If someone truly cannot vote for Mr. Romney based on real convictions, I accept that choice. On the other hand, the comments that come from so many Romney haters make clear that they are not motivated by convictions but instead by vanity. Their egos will be hurt if the rest of the party doesn't go along with their hatred, and they would rather put their egos ahead of their country. If that shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it. If that shoe fits you, you should wear it with shame.
Advocating the use of that kind of threat as a tactic is likewise childish and cowardly. No one is happy to see his nominee defeated, but the "I'll hold my breath, stomp my feet, take my ball, and go home if I don't get my way" argument only makes you look immature. The Founding Fathers created a government for mature, patriotic citizens. Without those kinds of citizens, this country doesn't work no matter who is elected. Your words suggest that you aren't up to the task of being that kind of citizen.
Many of Mr. Romney's supporters are as passionately dedicated to him as his haters are passionately dedicated against him. If you and those like you "on principle" sabotage his campaign to deny him the nomination, many of them may likewise sit out this election "on principle." For you, the "principle" is that Mr. Romney was once liberal on too many positions and you refuse to believe that he changed. You worry that his nomination and election would take the party in the wrong direction. For them, one "principle" will be that choosing any nominee just to spite another candidate causes as much long-term harm for the party and conservative movement as choosing someone who doesn't seem pure enough on conservative issues. The other "principle" will be that denying someone the nomination based on religious bigotry will also do more long-term harm to the party than allowing Obama to win a second term. You will insist that your interpretation of Mr. Romney is the only right one and that religious bigotry has nothing to do with the issue. They will point out different interpretations of Mr. Romney's record and cite the hundreds of anti-Mormon threads on Free Republic and other places over the past four years. Your use of this kind of "poison pill" politics may end up being just another way of ensuring that Obama gets four more years.
I agree that social media could have a powerful impact on an election. However, that impact depends on someone using that media to broadcast ideas that are different and intelligent. Your "if we don't get our way, we'll pitch a fit and stay home" message is neither new nor different nor intelligent. You can use social media within your own little echo chamber to think that this idea has merit, but outside your own little circle of keyboard warriors, this message just makes you one more keyboard warrior posturing within his echo chamber.
Only so many viable candidates can be groomed for any election cycle. Three candidates with a social conservative resume better than that of Mr. Romney looked good about eight years ago. Mark Sanford had the right experience in private enterprise and as a governor. If he hadn't thrown away his public image with an affair, he'd have been a perfect choice for the 2012 nomination. George Allen didn't have as good a resume outside of government, but he had a solid record as a governor and a senator. If he hadn't used an ethnic slur in the 2006 campaign and lost to Jim Webb, he'd have been a strong contender this year. (He likely would have won the nomination in 2008 except for that incident.) Tim Pawlenty had as good a pro-life record as governor as any politician in this country. He didn't have the style that many conservatives want, but he had the right record. Social conservatives rejected him over his style. Any of those candidates could have united the party and done well enough among independents to win. Two of them eliminated themselves with their own actions and one was eliminated by shallowness among the GOP primary voters. You need to stop blaming the rest of us because you don't have a legitimate candidate to win the nomination. The rest of the candidates being considered simply don't have the right stuff at this time. That's no excuse for playing "poison pill" politics.
I'm not here to advocate that you vote for Mr. Romney in the primary. I know that you will never support him. I suspect that only a few percent of active Freepers will vote for him in the primaries. If Free Republic and those with similar perspective can rally around another candidate and win the nomination through intelligent advocacy of some other candidate, I'm happy that the system is working properly. I'll be happy to vote for that candidate. If the candidate is any good, I may even give money or time to that candidate. Otherwise, I'll work for good candidates at other levels.
I will advocate that people put the country above their egos. As I said in my first post, I see Ron Paul as the toxic candidate because his views on national security are so bad. I'd still vote for him over Obama. I see Rick Perry as a clod. He's been dishonest about Gardasil and liberal about immigration. He'll be a disaster, but I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination. If we have to have a nominee who cheated on his wife, I'd rather go back and nominate Mark Sanford instead of Newt Gingrich. At least Mark Sanford has successful executive experience. Even so, I'd vote for Newt Gingrich. We all like Herman Cain, but he's not prepared to be president. I'll vote for him if he's nominated because I still like the guy. Michele Bachmann has no executive experience, is gaffe prone, and has high negatives outside the echo chamber. I'd still vote for her if she won the nomination. She just can't win the general election. Rick Santorum is a serious, knowledgeable statesman. He also comes across as a religious authoritarian, and Americans don't want a religious authoritarian in our highest office. He can't win, but I might as well vote for him if he's nominated. Many of us will vote for these candidates, but allowing people to sabotage a candidate like Mitt Romney by poison pill politics will harm the party and the country. I'm saddened to see Free Republic become a headquarters for that kind of thinking.
That was the STUPIDETS post I have seen in a long time
You advocate ALL the dumbest of the dumb ideas to vote FOR Romney that have come downthe pike.
Why? Who wants Romeny? over 70% WANT SOMEONE ELSE so why go to all this effort to promote someone tha MAJORITY are against.
SO we can have the same crapy candidate that we had in McLame? The next chance we get we want THE LOSER who lost the THE LOSER who lost to Obama?
FORGET IT
I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE “MITT” FOR BRAINS IS NOT OUR CANDIDATE