Posted on 06/27/2012 7:06:20 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Now that Mitt Romney has secured the GOP nomination, he is obviously free to be himself. His masquerade as a conservative is over as he has returned to many of the moderate to liberal stances he held as Governor of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. He has also returned to being the polite politician who treats his Democratic opponents with respect.
Mitt Romney only gets nasty against other Republicans. In the GOP primary, the Governor eviscerated his opponents with high priced, non-stop, hard hitting attacks. He is not employing the same tactics in his general election showdown against President Obama, who he continues to refer to as a “nice guy.”
At the same time that Romney is playing nice, Barack Obama has been on a rampage, tearing to shreds the U.S. Constitution. On June 15 at the White House Rose Garden, Obama decided to issue de-facto amnesty to 1.4 million aliens who illegally entered the country at a young age. The President evidently decided that standing immigration laws do not apply to this category of individuals, who will now be able to apply for work permits and no longer have to face the threat of deportation. To the 23 million unemployed Americans looking for work, get ready to face more competition for scarce jobs. Romney’s response to this outrageous move is that he wants to seek “common ground” on the immigration. During an interview on Face the Nation last Sunday, Romney refused on five occasions to pledge that he would rescind the new Obama immigration policy.
Last week, the President issued a questionable Executive Privilege order protecting his Attorney General from congressional investigators and covering up documents that dealt with the scandalous Fast and Furious program. In response, the Governor should be condemning the President’s order, demanding that Holder resign and insisting on full transparency and the release of all documents. Instead, Romney’s response has been non-existent, as he has been “largely silent” on the Fast and Furious debacle, which resulted in the death of a border patrol agent.
On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down three of the major provisions of the state of Arizona’s law dealing with illegal immigration. The justices upheld the remaining provision, which allows law enforcement to question suspected illegal aliens about their immigration status. After the ruling, it only took the Obama Department of Homeland Security several hours to rescind agreements with seven law enforcement agencies in Arizona. Thus, the federal government will provide no assistance to Arizona in dealing with illegal immigrants arrests, except those caught crossing the border or with felonies in their criminal history. Horace Cooper of the National Center for Public Policy characterized the administration’s move “a complete disregard of the constitutional process.” As noted by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Obama told Arizona, “drop dead.”
With the U.S. Constitution, law abiding Arizona residents and a Republican Governor under attack, what did presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney say? His spokesman refused to condemn the Supreme Court ruling or offer support for the Arizona immigration law. After being hounded by reporters for an answer and evading 20 questions on the issue, Romney spokesman Rick Gorka offered this meek response, “The Governor supports the right of states, that’s all we’re going to say on the issue.”
When the people of Arizona, the conservative movement and the GOP needed a champion, Romney hid under his moderate cloak. He did the same disappearing act several weeks ago when President Obama announced his support for gay marriage. This cowardice in the face of controversial issues should alarm conservatives. It does not bode well for a potential Romney administration. It is another indication that the worries of conservatives about Romney were well founded.
Romney masqueraded as a conservative in the Republican primaries. Now he is being his true self, the Massachusetts Moderate. If he is elected as President, he will be another George H. W. Bush who will manage the growth of government, not seriously curtail it. He will work with Democrats, not oppose their socialist agenda. He will use government to “solve” problems and not provide the only real solution, limited government.
So called political experts claim that any Republican presidential nominee must “move to the middle” to win the general election. Romney is obviously following this advice; however, just the opposite is true. America is thirsting for a conservative alternative to Obama. Voters want a real choice, not an echo. Romney should be clearly differentiating his positions with the President on all issues, not just the economy.
At this time in our history, illegal immigration is a vitally important issue. Millions of citizens along with southern border with Mexico feel overrun with illegal immigrants and are frustrated by a federal government which refuses to take action.
Romney is trying to placate the Latino vote by toning down his rhetoric on this issue. During the Republican primaries, Romney expressed staunch support for the Arizona immigration law. Today his spokesman goes to great lengths to avoid the issue.
Sadly, Romney does not possess the core conservative principles that the Republican Party and this nation desperately needs.
Governor Romney may become our nation’s 45th President, but as his tap dancing on these issues prove, he will not govern as a conservative.
Palin could have wiped the floor with Perry. She had better poll numbers, name recognition, star power, and a far better ability to express conservatism.
Go to hell, Kev.
I remember that week, and her reaction to Perry stepping in. You could almost feel the breath go out of her. She was double crossed by him. He had promised the people of Texas that he would not run if they gave him a third term as Governor, but he broke that promise, which surprised Palin as well.
I agree that it was one of the major factors that kept her out of the race, although I believe there were others. It's my personal belief that she could have prevailed over everything that stood in her way, if she'd only run.
Go to hell, Kev.
***What’s the problem? What I say is true. I’m still one of her supporters. I’ll be writing her name in at the top of the ticket in November.
For crying out loud, Kev, you mention the fact that she makes a paycheck at Fox like it's a primary reason that she didn't run. Just like her detractors.
It heartbreaking to know that voting for Willard is the only response to Obama we have now, but it is the only reasonable response. The threat Obama presents is imminent.
There is another reasonable response. Remember when Clinton won on a plurality of 43%, and two years later got creamed with the Republican Revolution? That Revolution probably would never have happened at all if Clinton had been elected by a majority, or if Bush had been re-elected. That plurality weakened Clinton.
Our third response is to vote for a plurality by voting for any official on-the-ballot third party at the top of the ticket, while fortifying Congress by voting conservative down-ticket. When the dust settles, the next liberal government-advancing statist amoral authoritarian president, Obama or Romney, will face a nation and a world where it is ON RECORD that the majority of Americans voted against him.
Obama's present weakness in the polls gives us a rare opportunity to pull this off for the best results, as there is virtually no chance Obama could win with anything but a slim plurality.
If one in three Americans who vote in 2012 say "To hell with both of them, and I want the world to know I said so" and split the vote by going third party, then whichever guy gets in -- and we are guaranteed an anti-conservative authoritarian government statist regardless, which we cannot vote "against" -- will enter office weak and vulnerable, enemies empowered both in his own party and the opposition party, because it will be ON RECORD that two in three Americans voted against him. He will be humiliated, defensive and exposed. If it was Obama, he would be an absolute mockery and his true scarecrow status would become apparent.
On the other hand, there is a very serious danger to all of us if Romney, God forbid, wins with a landslide. Most of those votes would be from people voting "against" Obama, not "for" Romney -- but that would be quickly forgotten as Romney, the GOP-E, Democrats, and the MSM hail it as a popular mandate for Romney's "progressive style of governing." Those who meant to vote "against" Obama would learn the hard way that there is no such thing as voting "against," but only FOR a candidate. ABO would be irrelevant.
Romney, the defacto head of the GOP, with moderates, the GOP Establishment, and Democrats, would outnumber conservatives and consign them to minority status. When Romney crawfishes on his word to conservatives and starts to enact the same liberal agenda he has always advanced, conservatives would be weak. That is what ABOers would have voted FOR, whether they meant to or not. That danger of a landslide alone is enough to vote for a plurality by voting third party.
People assume the threat Obama presents is unstoppable, but it is a wrong assumption -- Obama will try to keep advancing his agenda, but odds are extremely high that Congress is going to move even more to the right than it did in 2010, and that newly-empowered Congress, where moderate Republicans who just saw Romney rejected, would move right to save their own skins and Congress would have a genuine of-the-people mandate. This Congress would be much more powerful in dominating Obama whom nearly two in three voters rejected.
So -- indeed we have another reasonable response: to vote for a plurality and leave it up to God and those Americans willing to condone Obama or Romney to decide who wins; either one is a bad choice and a mistake, so the best way we can USE our vote is to vote to make the winner as weak as possible.
Bull shiite, the primary reason was stated in the sentence prior.
Her detractors have some valid objections, just like there are valid objections vs. all other republican candidates.
If you’re only gonna allow good things to be said about a candidate [well, in this case a non-candidate], then you’re engaging in propoganda. Be realistic, be real. It’s democrats who are so bought up in their own propoganda.
He has shown us very clearly that, other than fooling enough voters to gain a second term, he does not care what we think of him, and in fact he hates our guts.
Under no circumstances should we risk him winning a second term.
You are either a Romney shill posing as a sincerely conflicted conservative and using Boogie Man Will Getcha scare tactics, or you are hysterical and panicked, actually believing in the Obama the Great and Powerful Oz.
Here is a long established fact of human nature: people make very bad decisions when they make them from a place of hysteria and panic. That is what ABO is, and it is a bad strategy.
Cooler thinking concludes: Vote for a plurality.
.... says blind fear and cowardice, which thinks sanctioning and consenting to a majority endorsement of making the Republican party equally liberal and statist to the Democrat, isn't something equally dangerously risky.
Kev, pushing (or even nodding along to) the claim that Palin didn't run because "she's making so much money now", is simply going into agreement with (or committing) vile character assassination against one our nation's most stalwart patriots.
That particular claim smacks of liberal class envy and is a not-so covert invalidation of her motivations in life and the very essence of her person.
After having had her laundry turned inside out for four years now, she's been proven to be among the rarest of public servants we've ever seen. The woman is almost unnaturally squeaky clean, and has honestly given her very best, in a career of service to her community, her state, and her nation.
Succumb to the temptation to join in the 'thousand cuts' frenzy if you must, but I won't be there with you. Sarah may be due my criticisms for faltering when it most counted - when the course of our country was on the line, but I won't stoop to demeaning her for pursuing a livelihood.
Kev, pushing (or even nodding along to) the claim that Palin didn’t run because “she’s making so much money now”, is simply going into agreement with (or committing) vile character assassination against one our nation’s most stalwart patriots.
***bull shiite. She made a decision and this was probably part of what was involved in the decision. It’s valid. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it is character assassination. That’s classic hyperbole.
That particular claim smacks
***Why should I care what it smacks of? I’m a Palin supporter, and I’m real about it.
of liberal class envy and is a not-so covert invalidation
***bull shiite. It is a VALIDATION, not an Invalidation of her motivations.
of her motivations in life and the very essence of her person.
***You’re trying real hard to sound lofty, but your rhetoric is invalid. It does not invalidate the very essence of her person. Geez, get over yourself. Palin has the right to make these kinds of decisions.
After having had her laundry turned inside out for four years now, she’s been proven to be among the rarest of public servants we’ve ever seen.
***I agree. Duhh.
The woman is almost unnaturally squeaky clean, and has honestly given her very best, in a career of service to her community, her state, and her nation.
***She’s a conservative. That’s why she was targeted. She had very little backing from republicans and the republican party.
Succumb to the temptation to join in the ‘thousand cuts’ frenzy if you must,
***I have not. You, however, have succumbed to the temptation to hyperbolize.
but I won’t be there with you.
***Good, because I’m not there, in spite of your classic fallacy of straw argumentation.
Sarah may be due my criticisms for faltering when it most counted
***And yet you hyperbolize another conservative’s position when slight criticisms have been brought up.
- when the course of our country was on the line, but I won’t stoop to demeaning her for pursuing a livelihood.
***Since when is a 1-sentence statement (a truthful statement, at that) ‘demeaning’ someone. You say right here that she was pursuing a livelihood, so using your hyperbolizing and polemic approach, I should be telling you to go to hell for succumbing to the temptation to the same stuff you accuse me of doing.
Look Kev, you’re the one who jumped aboard the enemy train and insinuated that ‘maybe Palin just enjoys the money and wealth a bit more than serving her country.’
Quit making yourself right for dumping on her like that. It’s unseemly. Retract it and move on. I know you’re a supporter.
Finis.
Stick your theory up your ass, Finny.
Look Kev, you’re the one who jumped aboard the enemy train
***Bull Shiite, bowl sheet, Bu//$#!t. I’m on her train and I’ll be writing in Palin in November. Your hyperbole is a form of straw argumentation.
and insinuated
***Re-read what I wrote. I NEVER insinuated. Those are simple facts about my favorite possible candidate. Your straw argumentation and exaggeration of what I write, however, are the problem here in this round of communication.
that ‘maybe Palin just enjoys the money and wealth a bit more than serving her country.’
***Did I SAY that? Let me look over what I wrote... hmmmm... nope. I did NOT say that. You can argue against stuff I DID NOT SAY all day and it will always be straw argumentation.
Quit making yourself right for dumping on her like that.
***What does this mean? When you support a ‘candidate’ that you only let other supporters say the rosey-cheeked wonderful facts but never address the other things that are obviously there? Is that what you mean? I need you to acknowledge that because my argumentation is against that, and I don’t want it to be straw argumentation like all the bullcrap you’ve been putting out in this thread.
It’s unseemly. Retract it and move on.
***No.
I know you’re a supporter.
***Then I’ll support our non-candidate the way I see fit, and you can support her the way you see fit. Are you going to writer her in come November?
Finis.
***Only if you can let it be finis. It would be a real treat to see a finis to the classic fallacies you’ve been exhibiting.
Kev, you started this, and you’re doing a really poor job of finishing it.
I objected to your (possibly unintentional) slander of Sarah Palin, and instead of simply withdrawing that comment, you’ve now got your back up about it.
You can continue making yourself right about it for as long as you want, but that won’t change my objection.
This behavior is what rubbed so many people wrong on the LENR threads. And to think, I had your back on those.
Kev, you started this,
***umm, no. You first keyed up on my post, I didn’t key up on yours.
and you’re doing a really poor job of finishing it.
***Actually, you’re the one doing the poor job of finishing it... after all, in the previous post you wrote “Finis”. But you didn’t really mean it, did you? By the way, why do you conveniently overlook the question of just how much of a supporter you are of Sarah Palin — are you going to write her in at the top of the ticket? If not, then I’m the stronger supporter than you are.
I objected to your (possibly unintentional) slander of Sarah Palin,
***From Dictionary.com:
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
What I wrote was not malicious, false nor defamatory. Also, slander is verbal, what you really mean is Libel. And furthermore, since you agreed with what I wrote by saying she needs to make a living, then you’re once again engaging in hyperbole, exaggeration of the other side of the argument to argue against it, a.k.a. straw argumentation. It’s particularly ridiculous that you acknowledge my point but then turn around and call what I write as slander. Why isn’t it slander for you as well? What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
instead of simply withdrawing that comment, you’ve now got your back up about it.
***I think it’s time you started walking back your comments and taking a simple critical thinking class so that you can avoid using so many classic fallacies when you write.
You can continue making yourself right about it for as long as you want, but that won’t change my objection.
***But maybe, just maybe, you’ll stop using classic fallacies. And now that you acknowledge my point, why do you object to it? You’ve painted yourself into a corner, your intellectual position is not defensible.
This behavior is what rubbed so many people wrong on the LENR threads. And to think, I had your back on those.
***I thought your name looked familiar. But, dude, LENR has nothing to do with Palin working for Fox. So, is it some kind of quid pro quo that you expect someone to fall in line with your fallacious reasoning on one subject just because you stood next to them on another subject?
Still can’t man up, eh? That’s too bad, because I’ve run out of time and patience for your little tantrum.
The world is tilting on its axis outside our door.
Still can’t man up, eh?
***Still won’t answer the question about whether you’re writing in Palin, eh?
Glad to see you’ve run out of time.
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.