats and there’d still be a Conservative majority. It would just be 4/3 rather than 5/4.
As governor, Romney gave the nation gay marriage, and in the courts, 75% of his appointees were not even republican, and none were conservative.
I would suggest making sure that Romney is not the candidate in 2016/
Putting myself in a politician’s shoes for just a second, (probably all I can tolerate) Romney received the nomination from the rank and file GOP largely because he was a Governor and a republican, but his governing of a very, very liberal northeastern state created numerous conflicts with positions taken in the past, as he tried politically to relate with a much more conservative political base nationally.
The libs had one heck of a party providing ammo to be used against Romney and it destroyed his election due to turnout as well as third party protest votes.
It is what it is....and it does us no good to re-plow that ground.. Romney will not likely get in the ring again, and I actually believe he is trying to use what network he has to raise money for the GOP and other candidates, just as Sarah Palin has.
The only reason I decided to post on what will become another useless bashing exercise was to try to intelligently state in a rational way that I would not be supporting any effort to put him up again. We have already seen that movie.
I have never called Romney a liar. He is a politician! That would be a doubly redundant....:-)
However, I still have reluctance to run a congressman or senator. But for this next election, I will set aside that issue and others to elect a conservative, with the fire of leadership in his/her belly.
Could. Should. Won't.
I have no faith in the backbones of most of the RINOs in the Senate. Historically, Democrats vote against conservative nominees. Republicans rubber stamp even the most far left wing liberal nominees.
Quisling.
Gee we have to play this game with you guys forever?
Romney is a hardcore, lifelong, liberal, that is why he chose Massachusetts to run in instead of Utah, which he considered, it is also why Reagan was enough to drive him from the GOP, and why Romney became a supporter of, a fund raiser for, and a voter for, democrats, it is why he ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy on the homosexual agenda and gays in the military and gay scout leaders and was more passionate than Ted on abortion, it is why he was pro-abortion since at least 1963 and fund raised for Planned Parenthood (which he lied about until a photo surfaced), and was so passionate in his pro-abortion arguments.
Romney isn’t just dishonest, he is a pathological liar, his history is full of being caught in massive embarrassments and major lies once a photo, or video, or audio tape emerges, he lies when he doesn’t need to and some lies, such as Reagan was”adamantly pro-choice” he will spread for years, he has lied about who and where he was when his religion accepted blacks to equality, he lies about his draft evading, he used to lie about he and his father having marched with Martin Luther King, he lied extensively about his illegal aliens, he lied about the conversation that he claimed converted him to life just in time to run for president, it is compulsive with him.
The only debate appears to be whether, if a moderate RINO like Romney or McCain gets the Republican nomination again in 2016, it would be better to vote against the Democrat or stay home.
My intention is to do whatever I can to get a conservative nominated, but if we get stuck with another RINO, then hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils in the general election. A lot of Freepers disagree and refuse to ever vote for another RINO.
There are rinos, and then there is Mitt Romney.
There was a reason that with all the big money and a massive organization, and even his own 50 million dollars that he put into his primary, that Romney could not even beat the no money, no organization guys, McCain and Huckabee in 2008, no one ran against Mitt because he scared off all the major players with his massive war chest, yet the little guys who are known as normal rinos, beat him.
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.