Posted on 08/27/2014 5:53:45 AM PDT by cotton1706
“Republican” U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts is facing a tougher-than-expected reelection battle in Kansas – a state heretofore reliable in its election of GOP nominees.
Roberts recently won the “Republican” nomination in the Sunflower State by a 48-41 margin over Tea Party-backed candidate Milton Wolf (with 11 percent of voters supporting other candidates).
Game over, right? Wrong …
According to the results of a recent Survey USA poll, Roberts is only leading his Democratic opponent Chad Taylor by a 37-32 percent margin. Where’s the rest of the support going? Well, 20 percent of those polled say they’re backing independent candidate Greg Orman - three times the level of support he was receiving just two months ago.
“Roberts’ numbers have been steady,” noted political analyst Jeff Jarman of KSN.com. ”Taylor’s numbers have been steady. It’s Orman who is gaining ground.”
And if Orman continues to gain momentum, there’s speculation that national Democrats might ask Taylor to drop out of the race.
Orman isn’t the only potentially credible candidate threatening to throw a monkey wrench into the traditional “red” versus “blue” calculus.
In South Carolina, “Republican” Lindsey Graham is – like Roberts – deeply unpopular with voters. He’s facing a credible Democrat (S.C. Sen. Brad Hutto) as well as an independent challenger – former State Treasurer Thomas Ravenel. According to several internal polls provided to FITS, Ravenel is currently drawing between 13-15 percent support – and he has yet to spend a dime of his considerable fortune on media messaging.
Meanwhile in North Carolina vulnerable incumbent Kay Hagan is in a dogfight against establishment “Republican” Thom Tillis (both are drawing a little over 40 percent support) – although the real story is the emergence of Libertarian nominee Sean Haugh, who is currently drawing the support of eight percent of voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at fitsnews.com ...
Unfortunately the GOP is the viable opposition to the Democrats. The fact that they have focused efforts on the primaries needs to be addressed - withhold funding and work to get the party changed over the long haul from the grassroots up. This internal party problem needs to be a separate battle - the war is with the Democrats.
I have no problem not monetarily supporting the GOP Party when it uses money against conservatives. I’m just saying that when it comes to general elections we need to vote and urge voting for them, even if we have to hold our noses. Monetarily support conservatives. But the party transition will be a long, hard battle that needs to be kept an internal issue.
No, the war is with liberals and the liberal agenda. That includes both democrats and republicans.
Soon enough the liberal republicans aren't going to be a viable anything.
/johnny
Romney despised Reagan and has smeared him for years, he left the GOP because of Reagan and became a democrat supporter and fundraiser, and voter, not returning to the GOP until Bill Clinton was safely in the White House.
Romney was the problem that killed 2008 and 2012, the Reagan hating, most radical liberal that has ever been a major player in GOP presidential politics had only won a single election in his life, and had only returned to the GOP in October of 1993, after supporting democrats, and fundraising and voting as a democrat, and fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
Since his own polling showed he wasn’t going to win reelection as governor, an office he left with 34% approval, he set out to become president and announced that he was the 800 pound gorilla with all the money, which kept out any substantive challengers and left us with nobodies, as it was, Romney spent 50 million dollars of his own money, had all the big donors, a massive organization, and still lost to two guys without campaign funds, or organization.
The proof of Romney was in 2012, in an election that republicans couldn’t lose, Romney/Ryan, somehow pulled it off, that far trumps losing in the 2008 election that was almost impossible for the GOP to win in a perfect storm of recession, 8 years of Bush, and the first black president.
If you see us in exactly the same place on all these issues then there’s nothing I or anyone can say to enlighten you.
I know for certain that neither Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt, or Reince Priebus made that comment. lol
You are delusional if you think there would be any change in governance.
/johnny
Sorry, FRiend, but IMO the worst offenders are Rove, Romney, and McConnell.
The big issue was ACA, and what do the Republicans do? Nominate the Father of ACA. Nice move...
All I can say is wow. I specifically say that I am not endorsing Romney, that Romney was on the wrong side of some issues, but that he would not have put us as a country in the messes we are now in to the same degree, and the Romney haters come out of the woodwork. This is just amazing - really a sore point for some.
I don’t have time nor inclination to defend Romney on any of the points raised - but to say that Romney/Ryan “lost to two guys without campaign funds, or organization” simply tells a lot about your perceptions and biases.
You don’t want “to defend Romney”, you just want to defend Romney and attack conservatives as Romney haters.
You even defend his loss in the 2008 primary when he had it all, the money, the organization, and even the luxury of injecting 50 million dollars of his own money in between massive fund raisers, against two guys with no money or organization.
There is a reason why this past democrat and Planned Parenthood fundraiser has only won a single election since he rejoined the GOP.
Interesting deletion.
Romney was on the wrong side of all issues that conservatives care about. He's a fricking liberal.
Same with Krispy, and Jeb.
I'm equal opportunity. I despise all liberal republicans equally, and will work for their defeat.
/johnny
Abortion: agree. But nothing is going to happen at the Federal level anyways, both sides are in fixed positions. The fight is really taking place at the state and local levels where zoning and medical facility compliance regs are the right tools to use at this point.
Amnesty: disagree. A President Romney, IMHO, wouldn’t be enacting amnesty through fiat. Any immigration reform effort would be heavily influenced by Conservatives like Ted Cruz, and would have a decidedly Conservative bent.
Socialized Medicine: Disagree. IMHO a President Romney would have, even just out of political necessity, supported business conscience in things like contraceptive coverage (Hobby Lobby) and wouldn’t have had Senator Reid use the nuclear option to stack Federal courts with Liberal activists (see the Federal Exchange subsidies case and it being appealed en banc and the impact it will have on the continued survival of Obamacare)
Bigger Government: agree. Sort of, because I don’t think that a President Romney would be ruling through executive fiat like Obama is. So there might be bigger government, but at least the Constitutional role of the Legislative Branch would still be respected.
Then consider that Romney was right on Russia, Iraq and a whole bunck of other 2012 issues.
Now I’m not saying that Romney was the preferable Presidential candidate in 2012. And he’s certainly not the right guy for 2016. But he was magnitudes better, in 2012, than Obama. And the nation is worse off for not having elected him.
Your pretending that nothing gets done at the federal level on abortion is just a deceitful pro-abortion lie, and one favored by libertarians and Rand Paul supporters.
Here is just one example, there are others, including federal hospitals and military hospitals.
The Mexico City Policy requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries. The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009. Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984, rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993, re-instituted in January 2001 as President George W. Bush took office, and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office.
As you try to spin Romney and ignore his true politics, and what effect he would have had on the GOP, for instance, coming out AGAINST the GOP pro-life platform after winning the nomination, and reestablishing his personal support for gay scout leaders.
Here is the true Romney on immigration, he clearly was not hostile to immigration and illegals.
This is the REAL Mitt Romney on illegals.
My jaw dropped when I saw Mitt denying his illegals in the 2007 debate, and was not surprised what came of it a week later (well, surprised but not totally shocked).
Governor Mitt and wife Ann, were interacting with the Guatemalan illegals at their private home for 10 years. The landscaper that the illegals worked for, was a naturalized Colombian himself, personally chosen by Mitt, (A naturalized Colombian, Guatemalan illegals, and a sitting Governor during 4 years of that period), IDs better have been checked.
In December of 2006, the republican Governor was exposed, and suffered national embarrassment for using illegals for 10 years.
In December of 2007, in a national debate, Rudy Giuliani accused Mitt Romney of having run a “Sanctuary Mansion”. On national TV, Mitt Romney indignantly denied the claim.
A few days after the debate, the Boston Globe decided to look again at Mitt’s house, and guess what, they found Guatemalan illegals, they were working for the same Colombian, MITT HAD NEVER FIRED THEM!
Ten years and a national scandal, turned into 11 years, and into a second national scandal, with all the same players, the same “contractor”, Guatemalan illegals, and the same Mitt Romney and his wife interacting with them at their home during the week.
There are not really TWO Establishment parties. Rather there is the Democrat Party and its wholly owned subsidiary which altogether constitutes the Government Party.
I just say, "I only give money to conservative causes." That gets them all flustered.
Fair enough. Pardon my ignorance on that matter, but understand that it wasn’t done as deceit or a lie, as you seem to accuse.
Are you making the argument, tho, that a President Romney wouldn’t have renewed that? On what basis?
You should get flamed for not stating your opponents' position correctly. While I would love a true, rock-ribbed conservative, I have supported candidates who were far from that. Romney was a bridge too far. I will in all likelihood vote for the 2016 Republican nominee, unless it is Romney. Some possible candidates would cause me to throw up in my mouth a bit as I pull the lever (Christie) but only one would not get my vote. Not being Obama in 2012 or not being Hillary in 2016 is not a sufficient reason for me to ignore Romney's long history of opposing everything conservative.
The last election likely would not have gone to Zero if the “true conservatives” that refused to vote for Romney for whatever reason had simply shown up and voted.
You're directing this to the wrong audience. Direct it to the GOPe who take the conservatives for granted. Rather than criticizing the "purists" for not eating the crap sandwich served up, maybe the GOPe should realize that they should be a little more selective in what they serve up. The party powers need to recognize that there is a subset of potential candidates who are unacceptable to the party rank and file. That means that the party powers need to stop pushing, urging, or encouraging Romney toward a 2016 run. What the party leadership really needs to do is encourage him for the good of the party to stand aside and announce it soon. If anything, he's even more objectionable to the party rank and file now than he was in 2012.
You chastise those who didn't vote for Romney as not understanding political reality. There is the other reality that the party powers need to understand - there are some candidates who are so distasteful to the party regulars that they will not vote for them just because they have an R behind their name.
Will I still be a purist when I cast my vote this fall for Pat Roberts? It won't be an enthusiastic vote but Roberts is far from Romney squishy.
So Romney is the most passionate pro-abortion promoter the GOP has ever seen, he comes from a passionate pro-abortion family of politicians that has been determinedly pro-abortion since 1963 according to him, he fund raised for Planned Parenthood, and pro-abortion democrats over incumbent republicans, his mother ran as a pro-abortion Senate candidate in 1970, and after winning the GOP presidential nomination Mitt Romney came out against the GOP pro-life platform, and claimed that he had campaigned openly on it, and he then ran pro-choice ads in Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin, and lost all three states.
And here you are, still defending him on abortion, you are one very dedicated Romneybot.
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.