Posted on 07/12/2012 7:10:54 AM PDT by xzins
It seems every time presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gets conservatives looking his way, he does something to turn them off and remind them that one of the greatest concerns they had about him during the primary season was his soft record on the conservative social agenda.
...snip
Romney’s speech to the NAACP was an otherwise unremarkable repetition of his standard campaign pitch until he got to this line, ... “…I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed and sexual orientation. From the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."
Of course, the President represents “all Americans,” but by including sexual orientation along with race and creed, Governor Romney undid a lot of the goodwill ...
Governor Romney and his inexperienced establishment Republican staff apparently failed to notice that by putting sexual orientation on the same plane as race and religion, Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.
Since Governor Romney and his speechwriters apparently haven’t figured this out, we will clarify it for them: social conservatives do not believe sexual orientation creates the same kind of constitutional rights that forbid discrimination based on race or religion.
That’s why we support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for example, and why social conservatives lead support for marriage amendments ...
By pandering to those who want to give sexual orientation the same status under the Constitution as race and religion enjoy, Mitt Romney put many social conservatives back on the sidelines of the presidential campaign, wondering whether what he said at Liberty University is what he really believes -- or if he was just pandering to us, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...
Yes, if Romney has a Heart Attack, Stroke or is diagnosed with Stage Four Cancer in the next four weeks or so.
Kidney Failure might do it as well.
Other than that, you play the hand you were dealt.
In keeping with my new Policy of staying away from the “Obama is the same as Romney” Threads and only discussing Cars, Dogs, Guns or Kittens, VROOM, BARK, BANG, MEOW.
“If one does not support Romney, is no way the same as supporting BHO”
Welcome to logic 101!
The ONLY outcome from NOT supporting Romney, is to effectively provide support for Obama.
There are no other possible outcomes on the table!
No, what is actually amazing is that RomneyBL don't know his record and accept the GOPe candidate as some sort of "savior".
No, what is a amazing is that RomneyBL are so devoid of reason, they actually beleive someone who opposes Romney is a supporter of BHO, rather than realizing that people who oppose Romney are opposing liberalism.
Anti-Mormon bigotry runs very deep!
They pretend that Obama won’t destroy America and there will be a future opportunity the elect a “true conservative”.
They actually want another 4 years of Obama. ...it amazes me.
No actually you Romney lovers are just replacing liberal with liberals. We conservatives want a CONSERVATIVE and that right now is Virgil Goode who could win if all 40 percent conservatives voted for the guy....But you liberals want Romney. No sale!!!! Conservative or bust!!!!
"Soft record"?
"Soft" record???
WHAT record "on the conservative social agenda"? He doesn't even have one! Soft my ass -- try nonexistent.
“I see, If there’s any part of Romney’s agenda I don’t support then I’m required to take action that maintains Obama in office?”
Nobody’s required to do anything. You’re not required to be an asshat towards other FReepers, but you choose to do so anyways. Isn’t freedom grand?
“The only motive for you position is anti-Mormon bigotry.
Come on, admit it!”
Sorry, but that statement says a lot more about the motives for your position than it does for mine. What it says is that you are motivated by the same identity politics as the liberals who played the race card to silence Obama critics.
If I do not vote for Romney that does not give a vote to BHO or whoever.
If I do not vote for BHO that does not give a vote to Romney or whoever.
It I do not vote for whoever that does not give a vote to Romney or BHO.
That is logic 101, welcome to class.
If you choose to be a RomneyBL, be my guest, I will not vote for anyone who has a record of governing as a liberal and espousing liberalism, whether they call themselves an R or D.
“Conservative or bust!”
You make our point!
You don’t give a damn if Obama destroys America!
“Oh, so there is some other person from other party than GOP who will defeat the radical socialist from Chicago in 2012?”
That’s irrelevant. There’s no need to call people “Obama supporters” if they aren’t going to vote for Romney. It’s childish and serves no purpose, since you won’t convince anyone to vote for Romney with that argument anyways. Insulting people is not a valid method to win their support.
In a 3 way war, it is possible that Army 2 might benefit when Army 1 is attacked by Army 3, but that is not the same as Army 3 supporting Army 2.
On other threads, Romney might benefit when we attack Obama. (Except when we attack the homosexual agenda, which causes Romney chagrin.)
I call liberals for what they are. Unlike CINOs, I don't have to lie about liberal positions taken by any candidate.
And you make our point, your obamahysteria is coloring your vision or you really like liberalism.
We are here because conservatives were convinced, lied to, whatever you want to say.......
really next time we promise a conservative will be nominated....
come on just one more time.......
compromise your conservative principles........
and here we are a liberal running against a liberal.
It’s like those old jokes:
I promise the check is in the mail
I promise........(I am not swallowing that again)
All this rage - considering it’s more likely by the day that El pResidente will just call the election off. /sig
LOL!
Isn’t it amazing how powerful Principle can be?
It incites the barking dogs to go apoplectic at the thought of standing up to tyranny.
Which is a euphemism for "The state should be allowed to force adoption agencies to accommodate homosexual couples who want to adopt kids." That's what happened in Massachusetts, and after 109 years, Catholic adoption charities closed their doors rather than relinquish the precious, innocent children entrusted to them to oblige this depraved social engineering.
Voting for that is a bad idea, and that's what a vote "against" Obama is a vote FOR because that is Romney's philosophy in principle and practice.
I'm voting to make sure that if this bastard wins, he will be denied a mandate, because if Romney wins in a landslide, the consequences would be horrific; he and the GOPe and Moderate Republicans and progressives and the MSM would GUARANTEED define it as a popular mandate for Romney's "progressive style of governing." It's all about Obama now, but in 2013 and 2014, it would be all about Romney. ABOers, you would not be voting "against" Obama, you would be voting FOR Romney. Who and what you voted FOR is all that would count in the years ahead.
Stand and fight. Vote to deny either winner, Obama or Romney, a mandate. Your vote for a third party candidate will serve to weaken the mandate of EITHER ONE that wins. If you decline to vote at the top of the ticket, your lack of vote will increase the relative proportion of votes for the winner in terms of percentage of the vote split.
Is voting for a plurality split to deny a mandate to the winner risky? Yep, but consider this: Obama is in trouble with his supporters, he is polling low, many who voted for him last time are disillusioned, and it's likely he would be denied even 50% of the vote. Of ALL YEARS to forfeit your voice in influencing whether the Dem or Rep wins and exchanging it for the ability to force whichever guy wins into a plurality so he lacks a popular mandate, this is the year. Obama is as weak as Romney in terms of support. LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT and DENY a mandate to either one of these depraved and dangerous assclowns.
Pray for a plurality, vote for a plurality. Vote third party at the top of the ticket.
“Just another reason not to vote for Mittens”
Yep, just another reason to let Obama have four more years.
“hysteria”??
Given Obama’s disregard for Constitutional constraints before the election, what do you think he’ll do afterward?
You’re promoting this Romney fear mongering, as though he would act unchecked.
THAT is the “hysteria” in this thread.
You deserve your fate, as you have earned it.
Your post makes zero sense.
I do not support liberalism, you on the other appear to do so.
Your fear of BHO is apparently allowing you to ignore Romney’s liberal record, to possibly rid the country of BHO.
Your fear of BHO is coloring your view that there maybe other out comes to this election than liberalism.
The only hysterical people on FR are those who are RomneyBL, trumpeting him (with out cause) over BHO.
Your fear of BHO is coloring your view of those of us who choose not support liberalism.
I will not support liberalism - it is that simple.
You have apparently chosen to support liberalism and are free to do so.
You see I am not in fear, it is not how I live my life.
So you have a good day wallowing in abject fear/hysteria of BHO to the point you are voting for a liberal.
G Larry, why do you pretend that voting for Romney isn't voting wholesale for the liberal agenda to "lead" the Repbulican party?
There's only one way to vote for government tyranny, and in 2012, the Republican and Democrat parties have made sure that you're guaranteed to vote for it no matter which party you choose. Larry, Obama is A SYMPTOM, not a cause.
Our votes COUNT. I will use mine to deny a mandate to the government tyrant who wins, and I'll do that by voting third party to count toward a plurality split to weaken the winner. It is the ONLY calculated way to use my vote to best effect.
You, in the meantime, are willing to vote FOR government tyranny and risking giving it a popular mandate, because you are so afraid of risking a confrontation with a nationally despised Obama who would very likely lack any kind of mandate and would very likely face a MUCH empowered Conservative Congress.
Fear almost always provokes bad choices. Fear is how tyrants manipulate their enemies, and has been since the beginning of man.
Fear is the only thing that fuels ABO. There's a message in there.
Ok - as a good Conservative, I took the time to check Virgil Goode out.
Click here to go to his site.
I think I could easily support him over Romney!!
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.