Posted on 01/22/2008 8:38:59 PM PST by neverdem
I just lost my reason for changing my registration from Conservative to the GOP in New York. My pick in that poll was none of the above. Slightly more than half on this forum prefers Romney as I write this.
I don't know why Fred didn't get more support, but when he got a little more than half of the support of Mike Huckabee in the South Carolina, that told Fred something. Huckabee was his main rival for the social conservative vote. I don't know what those folks in South Carolina were thinking when they voted for Huckabee, but a candidate who proposes to ban tobacco smoking and who criticizes the present administration for being too bellicose is not credible, IMHO, not to mention his otherwise populist politics.
When it comes to the general election, I'll most likely support the GOP's nominee, but if it is Romney, I won't be surprised if a lot of the "base" stays home. Some will stay home because of his religion. That's probably the worst reason not to vote for him, IMHO. Debra J. Saunders wrote today in the San Francisco Chronicle: "But don't tell me Romney is the true conservative in the race. His record reveals a solid conservative - when it has been in his interest to be one." Suffice it to say, the author barely starts to criticize Romney for all of the changes in his political positions over various social issues over the years. Should Romney win the nomination and in November, I expect as many disappointments as the current occupant of the White House.
I don't have to mention the other RINOs that are left in more ways than one. How did we get to this point where we are left with such a bunch of dismal RINOs? I don't know. The drive by media didn't help. But that is beside the point. The point is what do we do now. I say vote in the remaining primaries in a way so that we get a brokered convention. Considering what we are left with now, how could we do any worse?
Some might fear a brokered convention. I fear muddling along with any of these RINOs. David Freddoso wrote last month in National Review Online: "A brokered convention would allow for an airing of grievances for a party that has to decide its direction after a major loss." November 2006 was such a loss. Conservatives and small 'l' libertarians have just had another loss in this GOP primary season. A brokered convention could result in having a nominee we want to vote for, as opposed to voting against whoever the donkey is, after they have a nasty primary battle, or Bloomberg who's shaping up as the serious third party nominee. The left are eating their own. Fierce fighting over the minority vote may be the real surprise of the '08 Democratic race, with many blacks gravitating to Sen. Barack Obama and Hispanics to Sen. Hillary Clinton.
A brokered convention could take advantage of another fracture in the donkeys and appeal to a great many folks sick of endless illegal immigration while our entitlement and social programs are undermining our finances. Another third party effort from the right, e.g. Constitution Party, would be courting disaster even if Bloomberg draws votes only from the left and center, IMHO.
Thanks for the ping!
I love it when you rant. ;’) In November I’ll vote for the eventual Pubbie nominee. Also, I agree wholeheartedly with these words of FR’s own Grampa Dave:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1955546/posts?page=103#103
“...The purists, who will stay at home because our candidate couldn’t walk on water without getting the soles of his Teva’s wet will have gifted us with another Clintoon pillaging.”
If it’s Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee, I expect to vote Republican in November. If it’s McCain or Paul, I’m staying home or looking for a third party candidate. I’d rather be screwed by the enemy than by someone claiming to be a friend.
I think you wrote a very thoughtful post, neverdem. You’re not the only one that feels this way.
Good rant, neverdem. It’s not often that you rant. Great thread. I agree with SunkenCiv, GrampaDave and other like-minded posters.
Romney was my 3rd choice after Hunter and Thompson (Hunter in the Michigan primary, my wife voted Romney...she also likes Guliani).
Thanks to all posters.
The NRA gave Romney a B+ for his gun-related leadership.
The NRA ENDORSED Mitt Romney, if I'm not mistaken.
So please, it does no one any good to hype up hatred for the man who will likely be the GOP nominee.
Romney held (holds) basically the same position as a large percentage of gun-loving Republicans, including me.
Which is that no one will EVER "grab" or take away anyone's guns.
Romney has constantly said we all have a Constitutional God-given right to own guns, as many as we feel we need.
But many feel the new high-tech weapons, pulse weapons, the centrifical bullet-spray weapons, and the like -- might have a need for some caution.
But that doesn't mean he's a gun grabber.
Romney is going to get the support and endorsement of almost every conservative leader, talk show host, or Republican politician in the nation.
As we speak, Laura Ingraham is pumping up .... supporting .... endorsing.... whatever you want to call it -- Mitt Romney.
Add her name to today's endorsement by Dana Rorerbacher, of California, and several other prominent Republican conservative leaders.
Also, Romney got the endorsement of the NRA in ? 2002 or 2004.
His position on guns is basically the same as the bulk of other conservative Republicans.
Hopefully, we might see a Romney/Thompson slate.
Regardless, I will vote for Mitt.
I don’t understand why some of us swoon over a candidate’s list of conservatism when that candidate can’t fire up voters and financial support. A lot of us could have a great list of conservatism and would be lucky if our family members and a few friends voted for us. We need candidates who fire up a lot of voters and financial backers to win elections. Why participate in elections if you don’t want to win and want the other party to win to teach the rest of us a lesson.
Too many of us latch onto a good guy, who couldn’t win an election for dog catcher because of his conservative dream list. Then, we stab other Republicans in the back because our dream boy was just that, a dream.
Thanks all. I do think Romney will be on the ticket, VP if not P. We are at the tipping point; a return to rule by the Dhimmicrats in the WH and all of Congress — and thus packing of the SCOTUS and federal courts — will be a one way trip, and future elections will be EINO. We are not going to get everything we want, that’s called life, and everyone needs to understand that, otherwise we’re just another whiny entitlement class.
A centrifugal bullet-spray type gun is the latest technology, and is still in the testing phase. (SEE BELOW) — from a defense review website ....
“Highest RPM weapon is the DREAD system, an electro-centrifugal powderless weapon system. It has no recoil, no gas blowback, no reload in the traditional sense, and so it is capable of firing up to 120,000 rounds per minute from a single barrel.No other weapon system can top the accuracy, rate of fire, or reliability.
It delivers .50 cal spherical projectiles less than 1/3 inch apart, at distances comparable to sniper rifles, with identical accuracy. Custom munitions planned for the system.
DREAD TALON SWORD and you’ll probably find a link to defense review somewhere.”
May I suggest a duel?
I’m with you. We need a brokered convention. That would set this entire nation back on it’s heels and be worth about 5 percentage points in the General Election.
Romney certainly made some PC statements in 1994, and perhaps some in 2002.
He was constantly hounded 24/7 by 'gotcha' uber-lib journalists, and surrounded by voters from the Kennedy wing of the Democratic party.
Heck, I'd be embarrassed to have all the statements I made over the past 15 years thrown back in my face, man of them out of context to boot. Wouldn't you?
As for the assault weapons thing, didn't the NRA 'sign off' on that legislation. Didn't the NRA donate to his campaign.
Lastly... I own several very powerful guns. I am not worried one way or the other about the 'assault weapons ban'.
In fact there are many good decent and very conservative Republicans across the country who support that assault weapons ban, because they know citizens are still able to arm and protect themselves to the hilt with a wide variety of very lethal guns, if the need be.
Jolly, a choice between a gun with a hot temper who doesn't understand "Congress shall make no law", and a second, whose paste actions, despite his current protestations, indicate he doesn't understand "shall not be infringed". Of course the Donkey candidate will be on the wrong side of both those issues, and generally willfully ignorant of the rest of the Constitution as well.
I doubt that whatever came out of a brokered convention would be any worse, but it's likely to be one of them anyway.
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.