Posted on 03/30/2012 2:25:10 PM PDT by Ben Barrack
My problem is that Obama is hell bent on destroying this country, and he has no respect for ANY laws. Four more years, and he could accomplish it. Look at the damage he has already done to our economy.
It really doesn’t matter because there’s no way in hell Romney can win. He should have been worried about winning over conservatives instead of winning Obama strongholds for delegates.
Anyone who thinks withholding a vote from Mitt Romney is worth that can kiss my Libertarian/Republican tookus.
The writer has asked the single question, even more stupid than RINO’s.
It is utterly mindless, to even contemplate re-electing Obama.
” It really doesnt matter because theres no way in hell Romney can win”
Then you had better prey for Sheriff Joe. There won’t be a free country in 4 more years.
Congressional Republicans only act like Republicans when there is a Democrat in the WH. When there is a Repub in the WH then it is Demo-lite.
It depends on what you mean by "a good thing", and THAT depends on what you think Obama is really all about.
Since I don't think my friends with AR-15s are a match for real soldiers, and since I think if Obama is re-elected that it will be the last election for quite a while, then, no, I don't think it will be a good thing at all.
PRAY that is..: )
Look at how effectively Romney had demolished his Republican rivals.
None of us may like Romney, but success has its own quality.
If Romney gets the nomination, and is even (half) as determined and effective, against Obama in the general election. He just might be unstoppable.
We shall see. I’ve been infuriated, but also impressed with the effectiveness of his machine so far.
He’s not going to win and it doesn’t matter how desperately we try to convince ourselves differently. John McCain had a better shot and the Palin gambit isn’t going to work a second time around.
Thinking Romney can win the white house is pure denial.
I understand your pessimism.
It comes from having watched McCain throw the last election.
Whatever else he may be, Mitt Romney is not John McCain.
I truly believe McCain suffered from a bit of Stockholm Syndrome, as a result of his unfortunate visit to the “Hanoi Hilton”. Sorry but that’s what I’ve come to believe.
Mitt Romney is accustomed to winning. Consistently, and irresistably. Overwhelming force.
I am fully prepared, should Romney win the nomination despite all best efforts to the contrary, to trust our beloved country to his care for the four years, it will take to convince Sarah Palin to run against him.
Obama must not win re-election.
This is for all the marbles.
I think that “winning by losing” is just a way for losers to look for a silver lining. Hindsight’s 20/20, and we can say “Carter’s 1976 victory led to Reagan’s two terms” only because they happened, not because they were certain, or even likely, to happen.
And let’s look at how a RAT president winning a second term have “helped us.” Clinton winning reelection in 1996 actually resulted in GOP House and Senate losses in 1998, and we got slaughtered in the 2000 Senate races (and almost didn’t take the presidency back). And had Carter won reelection in 1980, not only would we not have taken back the Senate that year, but Carter would have named the likes of Judge Reinhold and Mario Cuomo to SCOTUS. And when LBJ won JFK’s second term, he swept in huge RAT majorities, and it would be 16 years before we would take back the Senate (we had lost it only 8 years earlier) and 30 years before we took back the House (which we had lost only 10 years before).
So I’d rather win the 2012 presidential elections, even if it helps a few Senate Democrats marginally in 2014.
I did not vote for McCain....he is a head case.
Romney might move to the right, for purely Machiavellian reasons. Obama will just destroy the U.S. financial system, put us 20-24 TRILLION in debt, embolden our enemies, and possibly SCOTUS. There are no good choices here, just degrees of evil. But based upon what Obama has done to us thus far, there would be nothing left. Pray(not prey) for Joe Arpaio.
If four years of Jimmy Carter so awakened Republican voters that they nominated Ronald Reagan, why has nearly four years of Jimmy Carter on steroids so sedated Republican voters that they've decided to nominate the equivalent of Gerald Ford as the best option for defeating him?
You fight an election with the candidates you have. You don't get to wait until you have good ones. And you can't run imaginary or non-existent or dead candidates.
Romney's name will be added to the long list of liberal Republicans who couldn't seal the deal. Any attempt by establishment elitists to point to Goldwater as evidence that conservatism can't win will be met with sardonic laughter that hopefully drives a stake through the heart of the argument.
Or just added to the list of candidates who couldn't seal the deal. The idea that there was some marvelous conservative out there who could have done won when Dole or McCain didn't just doesn't hold water. We got those nominees because there was no such candidate in existence. We should nominate Gingrich or Santorum and watch him lose to finally drive a stake through that argument, though if we did, the inevitable rejoinder would be that Gingrich or Santorum wasn't a real conservative.
If you thought the Birthers were loud before, just wait and see what happens if Obama is reelected.
Because there's a better chance of overturning two elections than one? Look at what happened with Clinton. These things build up and build up and suddenly they're history and nobody talks about them anymore.
In Clinton's case they built up to impeachment before the bubble burst, but that won't happen with birtherism. If Obama's reelected, people are gradually going to come to think of him and his eligibility as part of the past.
Obama's reelection would mean more Democrats on the Supreme Court. For that reason it's to be deplored and if possible, prevented. Not sure about the rest of your argument, though. Every president runs out of steam in his second term.
If Obama's reelected, that will happen to him. He'll worry about his "legacy" as Clinton did, but it will be more a matter of picking something doable or already done, rather than starting some massive new project.
All this assumes that Republican retain control of at least one House of Congress. If the Democrats hold the Senate and retake the House, Obama may have a second wind.
He’s pretty much demolished every challenger so far.
It all hinges on whether Romney will follow through. I mean we’ve all seen how McCain operates.
McCain is only really concerned about winning, when defeating “another Republican” is involved. Want to see John McCain go extreme about something? Put him at odds with a Republican. Like, in Arizona against another Republican for his Senate seat.
RUTHLESS AND DETERMINED.
Against Obama? Dumbass and defeatist. He even suspended his own campaign. Worst. Candidate. Ever.
Romney’s not that way. Romney’s a gazillionaire, because he’s used to getting his way.
I’d much rather the guy who’s used to getting his way, be on our side.
Then start looking at property overseas. I own a small house in Austrailia : )
Au contraire. I guess I'm one of the few who thinks this could possibly be a blowout of sorts---by very, very narrow margins in a number of states (OH, VA, FL, NV, CO, IA, and so on).
First, I don't think any president (perhaps Truman was an exception) had polling this low across the board and ever won reelection.
Second, Freepers are all too anxious to call Romney "ruthless" in the primary, but forget he will be far more ruthless than McCain in the general. He is, however, sneaky, and much of his dirt doesn't end up on his own hands. I think this will be the case.
Third, exceptionally high gas prices and high unemployment are just about to send moderate Dems to the GOP. And, not surprisingly, a lot of suburban Dems (say, for example, my wife's friend and her daughter, who both voted for O last time) love Romney and will be voting for him. Rightly percieved or not, they see him as an "Eisenhower" moderate.
Fourth, while the money gap is big now in Obama's favor, I think that will close as Republicans glumly conclude it's either Romney or Obama, and the nation cannot stomach Obama.
Last, Romney may very well select a Palin-type energizer for veep. Or he may not. But if he does, that alone would be a, as they say, "Game Changer."
” On a personal level I just hate Baraq and want to see him forever tarnished by defeat. I dont know if I can take 4 more years of seeing him on tv.”
If he wins, he may be ALL you see on TV.
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.