Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Viennacon
Not to compare Romney to Reagan, but I seem to remember Reagan talking to the very conservative, the moderates, and the so-called “Reagan Democrats”. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but pandering to only one group results in electoral defeat in most cases on the national level. The idea is to build a broad coalition of voters who either like you, or like you more than the other guy.

Ronald Reagan had a core set of principles that he stood on and would not move from. Can you honestly say the same about Romney?

The choice between Romney and Obama is like a choice between a broken leg and lung cancer. Yeah, I'm going to choose the broken leg, but I'm not going to be happy about it and all things considered I'd rather not have either one. And I'm also not going to forget it and plan on making sure that in 2016 I'm not faced with the same kind of choice all over again. And the way to do that is to nominate an actual conservative for the presidency in 2016 and make Romney the first sitting president since Chester Arthur to be denied his party's nomination for re-election.

36 posted on 10/20/2012 12:53:44 PM PDT by Delhi Rebels (There was a row in Silver Street - the regiments was out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Delhi Rebels

That wasn’t the argument. What Laissez-faire seemed to be suggesting was that it was somehow ‘wrong’ for Romney to talk to different segments of the electorate, which is simply idiotic.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether you like or dislike Romney, what matters is how you vote, and if you vote for Gary Johnson (as this guy is doing), all you’re doing is giving a vote to Barry so you can have a wet dream over how principled you were. It’s annoying, and the continual posting of these same “I hate Romney and am voting third party because I have more values than anybody” threads is getting stale.


40 posted on 10/20/2012 1:08:41 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Delhi Rebels; Laissez-faire capitalist; ansel12; SoConPubbie
Up until 2000, Virgil Goode was a Democrat.

In 2012, he could have tossed his hat in the Republican primary. Instead, in February (when who would be the Repub nominee was unknown) he chose to take the Constitution Party nomination, in order to ensure that, whoever won the Republican nomination, he could split the conservative vote to defeat the Republican.

No thanks. This guy is a Dem plant.

Romney is who we have, for better or worse. If Romney betrays us, then he will have a challenger in the 2016 primary.

51 posted on 10/20/2012 1:39:46 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (political correctness is communist thought control, disguised as good manners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: Delhi Rebels
Ronald Reagan had a core set of principles that he stood on and would not move from. Can you honestly say the same about Romney?

YES!

They may NOT be reported, but I'm am QUITE sure he has them!

For an example, has it EVER been reported where he has spoken of the vows he has taken in a MORMON temple?

83 posted on 10/21/2012 5:07:27 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson