If Mitt Romney is in, I'm out!

Declaration of Independence | April 30, 2009 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Yeah, I know. Said some similar things about Bush in 2000. But at least he was pro-life, pro-family, etc, and thank God we supported him over the idiot All Green Gore.

Said similar things about McCain in 2008. But when asked the question "when does human life begin?," and he unabashedly stated, "At conception, of course," I had to take notice. Then when he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate, I decided to support her. I voted for Sarah (and the white haired old geezer that came along with the package).

But Romney is a NO go. And I don't care who this socialist, abortionist, homosexualist, constitution trampling bastard picks for running mate. If Romney's in I'm out!

G.O.P., R.I.P!

[Diogenesis]

"A political party cannot be all things to all people.
It must represent certain fundamental beliefs
 which must not be compromised to political expediency
or simply to swell its numbers."
--  President Ronald Reagan

“The Massachusetts Republican Party died last Tuesday.
The cause of death: failed leadership.
The party is survived by a few leftover legislators
and a handful of county officials and grassroots activists
who have been ignored for years.
Services will be public and a mass exodus of taxpayers will follow.
In lieu of flowers, send messages to Republican voters
warning them about a certain presidential candidate named Romney.”
- Boston Herald, 11/12/2006

"In 2006, while Romney was chairman of the National Republican
Governors Association - a group dedicated to electing more
Republican governors - his own hand-picked Republican successor
as governor lost badly to the Democrat, despite the fact that Republicans
have held the governorship in Massachusetts since 1990. Romney largely
ignored the Massachusetts elections and spent most of the time
during the campaign out of state building his presidential campaign.
He came back and publicly campaigned for the Republican candidate
the day before the general election!
“Locally, this is a rebuke to Mitt Romney and checking out within six months
after being elected and having accomplished almost nothing,”
[Jim] Rappaport [former chairman of the state Republican Party]."
- Boston Globe, 11/8/2006

[Tennessee Nana]

What EXACTLY did Romney say?

I have never heard the man or a report of that man saying anything remotely UNACCEPTABLE about ANYONE.
______________________________________________

Well I dont ACCEPT what Romney has said about President Ronald Reagan...

[ansel12]

What EXACTLY did Romney say? I have never heard the man or a report of that man saying anything remotely UNACCEPTABLE about ANYONE.

Maybe you just don't care about the people that he degrades and lies about.

""Reagan was adamantly pro-choice." Mitt Romney

He sold and promoted this for months, long enough that now the myth will probably always pop up as it does here at FR occasionally from some of our sleazier Romney followers.

[TAdams8591]

There are about two dozen despicable FReepers that are like rabid dogs, doing exactly what you’re saying, trying to shut down debate"

I couldn't agree more and then they deny that's their intention and furthermore, they then accuse you of what THEY do. ALL the tactics of the left.

"THe DUers must be loving it"

Yes, because most of them ARE DUers.

It makes the forum and conservatives look more than just a little bad and is a total embarrassment.

I thought of them when I was watching a youtube segment of Mark Levin this morning about behind the scenes Chicago style white house politics. I'll find the link to the clip. It describes them to a T. : )

[MHGinTN]

Let me see if I can illustrate why opposing Romney on his religion is, well, the wrong perspective ... and it is one of the talking points the Mittiacs have been spewing for months at FR, that opposition to Romney is based upon his religion, when it isn't, not even remotely. The apparent aim of such a specious and unseemly effort to manipulate Freeper conservatives smacks of Obama playing the race card, obliquely ... shame anyone who opposes Mitt by implying such opposition could only be based on covert hatred for Mormonism. Disgusting as that is, even that vile effort is not the reason to reject two-faced Mitt Romney.

Let's take an imaginary candidate for the presidency, who has proven he was born in the U.S. of American citizen parents ... but his family's religion is Islam and he is devoutly Islamic. Now, would I oppose such a candidate based upon his chosen religion? Well, not per se. What I would do is look very closely at the tenets of that religion and decide if believing in and offering fealty to that religion is a threat to America if this candidate is elected.

Islam is not a religion of peace, albeit George Bush pounded that specious claim into citizens' minds during the days following an Islamic slaughter of Americans, Americans of a whole lot of different religions--including Moslems we might note. Such a religion is a definite danger for America because a fundamental tenet of Islam is world domination under Islamic law with Allah-as-the-ONLY-god belief allowed freedom to grow. We have numerous examples of Islamic murderers slaughtering people around the globe in the name of Allah and they are allowed and in some notable cases even funded by Moslems, by Saudis, and Afghanis and Pakistanis and ... well, you get the picture, Islam is an enemy of the entire civilized world!

Would I vote for such a man who believes that religious tent of world domination under allah? Absolutely not. BUT, we have millions of fellow Americans who have voted for such men, many of whom are rabid racists, too! We currently have a not so closeted racist in the White HOuse!

Now, replace Islam with Mormonism. Is Mormonism a threat to end freedom of religion in America? I don't think so, nothing in their recent past (after the Joseph Smith character and his immediate successor, Young, left the scene) points to a lust to kill in order to achieve world domination for a 'Kolob oligarchy'. In fact, most every follower of Mormonism is a solid American citizen and many of their young men and women have served most honorably in government and the military branches.

So would opposing Romney based upon the religion to which he has sworn fealty be a rational approach? Not really. Yes, there are strange tenets in Mormonism and a man believing them might be questioned on rational grounds, but there is nothing in Modern Mormonism which would preclude voting for a man who adheres to that peculiar religion, on religious v free America grounds.

Lastly, are there tenets in Mormonism which have fashioned Romney's liberal perspectives? To the contrary, I would argue it has been just the opposite, he is not a good example of a conservative Mormonism adherent. In fact, he is an embarrassment to Mormons friends I have had for decades. And we have seen at FR that there are numerous Mormonism apologists who could not in good conservative conscience vote for liberal Mitt Romney.

[gitmo]

I love Sarah, but I could never support her on the same ticket as Romney. Fortunately, I doubt that will ever happen.

Palin / Romney I would support. Romney / Palin ... nah.

[unique]

Hmmmmmmm...

So, Romney wins the Republican nomination in 2012 - you intend to sit it out and allow Obama another four years?

So, no lesson was learned in 2009.......

We are so screwed, now for 8 years....

[bert]

There is only one consideration for Romney...... he was governor of Massachusetts.

That is all that is needed for disqualification. If he was acceptable to the loyalist yankees, he is unacceptable as President.

[Jim Robinson]

You got it backwards, pal. Those who ignore the wrath of the people haven’t learned their lessons. No more RINOS!!!

If it’s business as usual for the RINO GOP in 2010, it’ll be a bloodbath!! GOP, RIP!!

[wagglebee]

Lastly, are there tenets in Mormonism which have fashioned Romney's liberal perspectives? To the contrary, I would argue it has been just the opposite, he is not a good example of a conservative Mormonism adherent. In fact, he is an embarrassment to Mormons friends I have had for decades. And we have seen at FR that there are numerous Mormonism apologists who could not in good conservative conscience vote for liberal Mitt Romney.

Exactly! Romney is the antithesis of mainstream Mormonism on nearly all political issues.

[mojitojoe]

“We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party
over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldn’t make any sense at all.”” Ronald Reagan

[jla]

No, what is glaringly obvious is that trolls like you are trying to drive a divisive wedge into conservatives by pitting Romney vs. Palin, when in fact both are fine candidates who represent our cause well.

How am I a "troll"? Please explain this. Now, don't misconstrue my query, I couldn't care less what you think, I am just curious as to the mindset of a Romney supporter.

My statement stands, this thread is irrefutable proof of its validity.
Romney is persona non grata amongst a good many conservatives and Republicans. That is a fact.

There is one person who does not evoke rancor and infighting amongst those on the Right. This I attribute to the fact that she actually believes what Jefferson and Reagan stood for. She personifies what Jefferson and Reagan advocated for this country, she doesn't just utter their words expediently to garner votes.

America's Choice

[ejonesie22]

WHEW DOGGIES!

Adams, you are a HOOT!

[ejonesie22]

Indeed...

[jla]

I don't know who are worse, the liberals and Democrats who malign Sarah Palin are those on the (ostensible) Right doing the exact same thing. Definite déjà vu to 1976 when Reagan was vilified in favor of Gerald Ford.
One thing is certain, Sarah will not allow any of them to shake her, and we have to support this grand lady in as she advances the American agenda.

[Tennessee Nana]

Traitors & Scalawags. In their prolonged post-mortem on the 1964 election, most Republicans could agree to the fact that it had been an awful show. Beyond that, there was static from all parts of the party.

Cried Actor Ronald Reagan, co-chairman of California’s Citizens for Goldwater and an early-form pick among right-wingers for the state’s 1966 gubernatorial nomination: “We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended.”

Between rounds of golf, Goldwater himself took time out to lambast such middle-roading Republicans as Governors Nelson Rockefeller of New York and George Romney of Michigan and Senators Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania and Thomas Kuchel of California as “socalled Republicans.” Barry suggested that “the time has come for a real realignment of the parties,” naming them “liberal and conservative,” not “Democratic and Republican.”

(Times Magazine, “Only 725 Days” Friday, Nov. 20, 1964)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,830781,00.html

[greyfoxx39]

And note, not one of them confronts the boss as directly as they do the rest of us

As I have said before....

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim, da do da do...

[Diogenesis]

[from "Mitt Romney as Tarantino's Superman", New Republic]:
"Whereas most superheroes' secret identities (Bruce Wayne, Peter Parker) are their true identities
--the people they were before their parents were murdered or they were bitten by radioactive spiders
or exposed to gamma rays or what have you--Superman was born Superman.
It's Clark Kent that is the invented alias, the pose, the "costume."
And in the way Superman plays Kent--weak, self-doubting, cowardly--
we can see what he thinks of the human race overall.
It occurred to me that the same is true of Mitt Romney's desperate,
if never terribly persuasive, impersonation of a conservative Republican."

So America, why take the Fake superhero, when you can have a real one save this country?

[unique]

True and let us hope that that doesn’t happen, pal!

All I’m saying is - let’s say it goes well in 2010 and for some reason, Romney gets the nomination is 2012, will you sit back and allow Obama to win?

By the way, what about Newt Gingrich - can you get behind him? He’s my man.

[Jim Robinson]

Well, pilgrim, I sure as hell won’t be voting for any abortionist/socialist. If Romney’s in, I’m OUT!!