Posted on 11/18/2010 10:38:27 AM PST by Democrats hate too much
To each his own, LJ
You are part of the hard core Romney crowd, yet like a child you seemed to think that you were concealing it with claims that you just want everybody to be fair, as you are doing on this very thread, and have been doing for Mitt Romney for years.
The longer your wordy posts grow, the more BS you are trying to sell. Your Romney support group seems to be growing smaller though.
Ok sorry. Sorry for calling you a guy too onyx, I shouldn’t have assumed.
Very crafty username switch!
Exactly. Some people are more conservative than others.
Governor Palin has 80% favorables among primary voters, the highest. Governor Palin is that candidate.
Awwww....(((Hugs)))
Wow, do you have any ass left?
That’s not what I’m saying. And hopefully, most conservatives can figure out how to stick to their conservative principles without having to trash every candidate except the one they have decided to support.
I think that when the time comes, you will probably be able to do this, so I’m not sure why you find it so offensive now. My guess is that whatever candidate you currently support, if it turns out the leader in the polls next fall is Jim Demint, or Mike Pence, or some other suitably conservative candidate, you won’t decide to tear them down in the hopes your candidate will be left standing.
Or maybe you will. That is why we ended up with McCain last time, because not only were conservatives attacking each other’s chosen candidates (there were some pretty nasty attacks here on Duncan Hunter for example, one of which was resurrected in a recent Palin thread), but some were actively supporting McCain for some early primaries under the assumption that once they stopped Romney, McCain would be easy to get rid of.
I am encouraged that the darling of the 100%ers, Sarah Palin, herself has no qualms about supporting the “sufficiently conservative” candidate if necessary to try to win an election. It’s one of the things I like about her.
But I am not. You constantly make that mistake. Romney was not my first, or second, choice. He was merely the last choice I could support left standing. And he wasn't the only one I defended, I even argued against some things said against Huckabee, who I wouldn't vote for, and Rudy, who I strongly opposed.
My goal WAS in fact to keep him from being so tarnished by inaccurate attacks that, if he ended up being the last one standing, he could still beat McCain. Rush Limbaugh understood that. Jim DeMint understood that. Some people here did not, although I give most of them credit in that they really did rather want McCain than Romney.
I never told anybody who to vote for. I defended Romney when I thought the attacks were inaccurate or inane. Obviously people disagreed with my opinion on many of those attacks, but that's what debate is about.
I have already announced my disintentions regarding Romney, did so months ago, mostly because of his refusal to accept that the Mass. health care plan is a bad plan for conservatives. And this time around, the site owner has said he doesn't want to hear about Romney, and it's his site. I stopped defending Romney a while ago anyway, so the new prohibition won't effect me.
I think the idea that you think I'm defending Romney in this thread is indicative of your broad definition of that term; I haven't countered any of the Romney attacks here.
I do still occasionally correct some posters when they provide clearly inaccurate information like false poll numbers from 2008. That's just to keep the site factual.
Obviously, you can believe whatever you want. But I dislike believing false things, so I figured you might as well, and I wanted to give you a shot at understanding the truth. Since you are just some anonymous internet user, as I mostly am to you, it doesn't really matter to me what mistaken personal opinion you have although I find it useful occasionally to correct your public misstatements lest someone assume that an unanswered falsehood must be the truth.
Interesting list. Putting daily devotionals right in with the DUmmies.
Defense industry pimps? TV lovers?
You have a weird list to complain about there.
Says troll to me, but that's just my opinion (for now).
Hopefully, you actually understand the difference between approval and support.
If not, there’s no point in discussing it further until you learn that difference, and if you do, you know that your statement is pretty meaningless. A lot of people are really well-liked but would never be considered as presidential candidates.
I can hardly imagine you don’t understand that, since in the same poll Romney and Huckabee both have 79% favorable ratings, and you certainly don’t think that only 21% of the primary voters will oppose Romney. (BTW, that is within the margin of error for the poll).
And all three have identical “unfavorable” ratings in that poll, 17%.
The key is polling of people who primary voters would consider voting for, and people who primary voters would never vote for. We are looking for the candidate who is acceptable as our presidential candidate amongs a majority of conservatives, not who would win a favorability contest.
See, it is stuff like that poll you just posted that cries out for reasoned refutation. Let’s try to be honest, it will work a lot better for our candidates than pulling the wool over our eyes, saying “naah naah naah” and ignoring anything we don’t like or agree with.
Roughly one-quarter to one-third of Republican primary voters say they would be inclined to consider a third-party candidate if any of the current favorites wins the GOP presidential nomination for 2012.This is what I meant by the "circular firing squad". We can't afford 25-30% of our voters to bolt. Continuing:
31% of likely primary voters say they are at least somewhat likely to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is the GOP nominee. That includes 17% who say it is Very Likely.31%. Remember, she has 82% favorables, but 31% will form a 3rd party rather than vote for her if she wins the nomination, which obviously includes at least some 13% of those who have a personal favorable opinion of her.
It's not much better for the other "leading contenders":
If ex-Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who unsuccessfully sought the nomination in 2008, is the 2012 nominee, 24% say they are at least somewhat likely to consider a third-party candidate, with 11% who say it is Very Likely.To summarize the circular firing squad; here is how many people say they will LEAVE THE PARTY AND VOTE 3RD PARTY if the following candidates win:Twenty-eight percent (28%) are at least somewhat likely to consider a third-party option if another 2008 hopeful, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, wins the party’s presidential nomination. This finding includes 12% who say it is Very Likely.
With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as the nominee, 27% say they’d be likely to consider a third-party contender, including 13% who say they would be Very Likely to do so.
Now, I don't put much stock in polling at this time; you are the one who brought up a poll thinking it made a point. But if we assume Rasmussen polls now are useful (and you clearly did when you cited one), do you really think we can beat Obama if 24% or more of our primary voters don't show up in the general election?
We will need a candidate who gets 90% of the party in the general. That could be one of the current front-runners, they have a year to bring people to their fold. But right now, we have a circular firing squad set up where a high percentage of supporters are stubborn, or at least report themselves to be stubborn.
The three candidates with the highest favorable ratings, who are also the three leading contenders in polling for the primary, all have a 24%+ rejection rate. That has to be fixed, not swept under the rug while we pretend everything is just hunky-dory.
Apple pimps? Is someone dissin’ my Mac???!
The reason McCain was the candidate was not because everyone liked him best. There were backroom deals and open primaries.
I’m open to anyone who is a conservative and that includes Pence and DeMint as well as Palin.
I just refuse to support non-conservative Rs who are nothing but soclialists, turncoats, power hungry sticking finger it the wind slicko professional politicans.
NEVER AGAIN!
I do my own homemade cranberry sauce and can it up myself as well.
The cranberries usually go on sale at some time in the fall. I learned the hard way that they are a seasonal item.
BTW, they freeze up very well. I wash them first, dry them on a towel, and then freeze them on a cookie sheet. That way they freeze separately and they pour into ziplock bags like little marbles. And pour out the same way.
We make cranberry apple pie with them, make as a regular apple pie but alternate layers of cranberries and apples.
And don’t forget to add enough sugar to the cranberry layers.
You take every side of an issue and argue your point depending on how the discussion is going.
Nobody can figure out where you stand on something because you argue all sides against the middle.
And when somebody calls you on it, you change sides yet again.
I’m thinking we’re gonna need a new category of zotees for you. Perhaps ‘kamakazi troll’ would fit? Buh bye
Your views are your affair but when you won’t respond to your own posts it just shouts “troll!”.
You noticed that, too?
Fence-sitters get lots of splinters in their butts.
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.