Gingrich Leads, But Likely GOP Primary Voters Have Not Ruled Out Romney (PRC POLL: Newt-35, Mitt-21)

Pew Research Center ^ | 12/13/2011 | Pew Research Center

[TBBT]

ewt Gingrich holds a substantial 35% to 21% lead over Mitt Romney among Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters who say they are very likely to vote in the GOP primaries or caucuses, according to the latest national survey conducted Dec. 7-11 by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

But clear majorities say there is at least a chance they would vote for either Gingrich or Romney in Republican primaries in their state. None of the other Republican candidates draws nearly as much potential support.

[Jane Austen]

Santorum was the best in the last debate with Bachmann close second. As for Newt, his promise to support the marriage amendment, will gain him votes. Already, Jay Leno attacked Newt for it.

BTW, Jay Leno's main criteria for attacking a candidate is their views on gays. He has gone all out to attack Bachmann,, saying extreme things about her that are untrue, maybe libel. His attacks appear mainly as to her and her husband's views on homosexuality. Then Leno want after a Perry ad, saying how it offended him because of a reference (albeit not negative) about gays. Now he slammed Newt because of the marriage amendment. His repeated reference to gays and gay marriage has made him an advocate of the gay agenda.

[true believer forever]

I don't really know why you feel the need to dump on me, or use some of the adjectives you are using, or why you are just saying mean things to me... but I don't deserve that.

I don't have blind allegiance to the Republican party, I support my Candidate, who is Newt. I worked very hard for the Tea Party in the last election. Maybe it's because I am not an old-timer here, or I am young, and you feel that this board belongs to people like you.. I have my opinions and I addressed you with respect, while stating those opinions.

I am sorry you are not feeling love on this board, like you said to another poster. I know what it's like to support an unpopular candidate. But just for the record, I like you... and I think you should support whoever you support... just don't dump on people.

Feel better. I really don't know who you support, but there's a long way for all of us to go.. and your candidate may very well be the one.

[LibLieSlayer]

leno is a progressive by any measure. He gave obama almost $10 Million Dollars through his pacs and money laundering machines. Ignore him... he is a joke even in hollyweird.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

To: LibLieSlayer

“I don't really know why you feel the need to dump on me, or use some of the adjectives you are using, or why you are just saying mean things to me... but I don't deserve that.”

This is the number one Conservative site in the world. This is the most serious and let me say dangerous election in my 56 years. The subject is so serious and the problems so deep and systemic, debate can become powerful enough to be offensive. I have crossed that line unwittingly and I apologize for any personal attacks that you perceive. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. I mean that... I truly do.

“I don't have blind allegiance to the Republican party, I support my Candidate, who is Newt. I worked very hard for the Tea Party in the last election. Maybe it's because I am not an old-timer here, or I am young, and you feel that this board belongs to people like you.. I have my opinions and I addressed you with respect, while stating those opinions.”

It has nothing to do with your time here... I swear on my honor that I never have looked at your profile...not even once. I have no idea how old you are... you post in an intelligent manner and have engaged in debate without becoming unhinged. I appreciate that and respect you for it. I just know that you are wrong and I know this from learning, knowledge and experience.

“I am sorry you are not feeling love on this board, like you said to another poster.”

It is a colloquialism that means that I have been in heated debate over subjects that I find both grave and immediate and my passions are running like a river of molten rock.

“I know what it's like to support an unpopular candidate. But just for the record, I like you... and I think you should support whoever you support... just don't dump on people.”

I was not dumping on you... but when you post on FR you must expect others who disagree... to critique and even challenge you on your assertions. That is all that is happening here. One must on this site, not take all posts in a personal manner. I have very good friends that I think the world of here on FR... friends that I would help in any way that I could should they ever call on me. In two cases... both onyx and Trisham, we disagree over newt. I was friends with both long before newt and I will be friends with them long after his ember flickers out. Again, if I offended you please understand that I was arguing against your arguments... not you personally. I hope that you will take my word on this... my word is gold.

“Feel better. I really don't know who you support, but there's a long way for all of us to go.. and your candidate may very well be the one.”

I wish I had a candidate to support but alas the field is so weak... it is down to those for whom I will hold my nose and vote for and those that I cannot vote for in good conscience.

What I find so egregious is how some will embrace the progressive garbage that I have seen them argue against for years... and all of the sudden they forgive these same progressive ideological tenants to support newt... I have even seen Reagan misrepresented as an FDR clone... he was raised in a progressive family that idolized FDR... and Reagan did in his early years, truly believe in FDR's progressive agenda... but he grew wise and through his debates with his brother Moon and his experiences later in life... he became one of the greatest Conservative president's in our lifetime... but once he embraced his inner Conservative... he was never in favor of the progressive garbage that newt is given a pass on.

You must forgive me... when you see mentions of “extreme right wingers” in the state propaganda machine... that is me that they are talking about. I have compromised with progressive republicans all of my life... I suffered through nixon and ford... Bush gave me a few moments too... but I decided in 2008 that I would never again compromise when a progressive is the candidate... I do not care what the circumstances are. Some of the rationalizations are dealing with the exact same issues that these same FReepers used to disqualify romney from consideration.

I will not stop debating with you unless you ask to retire the debate... but I will try harder not to be so zealous in my defense of my opinions. Fair? Again, please accept my apology for any unintended aggressions.

LLS

[true believer forever]

It was so nice for you to take the time to write this to me... and I have no hard feelings, not one.

This will probably make you very mad - and your passions run live a river of molten rock again (I loved how you said that) but all I really know about Ronald Reagan is what I have heard on Mark Levin, mostly, and Rush at times. I find him very inspiring, and I sometimes think to myself, who was this man, and how did he know so long ago almost exactly what is happening today. I also know a lot of people considered him dumb, but he said a lot of meaningful things to me. And I have listened to a few of his speeches over and over.

This is only my second election. I come from a military family and George W was a huge disappointment to a lot of military I know... he never defended the troops and let people say things about them, baby killers, and Pol Pot, raping women in the middle of the night. That is why I like Newt so much, he gives as good, or maybe even better, than he gets... W loved the troops, I truly believe that, but you have to be a fighter. Newt fights.

If you have a candidate, you should just post positive things about him or her every chance you get, that’s what I do. I call it planting seeds and you have to have faith they will grow. Minds do change. I am starting to like Rick Perry and, at first, I just cringed, because he reminded me so much of W. But he stuck up for Newt, after a fashion, at the last debate, and I like him better now, and am checking him out a little.

Mainly, though, everything will be fine. Because God will take care of His children, and God will bless America. Have Faith.

Thank you again for you kind words, and for some reason, I do believe your word is gold :)

[LibLieSlayer]

Merry Christmas and thank you!

LLS

[Diogenesis]

Terrorists world wide love the Romney.

No surprise actually.

The ineligible Mitt 'Hussein' Romney:
"I bet you $10,000 that you did not even know
that I and Bain made money from the 911 Victory Mosque land sale."

---

---

"(The GroundZero Mosque) cleared its final hurdle ….
developers plan to build the $100 million center which will include a mosque.
Since its incipient stages in July 2009, when a Muslim-run real-estate development
company purchased the damaged, vacant building and land where the new center
will be built, the project has sparked controversy and debate.
.... the tattered building that was bought by the Muslim real estate company had
been owned by a subsidiary of Bain Capital, a company Romney founded in 1984.
So it’s OK if his company can profit off the sale of the land ."

---

“Bain Capital, has cut checks totaling $90,000 to Romney’s operation. “

[Yosemitest]

What could Glenn never say on cable news?
A takedown of the progressive wing of the GOP establishment

My Core is Not Up for Grabs

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?

Palin was my first choice
Bachmann is now my first choice, and Cain is my second.
Newt is my third choice, and I might consider Rick Santorum.

But Romney, Perry, Ron Paul, Huntsman, and Johnson are NOT acceptable,
and if on the ballot for the general election for President or V.P., would cause me to do a write in.

There's no way in hell I can compromise my values.

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct by interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[airborne]

What a disheartening choice we ended up with.

I am resigned to the fact that I will likely hold my nose . . . AGAIN . . . and vote for the "GOP turd du jour".

Except for Romney. I don't think there's enough Lysol disinfectant to cover up the stink associated with Mitt.