Posted on 12/30/2011 10:12:39 AM PST by BCrago66
Romney 26, Gingrich 24, Paul 11.
(Excerpt) Read more at gallup.com ...
Agree.
One here. IF Mittens is the Rep candidate in the GE. I think I will follow the wife and just hand in my voter registration.
Course I could always vote for “none of the above” but why waste the time.
Bag Santorum and Bachman after New Hampshire going into the southern states and Newt kill’s Romney and Paul.
Make sure you vote. We need to hold the congress, just pass on Mitt, the RINO from the land of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.
He won't eliminate Obama's Czars, he won't eliminate Obamacare, He won't replace Janet Napolian, he won't clean house in the ATF or FBI or EPA or with judges or anything else ! All that will happen with Romney in charge is most conservatives, tired of the worry will place trust into a man that will BETRAY US ALL !....While obama's henchmen continue at their posts !
Bush left the overwhwelming majority of Clinton's men in place when he took office.....ROMNEY WILL BE WAY WORSE !
So, this is where I am at the end of 2011.
I don’t have a candidate in particular since mine got destroyed by whatever.
Gonna vote for whomever gets the nomination, be it Willard, or Newt, or Perry, or Santorum or Bachmann, although I don’t see how she gets it TBH, or even Paul -GOD FORBID-.
I’m not going to be divided and conquered. An R will be selected to go against Ohomo and Queen Ass, and that R will get my vote. Hopefully, we can deal with the stinking GOP after Ohomo is defeated.
Priorities!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! PERFECT!!
[Shame...dreadful battle strategy. ]
Voting for a Mormon for President would validate that cult. Not gonna happen for a lot of us.
And you don’t think there will be hell to pay if Romney is the nominee? Peepstones, spirit wives, becoming god, golden tablets, Indians are Jews who came here in 600 BC, magic underwear, secret handshakes. And a whole lot more gonna be dragged into the open.
It isn’t like the GOP elite hasn’t been warned about the Mormon problem, but they keep on pushing this loser.
And then you have Romneycare, which just seals the deal.
We all have to plan our own attack. Let’s hope for victory either way...
Wow...hope there aren't many of you. I'd take peepstones, secret handshakes and magic underwear of allah loving, terrorist sympathizing and overt America hating.
I’m just stating a fact. Mormonism is a big issue to some of us. Held my nose for Dole, held my nose for McCain. Poke the bear three times and then be surprised when it responds by biting your leg off.
“A VERY LARGE contingent of Christian conservatives WILL NEVER vote for Mitt Romney.”
This is absolutely true. I’m one of them that will NEVER vote for Romney in a general election. I will leave the ballot blank, or write in “none of the above”, or just stay home. Something I have not done since the 1976 election.
Also, I guarantee that IF, God forbid, Romney gets the nomination, that Obama will use his Mormonism against him in a very big way. It has only been since, I believe, the 80s that the Mormon “Prophet” finally had a conveinent “revelation” allowing Blacks into the Mormon circle with full privileges. They didn’t used to seek to convert “Blacks” because of some quirks in their Mormon theology about dark skin. Romney will get crucified over that. It just hasn’t happened yet because we aren’t in a general election. The press will pile on big time. They will make a very big deal about the (not so public) truths about the oddity of Mormon theology and practice. It does not bear public scrutiny. And even though Mormonism is “family friendly”, they will use that against them over the Mormon’s financing the campaign against homosexual marriage vote in California. This will stir up the Left wing base of the Dems. Also, Romney’s past as a businessman indicates he was about profit first, and people second. They will hang him over that as well. His wealth will be used against him as well. He was born rich and stayed so. Class warfare target for sure! He is just NOT electible. Plus, he doesn’t have the huevos to go after Obama in debates like Newt would.
I myself have chosen to ignore Newt’s “baggage” and support him for the GOP nomination. I think he is the best overall mix of electibility & conservatism. Yes, there are many others more conservative than him. However, I question if they are capable of being an effective POTUS...especially in matters of National Defense.
Now, although I have chosen to vote for Newt, I still respect those moral/social conservatives that chose to vote for Santorum, Bachmann, or Perry in the Iowa Primary. I WILL NOT denigrate persons that stand on genuine principle and moral conviction. I find it very offensive when persons have written such libel as “evangelicals are screwing us” here on Free Republic.
That type of rhetoric should not be tolerated on this forum. Besides, God willing, once the Iowa and New Hampshire nonsense is over, then we get down to the real race. Folks you are going to need to “evangelicals” and “morale conservatives” to get Newt as the GOP nominee and, God willing, eventually POTUS. Santorum cannot prevail past Iowa. The same is true for Bachmann and Perry. We need those good folks to join us in getting Newt nominated instead of Romney. You cannot create bad blood now and expect it to go away.
IF you must spew against a group, then spew against Paul and his followers. They are NOT Republicans they are Libertarians and will bolt the moment Paul doesn’t get the nomination - which he NEVER will. So, those are the folks you should be angry with, instead of conservative evangelicals or moral/social conservatives. I suspect Ron Paul to run as a third party candidate or as the Libertarian one. That is where your anger should be directed.
I hear ya...
Bill Clinton in ‘92 is the only nominee that lost both IA and NH that I can see, Harkin, a local, took IA and Tsongas, a local took NH. Looks like Newt may need to repeat that dynamic. I remember Clinton did proclaim himself the comeback kid for finishing 2nd in NH.
I will never vote for that abortionist Mitt Romney for president!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU
That type of rhetoric should not be tolerated on this forum.
Although I agee with you that the statement you quoted was wrong, I do not believe we should censor those opinions here at FR if they fall within the purview of conservative debate. Evangelicals as a voting bloc, have in the past had dramatic effect on elections...Ronald Reagan. Mike Huckabee, and Pat Robertson come to mind. It is just as likely that a dynamic could occur in which their adherance to principles effects the results as it is likely to occur among the Tea Party, or pro-choice Republicans, for example.
“Although I agee with you that the statement you quoted was wrong, I do not believe we should censor those opinions here at FR if they fall within the purview of conservative debate.”
You cannot allow loose canons to keep rolling on deck - it will sink the ship. The person that said “Evangelicals are screwing us..” was an over-the-top Newt supporter. As I stated, I’m supporting Newt, but I will not bad mouth fellow evangelicals that don’t agree with me. Why hurt a chance to reconcile at a latter date - something I hope for. No, that type of rhetoric is in the same vein as “racist” remarks....which I believe are not allowed on FR.
Still disagree that it runs afoul of the rules, but I don’t run the site. We can discuss evangelicals and their voting tendencies just like we can discuss blacks and their voting tendencies without being racist. TBBT felt that evangelicals turning to Santorum was hurtung Newt...which it was. I, however, do not agree they were “screwing us (conservatives)” ...they are entitled to cast their vote like anyone else and Newt didn’t close the deal with them.
I understand. Let’s hope the decision never has to come.
“Still disagree that it runs afoul of the rules, but I don’t run the site. We can discuss evangelicals and their voting tendencies just like we can discuss blacks and their voting tendencies without being racist.”
No, his wording is offensive not descriptive of a political position. His was expressing a definite contempt in a rather uncouth way.
If he had simply written “the evangelicals are hurting us by their votes”....that is an opinion properly expressed. However, the term “screwing” is just a toned down version of they are “f**king us”(which is profanity and not allowed). That is not just opinion it is vulgar libel (deflamation of character) and of an entire group. It is expressing contempt in, what I consider, and unacceptable manner. He can express contempt, which is an opinion, but there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of doing so. To refer to moral conservatives using “profanity” (granted - toned down) is unnacceptable. It is a matter of tone and demeanor. The same is true of racism. How you say it is often more indicative of racism than the base meaing of the phrase. The same is true for anti-Christian bigotry.
Also, it is not conducive to building a coalition that will be necessary once the Iowa and New Hampshire nonsense is finished.
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.