Posted on 05/08/2012 8:13:53 AM PDT by haakondahl
Free Republic's Jim Robinson Makes the Turn
punish RINOs in the House
I respect those who are still die-hard for beating Romney, but that is yesterday’s fight. The danger is not in seeming inconsistent–trust me; we left marks all over that Romney fellow, and he will not forget us. Maybe next time we will unseat him like we are about to do to Lugar, and a number of other RINOs. And this is the fight for today: punish RINOs in the House and especially Lugar in the Senate. Tomorrow’s fight is back to the White House to get Obama out of my chair.
their friends could use the help
Those who still toil in the fields of Newt are at great risk of becoming irrelevant, the one thing they must not become. They poke and stab at the bodies of friends and enemies alike from a long-finished battle, while their friends could use the help a valley away, where the fight is now.
to engage on the next fight, disengage from the previous
Jim at Free Republic did the right thing, and must pull his readership back together to allow Free Republic to become once more the hammer of the right. He could stand on the conservative Jihad, stabbing at thee from the heart of Hell etc etc, but the fact is, Freepers need to engage on the next fight, and in order to do that–they must disengage from the previous.
(Excerpt) Read more at haakondahl.com ...
It doesn’t, but you’re welcome to use that broad brush.
If we’ve come to the day where saying I will vote for a conservative equates to treason, one of us is on the wrong website. And it ain’t me.
Just like the brave Southerners did 150 years ago, glad you've come to your senses.
But, Suzy, it does no such thing. It gives control of the Republican Party to a man even more left-wing than the last nominee this site detested so much. That doesn't advance conservatism.
And, at this point, a vote for a third party candidate or not voting at all, advances 0.
And so, the argument comes full circle. Mathematically, that argument is in error and can be discounted on its face.
But to the larger question, why is it that the "anyone" ABOs talk about is ONLY Romney? You can float the name of Virgil Goode or Tom Hoefling, who posts on this very website ... they are also "anyone but Obama" but people don't seem to want to talk about genuine conservative options that still remain. It's always Romney, and, yourself notably excepted, it's name-calling after that.
I've got another poster on this thread calling me treasonous. What do you think, Suzy? Am I disloyal to the United States of America for advocating a conservative on a conservative website?
I never said anything about treason, and I’m not going to go back through the thread to see who said what in what context.
I am very unhappy that Romney is our putative candidate, but am willing to accept that and move on in order to advance the cause of conservatism and Constitutionalism, AND to save us from a much worse fate than having a NE liberal Republican in the WH.
You don’t have to go far, Suzy. Less than ten posts up will do it.
Please believe me. I respect your opinion. I also respect the civility with which you pose your argument. Thank you for that.
Those two things are mutually exclusive. It's like saying you're going to save a patient who is bleeding to death by slicing open another artery.
Yeah, just as soon as he wins the election and gets that out of the way, he will impeach himself. Got's to put things in order of importance and all.
Sorry, EV, but that’s nonsense. You ignore all of the many other points, and sweep them aside for a “feel-good” expression of contempt and anger. While I may empathize, we just don’t have the luxury of doing “feel-good” this year.
No. I made a simple statement of fact. You don’t advance conservatism by supporting liberals. You don’t advance Constitutionalism by supporting those whose entire careers have been devoted to destroying every principle and purpose the Constitution is premised upon.
It’s just common sense.
The problem of course is that the net is the same, regardless of the purity of intention.
So ‘treason’ is now up to you to decide. Gotcha.
I may as well ask you too: is it ‘treason’ to advocate voting for a conservative on a conservative website?
Please try to answer without puerile insults.
Feel free to ignore the people in the forum who oppose Romney because they are running for president on some Acme Party ticket themselves. They never stop arguing because they aren’t even Republicans. They’re the ones who scream “RINO” the loudest, as if they care about Republicans in name only or any other way.
Oh grow up Reb, I’m not talking about preserving slavery. Nice to see your IQ still matches your size.
Either am I.
Reb, you’re living proof that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day. But only for a minute.
You’re hyperventilating, fella.
Hyperbole doesn’t become you.
The current POTUS is a traitorous bastard bent on destroying the country.
Anybody who enables, through action or inaction, the traitorous bastard's efforts to ruin this country is the same.
Now, do you think I'm too harsh in describing the traitorous bastard in the White House or those who enable him?
Your last two posts have attributed emotionalism to me that simply isn’t present in my posts. What’s up with that? I’m simply stating hard cold facts. You don’t advance conservatism by supporting liberals. To say that you can isn’t logical or reasonable.
We should all keep in mind that the very founding of this country was a product of compromise. We can look back and admire the geniuses known as the Founders, but each and every one of them had to compromise on something to achieve the bigger thing. No one I know would call those men unprincipled.
Most of us have serious qualms about Romney, and for good reason. But he is realistically the one option to Obama’s winning a second term. Thanks in no small part to the internecine arguments here and elsewhere.
Any of us could vote for Virgil Goode and feel all fine about ourselves; we could leave the electors’ spot blank on the ballot. That would serve no good bigger purpose. The compromise here doesn’t begin to match those the Founders faced. We are going to have to make a choice that will, one way or the other, require compromise.
I would not have commented on it if it weren’t there.
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.