Is it Wrong To Rag On Mitt Romney Prior to the Republican Convention?

RantPolitical.com ^ | 8-3-2012 | PolitiJim (@politiJim)

[rightjb]

In my recent post, Our Odds of Beating Obama Are Better By Dumping Mitt in a Brokered Convention, I simply shared the historical statistical odds of a GOP nominee winning in November from a brokered convention versus a presumptive nominee like the Mittster. And it seems panties were twisted from Pautuckett to Tempe. Here was a typical comment:

Despite two admissions that A) the risk of Obama winning IS more important than the risk of a Romney presidency and, B) that I understood many of the factors that contributed to these statics have changed in a modern media age, I somehow have attracted opinionated readers who suffer from some rare form of reading comprehension affliction.

I suspected as much might happen, and rather than address every one of these comments individually – I’d do that all in one fell swoop. I don’t know Kyle specifically (he’s seems like an intelligent guy), but he will be my foil for this repartee.

Here are 7 points you might not be considering in your initial response.

First, if you have followed my articles at all – you would know that I am the one who has been arguing that the “purists” back away from a “No Romney No Way.” IF he makes it out of the convention, it is critical we back him to stop the destruction of America by the anti-colonial communist of which his father could only dream. But I have a right to do everything possible to save the GOP from making a bigger mistake now than it made in 1976 and 1996.

Full article continued at: Is iIt Wrong to Rag on Romney?

[Jedidah]

No, I supported those I considered to be better candidates until they LOST THE NOMINATION to Romney.

I’m a patriotic pragmatist.

Principle on the part of those who sat out the 2008 election gave us Pelosi and Reid.

Some of us need to learn from that mistake.

[muawiyah]

That was the 2006 election ~ that's when you got Pelosi and Reid.

People "punished" the Republican party for having homosexuals and pedophiles in the ranks of the party's elected contingent.

You see how well that worked ~ first guy Romney hired to be one of his major spokesmen on foreign policy was a homosexual.

The GOP-e, like the Hapsburgs, learns nothing and forgets nothing!

[muawiyah]

Li’l gal today had one of her luckiest experience of her life ~ my wife answered the door only to find out she was a Mittbot ~

[Jedidah]

It was indeed 2006. I knew that — sorry for the mistake.

[muawiyah]

You aren't the first one to forget that, and you are in serious company with the error. Romney, who probably wasn't involved in Republican politics in 2006 on a nationwide basis seems to have forgotten about that drubbing.

The point is that as tolerant as the voting public is of Democrats dragging around their gayness to thrill and astound onlookers, they don't tolerate Republicans doing that.

We have to work continually to extirpate these guys from the party whether as advisors, candidates, campaign workers, party officials ~ and it's a never ending chore. As Mark Foley and Senator Craig demonstrated, it only takes ONE OF "EM to turn the public against us.