It's going to get interesting at FR if Romney is nominated, innit??

Vanity | 23 March 2012 | Notary Sojac

[Notary Sojac]

I've put some heavy wear and tear on my keyboard making the point here that it's OK to loathe Romney, but to underestimate him is the act of a fool.

Those of us who have been on the "no Romney, no how!!" bandwagon here for the last year have had the luxury of believing that someone else would be able to keep Romney from the nomination.

That now appears increasingly unlikely, as we all are forced to face the fact that Freepers (and those out there who think like Freepers) are not a decisive majority in the Republican electorate. Not even close.

There are millions of long-time Republicans who are voting for Romney because he's a dignified, executive-looking gentleman who speaks in soothing patriotic platitudes. You don't have to like this, but it's true. (And no, they are not being operated by mind control rays from Karl Rove!)

So where does this leave us? Frankly I dunno. I would hope that those who advocate holding noses and voting for Romney don't get banned from FR. At the same time, I think it's very unlikely that I will vote for him. (I voted third party in 2008 in preference to McQueeg).

[norton]

This is an interesting thread.
I expect most here will eventually swallow hard and vote for Romney, which will make his loss in November just a bit less of a drubbing.

For my part, I can't stand the man but I'm a lot more disgusted with the process that has served him up.

The republican party telegraphed Romney as next guy in line during the 2008 primary.
The republican party utterly failed to take a lesson from McPain's embarrassing failure - they pinned it on Sara Palin and assumed that gave them license for more business as usual.
The republican party did just what they'd forecast and jammed Romney up conservatives throats.

They're going down in flames again, but not before anointing Jeb Bush for 2016 (if we get that far).

[samtheman]

I plead guilty. I did put her up on a pedestal.

My mistake. Not hers.

[US_MilitaryRules]

I will still vote for the rep nominee but I am in commiefornica and my vote doesn’t count. The commiefornica republican party calls me all the time looking for money and all I do is laugh. Good luck to you all in the swing states and please vote for the rep nominee so we can get a few of them to help win the presidency. Romney is 100 times better than zero I think? LOL

You voters in the swing states please help us all out. Don’t throw your votes away. Good luck.

[GraceG]

The Problem as I see it with Romney is that he will be such a mediocre President that even if he does win he will be so middle of the road as to “not upset the apple cart” that the economy will not bloom and then in 4 years it will assure that the democrats take back power on the whole meme that the “economy didn’t recover”.

Not to mention any GOP president is going to be so damned hated no matter how “moderate” they are. Mittens will get so damned gun shy that he will be ineffective and the MSM and the Democrat controlled media will smell blood and keep attacking him even as he retreats and this will paralyze him to what needs to be done to restore the economy and defuse all of Obama’s horrible regulatory actions.

Newt is going to be hated like hell anyways and HE KNOWS THAT, but he also knows that he will have the people who put him there behind even if the Media doesn’t paint it that way every night at 5:00pm.

So therefore, Newt (who thrives on antagonism instead of flinching from it) will take the bold measures to recover the economy despite being thrashed every night on the MSM news channels. In Four years the MSM will be flabbergasted like their were on election night in 1984, because the man on the street will notice the economy improvement.

Mitt is a Flincher, Newt is a Clincher

Definition of a Clincher:

a decisive fact, argument, act, or remark

Definition of a Flincher:

to withdraw or shrink from or as if from pain

We are so SOL if Either Mittens gets in or Barry gets a second term.

Mittens would only slow things down and then in four years the GOP would be blamed so much but with little to show we would still be in an economic malaise the likes of Carter’s worst dreams. This would GUARANTEE a Democrat Victory over the house the senate and even the presidency in 2016. They would not be pulling any punches as they would run someone that would make Obama look like a middle of the road moderate. Because they know they would have a very good chance of winning. Not to mention the class warfare game that could be played to Bolshevik conclusion during that election if we get Romney and mediocre performance out of him which is very much likely.

Of course Obama winning would be a very much “nothing to lose” second term that would see him likely either completely destroying the economy so badly that they play the game of “Destroy and Support” in that they would destroy the economy and then support the people as the “great savior” thus ensuring either “Glorious Revolution” or the mass construction project of making millions more so dependent that they will have a permanent grip on power that would only come undone with Blood sweat and tears, but mostly Blood and Tears.

ABO and ABR, because we really need Newt or maybe Santorum if we get desperate, heck I would even take, heaven forbid (I can’t believe I am saying this), Ron Paul over Romney for the reasons above.

So I repeat once more: Newt is the Clincher, and Mitt is the Flincher.

[surroundedbyblue]

No I won’t be voting for Obama.

So you do not understand that there is NO ideological difference between Romney & Obama? None!!! Don’t play that BS with me that by not voting I’m enabling Obama. Wake up....a vote for Romney or Obana is a vote for the progressive agenda.

Hope you can live with that.

[douginthearmy]

Yep, Romneycare is pretty much right of center.

In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).

[Above My Pay Grade]

>>>Dislike Romney? Then he must be portrayed as liberalism and corruption incarnate. No mention of any virtues must ever be permitted.<<<

Okay, Romney has nice hair. Other than that he has no virtues whatsoever to a conservative, none.

[Navy Patriot]

And you know what, Palin let us down in all this. Let us down BIG TIME. First by dropping out and then by not doing what she did in 2010 so well, getting us to coalesce around conservatives.

Thanks a heap, Sarah. For nothing.

Sarah Palin owes you or anybody else here nothing. In fact, Republicans and some conservatives let her down. None the less, she did an excellent job of promoting and defending Conservative policy and issues while letting us pick the strongest conservative candidate. Again, any failure is on Republicans' part NOT Sarah's.

You outta be apologizing to her, you're the one that doesn't measure up.

[samtheman]

See my post #82. I said “My Mistake. Not hers.”

[tanknetter]

I’m going to wait and see who Romney picks as his running mate, should he get the nomination. I’ll take that as a reasonable indication of how he’d pick the 2 or 3 SCOTUS appointments whoever wins in 2012 will probably get.

Beyond that, his running mate should be seen as pointing to the future direction of the GOP, since that person will be the defacto standard bearer if the ticket loses, or the natural successor if it wins.

[Pollster1]

We are certainly not losing, although we are not winning either. If conservatives can keep Mitt from winning a first round nomination, despite the powerful support for the establishment choice and his gigantic funding edge, that should make the situation perfectly clear to the party leadership. If they decide to force Romney on us anyways, then America deserves the terrible consequences of that final error. I'll agree with DeMint that at least Romney doesn't hate America and Americans like Obama does, but otherwise the differences are small.

I do not believe that Romney will repeal ObamaCare, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

I do not believe that Romney will cut federal spending significantly, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

I do not believe that Romney will protect the Second Amendment, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

I do not believe that Romney will protect the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

I do not believe that Romney will prevent the federal government from paying for abortions and from requiring others to provide abortions even if they have a religious objection, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

I do not believe that Romney will govern in a manner significantly different from how Obama would govern, given the same Congress, and that is essential for a candidate to get my vote.

The real difference is with our military, where Romney at least doesn't seem to have that visceral hatred for our military. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Romney is either interested in our military or competent to serve as Commander-in-Chief (i.e., he's too much like Obama there too), and that is very nearly essential for a candidate to get my vote.

The party leadership knows that many of us feel that way. If they insist on Romney and on surrendering to ObamaCare and liberalism, I'm done with them. I will vote as conservative as possible in all the down ticket races, but Romney will need to win without my vote. I'll be voting Palin/Cain, Perry/Palin, or Santorum/Bachmann as write ins. I know that I don't sound very flexible here, but the political absolutes - fundamental God-given rights that are completely non-negotiable - have suddenly become political issues where our party's leadership wants to compromise. They can compromise on their own, but it will be without my support - permanently.

[samtheman]

Perry should have stayed out of the debates until his back healed and he got off the medication... and said FU to any critics of that decision.

He’d still be in the race right now.

But the bottom line is, as a group we conservatives are easily led, in some ways much more easily led than is the left.

The left would never have been pinballed from one candidate to another the way we have been.

They are actually more principled than we are. (The problem is, their principles are all evil.)

[righttackle44]

At the same time, I think it's very unlikely that I will vote for him. (I voted third party in 2008 in preference to McQueeg).

Yeah, and it's third party voters who gave us Bill Clinton, voting for Perot. Thanks a lot, third party voters.

They're as intelligent as those who voted for Obama last time to teach Conservatives a lesson. YOU guys are as much responsible for Obama's 30-trillion debt as he is.

[joe fonebone]

i will not vote for the white version of fubo... NEVER

the bushes 3 terms did enough damage to this country, i will not vote for the bushes 4th term (santorum).... NEVER

I will not put my name with those that seek to destroy what I love....period

[JmyBryan]

Going to be even more interesting when Palin endorses Romney...

[BlatherNaut]

So, the only conclusion possible is that an electorate to which the universal franchise has been extended, is infinitely pliable, by application of the ruses of the demogogue

Since the dawn of history.

[Navy Patriot]

In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO).

So What? The qualifications for the nom are prominent Republican flip flopper?

[BlatherNaut]

believe the answer is the same as that given a man trying to rescue his brother from drowning in sewage: hold your nose and do your best with what you have.

I like your analogy.

[Colofornian]

Romney, if he prevails, may not be the candidate that we all hope he would be, but with the help of a Conservative Congress, most of what we want done will get done, but it will not be pretty.

Meanwhile, those who would vote for Romney wind up selling their conservative soul.

Tis many "joe the republicans" among us. Who is "Joe the Republican?" ...perhaps, some of you FREEPERS can see "Satan" appearing to "Joe the Republican" here: 'What good would it do to forfeit your convictions & not gain your political world?' [Vanity]

Let us know if you see yourselves in that character!

[Longbow1969]

So therefore, Newt (who thrives on antagonism instead of flinching from it) will take the bold measures to recover the economy despite being thrashed every night on the MSM news channels. In Four years the MSM will be flabbergasted like their were on election night in 1984, because the man on the street will notice the economy improvement.

Umm, you don't have to sell me on Newt. I have supported him since it became clear that Perry didn't have what it takes to be the nominee. The problem is, not enough other GOP primary voters agree with us. At this point one has to admit that the odds Newt wins the nomination are.........miniscule.

I mentioned an observation to someone else on FR recently. I play Newt's speeches for friends and coworkers and most just don't react very positively. The conservatives that really grasp this stuff and are very involved in the debates and arguments tend to get it and like him, but most don't have that kind of deep understanding and end up just commenting to me that Gingrich sounds to strident or angry. /shrug. It just seems to me that Newt is not coming off as likeable enough to be competitive.