Posted on 01/30/2011 10:33:33 AM PST by parksstp
Nearly half of the Republican Primary voters who support Sarah Palin say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for a third-party candidate if she does not win the GOP presidential nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
It always amuses me to see these folks who assume that "principle" means "voting for my preferred candidate in the primaries."
Almost seems to dilute the word into meaninglessness.
Repeating the old PDS lie ain't helping your argument, as well as calling her a really nasty name.
I think you're confused, or else don't understand how the primary system works.
DeMint could win walking away. And he EASILY wins wins two of the first three primaries - going away in Iowa and South Carolina, leaving NH to Romney.
That is SO true - in 2012, the nomination could be DeMint's for the taking. And THAT'S what scares the Palinstinians so much - knowing that they could invest so much emotional capital into her, only to see DeMint walk in and grab the ring without even having to stand on tippytoes.
Which would present an interesting - and potentially dangerous - situation.
What would the Palin people do if DeMint were to step in and win the nomination? They can't very well jibberjabber about him being a "RINO" (well, they could try, since they seem to specialise in that sort of thing, but it would have zero credibility), so what options do they have left? Would the Palin People refuse to vote for DeMint all because he's not Sarah, and risk shooting down the candidacy of someone even more conservative that Palin, and reelecting 0bama?
In other words
46% of GOP Primary Voters Responsible for Zero Second Term.
how about we fix that, shall we?...
In other words, the Republican party elites are responsible for a Zero Second Term?
Of course my point assumes that the Party Elite push a "civil" and "bi-partisan" RINO on us as the candidate...
Well, the Republican Party might have....
My agenda is for conservatives and Republicans to not tie themselves to one candidate, but to have a number of choices to consider over the next year leading up to the primary season.
Informed choice, rather than emotional personality cult. If that's an "agenda," then guilty as charged.
I have little use for Romney, but to suggest that he is no different than Obama is one of the more ignorant comments ever to appear on this forum, and you have some real competition, I assure you.
Obama is a third generation Marxist who hates American, wants to destroy our system of government, and will pursue his Narcissist ambitions without regard to its effects on the country. His political allies and cronies constitute an organized criminal conspiracy determined to impose their version of a socialist nirvana upon us all. For historical examples of what this would mean, see references to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Castro.
Romney, on the other hand, is just a opportunistic liberal fool and an idiot. There is a real difference and the fact that you can't see it is quite disturbing.
You know, those are all good points.
I’d put it on a tagline, if it would fit:
“I’m more conservative than Sarah Palin. For instance, I’m against illegal immigration, against giving up American sovereignty, and against the radical gay agenda!”
Great, except we don’t have a number of choices, and we seldom do.
In this case we are at the literal edge of national destruction, and so far only one candidate has clearly spoken out with the correct answers to the important questions, and she has done it without hesitation, on the spot, completely extemporaneously is most instances. IOW, it came from her most sincerely held beliefs, not from some speech writer’s script.
If you're going to quote me, at least be honest enough to quote the whole thing. I said she's an "amnesty whore" - which is true enough, since her position is largely identical to McCain's on this issue (probably one of the reasons she was even chosen by him).
Why would it be okay to refer to McCain as an amnesty whore for his support for legalising illegals for the sake of business profits, but it's suddenly NOT okay to refer to Palin as the same, when her stance is basically identical to his?
Oh, and by the way, I'm really not interested in your opinions about my "credibility" since you're not in any sort of position to grant or take away credibility from anyone or anything.
It's because she is. She's nearly identical to McCain on this issue. That's not even to mention, as someone reminded me earlier, that she also tried to get Ted Stevens to vote FOR the LOST treaty (meaning she's soft on American sovereignty) and that she's apparently not, ah, fully with us when it comes to opposing the radical gay agenda. Three strikes against her right there.
You’re a disgusting dishonest liar and a complete troll
Really? You didn't seem to think so when I was rescuing your rear end on the crevo threads. My, what fickle people we have here...
The act of casting a vote has nothing to do with principle, since it is by its very nature, anonymous. To stand on principle requires that you put your reputation, your standing in society, and your fortunes at risk. A visit to the voting booth does no such thing.
Voting casts a grain of sand onto one pile or another. When voting is over, the largest pile of sand wins, so you must throw your grain onto the pile that best suits your interests, pure and simple. If you want to stand on principle, put your reputation and your resources to the pursuit of that principle. Support Conservative candidates, and if you don’t have any money to spare, give time, and if you can’t spare that, spread the good word. But, when it comes time to vote, throw your little grain of sand onto the pile that will better support the larger goal and never, never cast it for the enemy, or throw it on the pile that means nothing.
Holy moly, home from work and didnt think this would still be going on.
The GOP may have lost its way in 2008/10, but thanks to the new apportionment of Electoral Votes on the 2012 map, they should be much less hostile to a strong conservative candidate, primarily for the reason that there is substantial proof from the 2010 results that a strong conservative candidate has the best chance of winning, be that Palin, Thune, Demint, Cain, Jindal, etc.
*IF the presumptive GOP nominee is truly conservative, they essentially have all the McCain states locked up for 170 EV’s. Thanks to Tea Party efforts, NC and IN should easily
be locked up like normal. And if McCain (our weakest candidate in years) managed to hold MO despite the corruption and voter fraud that went on, the GOP should win by at least 3-4 points here. You can also toss VA back over to the Red side now that Jim Webb has been exposed for not being a moderate Democrat and the fact George Allen decided to run for his old seat. This gets the generic GOP candidate to 219 Electoral Votes without much of a fight from the Democrats.
The fun starts in FL and OH (like normal). In FL, a GOP conservative has the advantage and the National GOP knows it thanks to the Crist Senate disaster. If you look at Obama’s vote totals from FL 2008, its not that he won larger margins in already blue areas, its that he overperformed in the conservative areas along the I-4 corridor and Duval county. That will not happen this time because the Independent’s realize Obama is a lot more leftist than they thought. At best, the Dems will try to paint the Conservative GOP candidate as “extreme” and too “far right”. Given these two choices, I’d assume those Indy’s would stay home and not vote at all if they didn’t like our guy/gal. But that will not garner Obama any additional votes, which should be far less than last time due to lower enthusiasm. And with Rubio playing strong down in FL, the candidate is in good shape there, even Sarah Palin who, yes, could definitely win FL.
Despite our successes in PA and MI, I still expect them to go blue (for now). With FL out of play, the Dems will through money heavily into the midwest/southwest. Unfortunately, I think 2010 in NV showed us the state is rigged and will be hard for the GOP to win in 2012, unless the Governor steps into investigate it. The GOP should have the advantage in OH as well this time because, like FL, Obama cannot run as a “centralist” to Independents and get away with it. I think OH may be closer than FL at this time, but still red. That’s 266 Electoral Votes.
Of the remaining states (CO, NM, IA, WI, NH), I’m less certain. NH is probably blue. WI is a complete toss up after Feingold’s ouster. The Democrats having to spend money here will be frustrating to them, but they essentially have no choice because they certainly lose without it. IA is a complete toss-up, as is NM. CO is my choice for closest state though.
Sorry for the long post, but my point is that whereas the GOP’s argument against providing money to Christine O’Donnell in what looked like an unwinable situation in DE, doesn’t hold at the National level given the make-up of the Electoral map. The number-crunchers like Rove/Carville will be able to see this as well. This is probably the best year for nominating a true conservative since 1980.
So the GOP did not win control of the house this past cycle. Dang learn something new every day.
I don’t exactly remember you ‘rescuing’ anything, but how would that negate such a deliberate lie?
I have to admit that I have been thoroughly shocked at the positions of many here that I once would have trusted. This is getting to be a hazardous world.
What you might learn is that leading up to primary season, People may blurt out comments and positions that they will glibly deny later.
Palin’s only real ‘negatives’ within the GOP are those that are likely to receive a knock on the door in the wee hours of the morning from the federal marshals after she’s elected.
I will never vote for Romney or other unacceptable RINO, and I will work to insure that either a RINO does not get the Republican nomination, or that if a RINO does get the nomination, I will work to do everything I can to help a 3rd party conservative nominee displace the Republican party to remove Obama from office.
I will sleep well at night with my choice. If Obama wins, I chalk that up to voters such as yourself who are apathetic to really changing the political landscape in this country to move away from the marxism being offered from one degree to another from both the dem and Republican party and accepting what you are given.
The thing is, your philosophy, in the end, will end up causing the worst bloodshed this country has ever seen, IMO. I hope if you survive it that you are proud of yourself.
Well, of course we do. The simple fact that you have already pre-ordained Palin to the exclusion of all other possibilities doesn't actually mean that Palin is the only choice out there. this is especially so when we consider that there is more than a year before we even begin the primary season. A lot can happen in that time, and to assume that the current circumstances are fixed in stone forever and for all time is simply not reasonable.
In this case we are at the literal edge of national destruction, and so far only one candidate has clearly spoken out with the correct answers to the important questions, and she has done it without hesitation, on the spot, completely extemporaneously is most instances. IOW, it came from her most sincerely held beliefs, not from some speech writer’s script.
Oh c'mon, she's no more of a political messiah than anyone else.
P.S. I know for a fact that Sarah Palin reads her speeches from a script because I've seen her do it with my own eyes.
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.