Gang?
There's just TWO of us!
Posted on 05/22/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by xzins
Listen to interview at:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/a-goode-plan-to-save-american-jobs/?cat_orig=money
As President Obama and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney remain locked in a virtual dead heat, is there any room for a third party to make a statement or even be competitive in 2012?
That’s the hope of the Constitution Party and its nominee, Virgil Goode.
Goode says Obama’s spending is completely out of control but Republican proposals are also not good enough because he says the budget needs to be balanced now and not in a few years or a couple of generations from now.
“I would submit a balanced budget if elected president, and it would be painful,” Goode told WND.
He expects a fierce fight with Congress about cutting spending, but his plan would not focus on entitlement reforms. Instead, Goode envisions big cuts in discretionary spending – both in the defense and domestic portions of the budget. When it comes to jobs, Goode’s top priorities are to end illegal immigration and nearly put a stop to legal immigration in order to prevent foreign workers from competing with Americans for the job opportunities that exist.
“We’ve got to focus on discretionary spending, social-services programs. For instance, I’ll make sure illegals and recent immigrants don’t get food stamps,” said Goode.
Goode says he would also seek to repeal Obama administration regulations that he says are stifling job creation. He would start with the Obama health care-laws which Goode considers the most repressive to job creators. The former congressman says he is not a spoiler in the race but is a much needed voice on fiscal responsibility, ending government programs for illegal immigrants and other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
There was no vitriol or ad homien to respond to from me, grey. An observation and a question regarding it are not an accusation, whereas the other were clearly directed at myself, betty and ag.
There’s no reason to go on about the top of the ticket between us. We disagree for reasons cited ad nausium.
I’ll also work to ensure the best outcome on the races in the House, Senate, the States and local elections. I believe we all agree on that in any case.
Couldn’t be better. We all got the “Happy Birthday” song sung to us Sunday morning at church and it was announced that the adoption was final and there would be cake and ice cream after church Sunday night in honor of our new children. Attendance Sunday night was twice the normal attendance.
Our kids have been attending our church since the day we got them 4 years ago and they are well loved by all. Saved by His grace and baptized into the church and learning about the Lord.
Praise God for all His many blessings.
Alveda King did misspeak, she is pro life and I believe conservative. Even conservatives can err if they are not careful.
Thanks for at least trying to address these questions.
Frankly I’m surprised NOT to see a reference to Massachusetts in “supported gay marriage.” That’s the only place I see Mitt speaking directly to the issue, and one could argue he was just emphatically bowing down before the Massachusetts screams. DADT doesn’t clearly bear on “gay marriage” and most knuckle dragging conservatives recognize that full open gayness is just asking for big trouble in relationships between troops.
Why do I smell misrepresentation here...?
Another new phrase of the week: He-Man Mitt-Haters Club
Why are you imputing "tribal loyalty" to the GOP on my part, from which I resigned two years ago out of sheer disgust — because of the mounting equivocations of said party with regard to fundamental constitutional and conservative questions?
He's probably imputing it to you because of the fact that, despite your professed concern for fundamental constitutional and conservative questions, you are supporting a candidate who is fundamentally not conservative and for whom we have no evidence that he supports the constitution, but much to suggest that he doesn't. Sorry, BB, but the fact remains that you can assert Romney's upright conservative charactre all you like, but it nevertheless is not so. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and it is so in this case. It's your assertions versus Romney's record for nearly the past two decades. Guess which one I'm going to believe as a truer and more accurate picture of the man?
I am a registered voter in Massachusetts of "unenrolled" status. Meaning, I have no political party affiliation at all nowadays; I am politically an independent voter. Meaning: I do not carry water for the GOP; indeed, I have serious concerns about that party's evolution in recent times. (E.g., the "Big Tent" scenario, which requires the party to trash its own historical base.)
This is doublemindedness. You say you don't carry water for the GOP, yet you are in the process of doing so on this very thread. You decry the GOP's tendency to destroy its own base through a Big Tent approach, yet this is what you are tacitly supporting at the exact same time.
Face it - you and others who think that conservatives, or perhaps conservatives in Congress, are going to "keep Romney honest" or "hold Romney's feet to the fire" are simply dreaming. You will not. You CANNOT. You know why? Because Romney didn't win with conservative votes. He won because conservatives would not unite behind one conservative candidate and beat him. He owes you nothing. You have no leverage on him. He has absolutely no reason to care a whit what you, I, or anyone else on Free Republic thinks about anything.
As far as conservatives in Congress are concerned, exactly what evidence have we seen to date that they will oppose a President from their own Party to oppose more spendinging and bigger government? I'll answer it for you - NONE. You really think congressional Republicans are going to unite to embarrass their own Party's President the next time Romney wants a new social program or spending bill loaded down with anti-constitutional garbage? Of course they won't. There won't be any holding of his feet to the fire. They won't keep him honest. They'll go along with whatever he proposes.
From my view as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, any characterization of Mitt Romney as "a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal" does not comport with my understanding and experience of his tenure as governor of my state. I am frankly puzzled that such a rumor ever got "legs" to walk around on to begin with, such that you believe it.
Judging from what I have seen, this guy is no "progressive liberal." Where folks outside the state may deem him as such (for whatever peculiar reasons of their own), such a representation evinces profound ignorance about the "preferred method" of conducting the "official" State's business — given that Massachusetts is a machine-run state, much like Illinois, and California....
Well, one could begin with the fact that he was even able to get elected as a Republican in Massachusetts at all. How could that happen, except he be pretty far to the Left of where most Republicans are? did it not occur to you that perhaps Romney is part of this same machine, and that's how he could get elected?
There could also be things like Romney's consistent support of various aspects of the radical gay agenda.
Or Romney's close working relationship with Ted Kennedy, who personally used his influence to help Romney shepherd RomneyCare through the Mass legislature.
Or the fact that he even went along with socialising medicine on Mass to begin with. He could have opposed it, issued a principled veto, even if he knew it would be overturned.
There could also be the fact that he DID raise taxes and fees while he was the Governour.
We could even look at a telling comment Romney made in response to Gingrich in one of the debates, about taxes,
"The reason for giving a tax break to middle-income Americans is that middle-income Americans have been the people who have been most hurt by the Obama economy. … Median income in America has declined by 10 percent during the Obama years. People are having a hard time making ends meet. And so if I'm going to use precious dollars to reduce taxes, I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that's the middle class. I'm not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine. The very poor have a safety net, they're taken care of. But the people in the middle, the hard-working Americans, are the people who need a break, and that is why I focused my tax cut right there." Sorry, BB, but that statement indicates a progressive mindset. Tax cuts are "spending" dollars on the middle class. Nevermind that the money belongs to the middle class and is taken by force from them by the government. Mitt thinks that letting people keep more of their money is "spending precious dollars," presumably that could be better spent elsewhere, such as socialising other sectors of the economy, one supposes.
Like it or not - there are MEGATONS of reasons to think Mitt Romney is a leftist. And this is true, regardless of what your particular judgment of him may be. These also do not go away simply because you are a resident of MA and can "vouch" for him. The rest of us can read, after all.
Let's go through your list:
I found your responses to the original poster (forgot who it was at the moment) to be questionable because while technically correct, they are so only because the OP was repeating a highly-distilled, bumper-sticker list of slogans. While your rebuttals were in and of themselves largely correct, they were so in a way that ultimately ends up being meaningless because while the rebuttals may have corrected certain specific allegations, they nevertheless failed to address the larger issues which Romney is, indeed, terrible on them.
"1. [Romney] Implemented Gay Marriage."
Romney did no such thing. The Supreme Judicial Court — that is, the State Supreme Court — did that, and unilaterally.
.....
In short, gay marriage in Massachusetts was not the act of the governor, or the legislature; it was a judicial decision — a decision of an unelected and unaccountable body "made law" by extra-constitutional means. (And I daresay without any serious reflection on the permissible mandates of the Massachusetts Constitution, which John Adams wrote.)
Romney could not veto an act of the state supreme court, not like he could veto an act of the state legislature. The governor's powers do not constitutionally reach that far.
While the bare fact of the court imposing gay marriage is true, Romney nevertheless implemented the ruling without really fighting it, even ordering county clerks to start issuing "marriage" licenses to gay couples without prompting from the legislature or the court. While there were a number of entirely legal and legitimate options he could have exercised to hinder the implementation of gay marriage, he refused to use any of them.
Further, while he may not have been responsible for gay marriage in MA, the sum total of Romney's record is one that is very friendly to the gay agenda. In 2003, he supported "Vermont style civil unions," and had a long history of supporting domestic partnership benefits for gays. In 1994, he openly supported gays serving openly in the military in a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, and elsewhere supported don't ask/don't tell on the premise that it was a first step toward openly-serving gays. He also supported hate crimes legislation (itself a progressive, leftist concept) in 2002 and 2007 that would make homosexuals a protected class. He supported Barney Frank's Employment Non-Discrimination Act in 1994 which would make homosexuals a protected employment class. Of course, let's not forget his support just last month for gay adoption. All in all, his record is one of advancing the gay agenda.
2. [Romney] Supported Abortion
To this point, all I ask is for a direct quote from Romney in substantiation of your claim that he actively supports abortion. One that goes to the merits of the argument, not a statement in which he attempts to differentiate himself from any other person's claim in the matter (e.g., Teddy Kennedy's —who is probably roasting in Hell right about now....)
Well, in 2002 when he was running for gov., he said that he would "preserve and protect" a woman's "right to choose." Of course, as you mentioned, in 1994 he managed somehow to campaign to the left of Ted Kennedy on the issue, listing a relative's death from an illegal abortion as one of his reasons for wanting it to be "safe and legal." Further, it wasn't during the 1994 Senate race that he came out as pro-abortion. In 1993, he still said that women should be able to choose abortion, and he advocated for the morning after pill (i.e. chemical abortion). In 2002, he endorsed the legalisation of RU-486. Even as late as 2007, he still took the "legal but rare" position, stating that he was pro-life personally, but still thinks it ought to be legal. In Dec. 2006 he said that while he personally opposes Roe v. Wade, he wouldn't tamper with abortion law. In October 2005, he signed a bill that included expanded counseling for abortion, as well as increased access to the morning-after pill (abortiofacient), and in December of the same year, he reversed his previous position, and ordered his administration to start requiring Catholic hospitals to provide emergency abortiofacients to rape victims.
So yeah, he does have a history of supporting abortion, and not just in 1994. His position seems to be fairly close to Bill Clinton's - personally opposed, but doesn't have the fortitude to actually do anything about it.
And yes, I am aware of his recent "conversion" to pro-life. I am suspicious of it. Unlike Ronald Reagan's, which came at a time when support for abortion was astronomical in this country (polls back them had Roe v. Wade supported by greater than 65% of the country in some cases) and therefore converting to pro-life was politically disadvantageous, Romney's conversion appears to coincide with his decision to run for the GOP nomination, starting around the middle of 2007.
Let's face it, whatever else Romney may be, he is politically astute enough to realise that even if you are a flaming leftist, you can't actually run as one in the GOP primaries and expect to win. He could see the example of Rudy Giuliani, after all.
3. [Romney] Nominated 27 out of 36 extreme left-wing Progressive Liberal judges
I've mentioned this in the past, a couple of times by now. But I'll go another round with you on this question (evidently you didn't credit my last two posts on this subject). That fact is, the political machine in Massachusetts knows that it conducts its business with far greater felicity under a weak executive. The fact is, the governor of Massachusetts cannot make any direct appointment to any court in the Commonwealth. That is, he cannot nominate his own choice of candidates. Nominees for all judicial vacancies are selected by an unelected "governor's council." The governor is restricted to the choices advanced by this (unelected and thus unaccountable) body. Which puts the governor — if he is at all politically "conservative" — in the position of selecting the least worst candidates for the bench.
I've pointed out before that this argument for Romney isn't as strong as it appears superficially. While it is true that he was constrained to the choices that the Governour's Council presented him with, he nevertheless didn't typically choose the "least worst" candidates. He more often than not chose the most gay-agenda friendly candidates among the choices available, which fits well with his pattern as Governour and before of being rather "gay friendly."
4. [Romney] Implemented an “Assualt” Weapons ban.
This is news to me. Of course, in Massachusetts, an "assault weapon" is any "scary looking" firearm, including child's toys. All firearms are "scary" to your average person living in Massachusetts — particularly among some of my dear women friends....
Well, Romney being in favour of gun control may be news to you, but it's not news to a lot of us on here.
In 1994, when he was running for the Senate, he stated that he would support the assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill, which were both making their way through that body around that time. Even as late as 2008, he was reiterating support for an assault weapons ban. In 2002, he promised not to "chip away" at Massachusetts' tough gun laws. Also in 1994, he backed the five-day waiting period on gun sales.
Indeed, in 2004, Romney signed a permanent assault weapons ban that was modelled off the 1994 law he supported. His administration also quadrupled gun licensing fees.
All in all, he displays tendencies on 2nd amendment issues that ought to be...bothersome...to conservatives, to say the least.
This issue is one where his tendency toward lying becomes especially prevalent. For instance, he once claimed in jan. 2006 to be a gunowner, only to admit two days later that the gun actually belonged to one of his sons. He also claimed to be a member of the NRA, sort of insinuating that this was sometime he'd been for a long time, only later for it to be revealed that he only joined in August 2006 - right before launching his presidential campaign. And then there's his ever-shifting status as a hunter - he claims to be a lifelong hunter in front of gun owners, only to later admit that he'd only been hunting twice, and then still later than he'd actually only "varmint hunted" a couple of times. Clearly, he feels he has to establish credibility with voters on this issue, and so makes up stories about himself on this.
5. [Romney] Implemented Socialized Medicine with a $50 Abortion
So you are saying that Romney is the "Machiavelli" who engineered and single-handedly passed "Romneycare?" This does not compute. The legislature was agitating to "do something" BIG. Probably the only reason what they effected wasn't worse than it was, was because of fear of Romney's veto on points.
The fact is, Republican governors in Massachusetts in recent times — I'm including Bill Weld here — simply do not have the power to override the ideological supremacy and resources of Progressive Left ideology.
This argument would be stronger if it weren't for the fact that Romney is still proud of his "accomplishment" with RomneyCare - even if you don't want to give him credit for it, he seems to think he deserves some.
It's little real comfort that one of the biggest differences that people can think of between Obama and Romney is that Romney thinks that states, rather than the federal government, ought to be able to mandate people to buy health insurance. Sorry, but a statist hiding behind the 10th amendment is still a statist.
Further, despite your assertion that there really wasn't much Romney could do either way about MassCare and its components, the fact of the matter is that he could easily have used his line-item veto to end the $50 abortion copay - but did not. He DID use the line-item veto to strike eight sections of that bill, including a provision expanding dental benefits for Medicaid recipients. He did NOT use it to strike provisions for the $50 abortion copay, or another one that guaranteed Planned Parenthood a place on the MassCare payment policy advisory board.
6. [Romney] Raised taxes/fees by $700 million.
This is news to me. He cut marginal income tax rates. He raised certain fees — but the sort of fees that were optional for any citizen to bear. The income tax, of course, is never "optional."
I cannot find any evidence that he actually cut marginal tax rates. However, he did push for increases in fees amounting to over $700 million, according to the Club for Growth (guess they're just anti-Mormon shills, hunh?), as well as his attempt to close "tax loopholes" that would have resulted in a de facto tax increase of over $360 million as well (this was later reduced to a mere $85 million because of the shrieks of business leaders in the state).
Romney also raised fees on gun licenses, first responder services, and real estate transactions among other things. He also proposed (but thankfully backed away from) an internet tourism tax. When he was campaigning for governour, he also proposed an "SUV tax" - an excise tax on vehicles with low gas mileage, which touches on both social engineering AND radical environmentalism. In fact, the state and local tax burder increased by ~7% during his term. Under Romney's watch, state spending increased 24%, and despite his claims to having balanced the budget, he actually left his successor with a $1 billion budget deficit.
Let's not forget his very recent (within the past couple of months) vocal support for continuing the current progressive taxation scheme that penalises higher-end income earners. This couples with his long-standing and non-trivial opposition to the flat tax, something that dates all the way back to 1996 when Steve Forbes was advocating for it, against which Romney was actually taking out media ads in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Iowa with his own money to oppose it.
Even Romney's 10-point plan in 2009, while having some pro-growth elements in it, only called for temporary tax cuts, rather than systematic or permanent ones.
7. [Romney] Implemented a Carbon Cap and Trade system He did??? WOW. That's really news to me. Kindly fill me in on these details, which I seem to have missed somehow.
He didn't. But he IS on the record repeatedly calling for CO2 reduction, and as saying that humans are at least partially responsible for climate change, saying as late as Nov. 2011 that humans contribute to warming the earth. It WAS also on his watch (2004) that Massachusetts instituted a new state policy designed to "combat global warming." In 2008, he also did say that if we were going to deal with manmade climate change, then it would have to be done globally through a cap-and-trade program or a BTU tax. In 2007, Romney refused to rule out support for a carbon tax or carbon caps. Add these position together, and do you have what should be a troublesome set of positions from the man for anyone who cares about our sovereignty and long-term economic growth.
In short, I just get the feeling that "you guys" are making up "stuff" as you go along.
Hate to break this to you, BB, but we're not just "making stuff up." I've only listed some of what could be said about Romney's record, cutting it back only to limit the length of this post.
To reach the point you want to make, but won't confess to: You deplore Romney's theology, and just can't get passed that, no, not even to save your own life, and the lives of your progeny.... And that is the long and the short of the present question....
I can't speak for anyone else, but personally, I have never once given Romney's religion as a reason I don't support him - and I would challenge you to find where I have, if it's such a big deal for you. I don't care what his cultus is - I care about his record. And it's a mighty bad one, whether you want to face up to that or not.
You Romney supporters are always trying to make the argument that "Sure, Romney's not perfect." You're right about that. But the problem isn't that he's not perfect. The problem is that he's a terrible, terrible Republican candidate. It's not that he's only with me 80% - he's only with me maybe 10%, and that's not enough to get me to support him. Honestly, I'm not even really looking for a super hard-core Constitution Party type candidate - I would take a mainstream movement conservative, even an imperfect one with whom I didn't always see eye to eye. But the GOP candidate is not anywhere near that. He's not a conservative at all. He's just not.
That's why I can't support him, and WON'T. Despite you all's best efforts at playing up the edges, the fact remains that as far as fundamental philosophy and worldview and ideology are concerned, Romney is as "progressive" as Obama.
Look, if we're really serious about returning this country to where it ought to be, then it comes time to draw a line and say "No more." Romney is that line. By nature, I am an incrementalist. I know that we're not going to elect somebody who's going to set all the bad things aright in a single term in office. I know that even if we got headed back in the right direction, we may not get to where we ought to be in my lifetime.
But we have to start heading back. And we won't do that with Romney any more than Obama. With Romney, the best we can hope for is to go over the cliff at 80 mph instead of 100. That's not helpful. That does nothing to help America. That does nothing to restore the Republic. Voting for Romney is NOT good for America - it hurts America almost or as much as voting for Obama. We will never even begin to see things start to turn around if we keep surrendering and voting for the next RINO that the GOP parades out ever four years. Eventually, there comes a time where you just have to bite the bullet and replace the existing structure (in this case, the GOP) with one more conducive to our aims - even if it means losing an election in the short term. It's time to stop letting short term fear drive our thinking. It's time to start thinking about a longer term strategy of replace and restore.
Gang?
There's just TWO of us!
Decisions, decisions!
Do I vote for a BLACK, to ‘prove’ I’m not a Racist;
or,
do I vote for a MORMON, to ‘prove’ I’m not a Bigot?
Poor, deluded man...
Don't you know restoring the republic will be Child's Play; compared to the work we did restoring CHRISTIANITY!
--MormonDude(Although I am STILL looking for the FULLNESS of the gospel that is supposed to be found in the Book of MORMON.)
">
Yup!
Just like it's SHOWN at #152.
I am a Pennsylvania resident. Thanks for allowing me to vote who I want....how nice of you. roll eyes.
bttt
If you'll recall, I said "effectively," there are only two choices. By that, I meant only two choices who have a chance of winning the election.
And once again, FWIW, my assessment of Romney is that he is right-of-center in his political philosophy, a thoroughgoing champion of American-style capitalism, and thus not a "democrat socialist" nor a state/corporatist capitalist (a la Benito Mussolini).
Neither is Obama, in my judgment, a "democrat socialist." He is a radical left Progressive cum anarchist.
And that is your "effective" choice.
To me, a vote for any third-party candidate this year — e.g., Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling — is a feel-good vanity vote, and nothing more.
It will only help the worst president in U.S. history to win four more years in office. And he will continue to apply the wrecking ball to America, her great institutions, and the Constitution itself. He is a student of Saul Alinsky. He will continue to divide our society along racial, ethnic, class, and sexual orientation lines. And then when social chaos and mayhem finally ensue, he will order police force against the American people "to restore order."
If this sort of thing doesn't bother you, what more can I say?
Sorry. I fear an electorate with no principles left infinitely more than I fear Obama.
That’s how you create the sort of moral and political environment conducive to the creation of a Soviet Russia or a Nazi Germany.
Well Jeff, I'm sorry that I haven't done as much for the conservative movement as you all. I'm sorry I don't play the guitar and wear a neat looking cowboy hat at Tea Parties. I'm stuck with merely standing up for actual conservatives instead of non-conservative progressive leftist candidates. I guess if that means I just turn out to be useless for the conservative movement, then so be it. Nevertheless, I shall attempt better things than simply voting for the lesser of two evils because I've been scared half out of my wits by people screaming that voting for a third party equals voting for Obama. I actually believe conservatism can win when it doesn't present itself as a near carbon copy of the Left.
Instead, you choose to make bald faced assetrtions about others which are simply false and meant only to marginalize those with whom you disagree as if though by simply stating such rediculous, bombastic statements it makes them true...almost like you were taking such points right out of Alinsky’s play book. Can’t you see that?
You know, when I made my comment about social autists, I actually meant it, as in, I wasn't just saying it to be bombastic or to rile people up, but was intending it to be an actual diagnosis of what I was observing. I really meant it as a serious question when I asked why it is that the pro-Romney people on here seem like they MUST assume, even in the absence of evidence for any particular FReeper, that non-support for Romney must be due to animus against his religion (i.e., you might like to go back and check the train of comments, the "context," that led to my post). I know you all are not unintelligent people, so how else can we explain folks who seem determined to simply dismiss all of the arguments we've made as "made up," and chalk our opposition to Romney up to our being "anti-Mormon"? What else can I think but that you all are simply psychologically incapable of even acknowledging the legitimacy of any viewpoint but your own, almost as if you cannot even comprehend that someone would hold to it? That IS social autism, Jeff, whether the term offends you or not.
Rogue yam and Drew68 tell us that we're nothing but closet Obama supporters. BB compares us to "Darwinists" who can't even understand her arguments (which is funny, because she wouldn't say this about *me*, at least, if she knew who I am). The whole lot say that we're just "anti-Mormon" and this is why we oppose Romney. Bad, bad arguments all, with little seeming balance of "hey, you know, I know Romney really is a leftist, but here's why I think he's conservative enough for a principled conservative to still support comfortably." About the best we get from you all is breathless arguments that "if you don't vote for Romeny then YOU'RE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!!!!" And guess what, Jeff, that IS an argument based on fear. Somehow, we're supposed to settle for voting for a guy who's practically as bad as Obama - because if we don't, Obama will win again. that's fear, Jeff. That's trying to replace rational argument FOR your candidate with simple-minded fearmongering against another. It might work, if Romney was a decent-though-flawed conservative. But when they're six of one, half a dozen of another, it just doesn't wash anymore.
Let's face it - we have no evidence that Romney won't continue many of the same things that we hate about Obama (and, if we're honest, Bush before him).
Will Romney end the unconstitutional czars, of will he perpetuate them, and a ton of FReepers will suddenly find that they're cool with them now?
Will Romney do anything about the TSA overreaches, the expansions of the VIPR program, etc.?
Will Romney do anything about the "Food Safety Modernisation Act" and its potential to destroy the liberty of citizens to even grow their own gardens and sell to their neighbours (or sell milk, as the Amish are already finding out?)
Will Romney do anything to roll back the parts of the PATRIOT ACT that are unconstitutional?
These, and many, many more, are all important questions that should be answered, rather than swept under the rug with the argument that "at least he's not Obama." True. He's not Obama. But we don't know that he'll be any better than Obama, and none of you have really made the case that he would be.
Sorry - I'm not comfortable voting for a guy based on somebody else's opinion as to how the roll of the dice might turn out.
You should fear Obama, for "the fish rots from the head." He has mounted a full-scale attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (Just look at what he is doing to religious liberty — he's targeting the moral source that orders a just and peaceful society.) An electorate that is "principled" will remove him from office.
That’s how you create the sort of moral and political environment conducive to the creation of a Soviet Russia or a Nazi Germany.
Obama is the Demoralizer-in-Chief: He is acid to civic virtue. His goal is to create maximum dependency of the citizenry on government largesse.
I do not fear the creation of a Soviet- or Nazi-style state under Romney. I do fear the creation of a Venezuelan-style state under Obama, eventually one with a "president for life."
The thought occurs to me that you and your friends are so deep down in the weeds that you simply do not see the "Big Picture" here.
In my last, I mentioned Saul Alinsky. WRT Mitt Romney, it is clear that you have taken a page out of Alinsky's playbook, Rules for Radicals, in that you isolate — "freeze" — target — thus to destroy him. I call that character assassination, pure and simple.
Must go visit my elderly parents. Don't know when I'll be back.
That statement and the others that imply, BHO will thank you for your vote or if you don't vote for Romney BHO will win or (all the other "I am going to guilt you into doing what I want" statements are bunk.
We have know idea what Romney will do as president (because he has five views on every issue). What we do have is his record, and his record is liberalism.
If liberalism doesn't bother you, what more can I say?
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.