Posted on 01/01/2012 10:59:11 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Dear Iowa Caucus participants,
You have been told for the better part of year now who it is that you must choose. Beltway insiders have insisted upon thrusting establishment candidates upon you. Libertarian anarchists have swopped into your state shouting that you must support Ron Paul, while toking on the marijuana they soon believe President Paul will make legal.
You've been openly mocked by Governor John Huntsman from Utah--who ironically seeks your support.
Ann Coulter has defied every conservative principal she's ever espoused by trying to brainwash you into thinking that Mitt Romney is the best that you have to choose from.
You've endured what seems like 7,162 debates. Which have yielded roughly thirty seconds of actual substance to judge the candidates on.
Yet after all of it, nearly 80% of you do not care for the front runner who was the third place finisher in 2008. And even less of you seem enamored with the rebellion inciting candidacy of a country doctor--who clearly understands our monetary crisis, but would leave America vulnerable to horrors beyond that of 9.11--should he become the decision maker.
So what is about the 80% of GOP Caucus goers that has you siding with the other candidates?
Could it be that they clearly articulate, understand, and have demonstrated a track record on the really simple things like protecting innocent life?
This would be understandable given that Governor Romney insisted upon $50 abortions being made available through tax-payer dollars in his desire to force private citizens in Massachusetts into mandated universal health care.
Could it be that they clearly believe that this is a dangerous world and the issues of national security are not for the silly-minded?
This would also make sense given the fact that Congressman Paul chose to excoriate his opponents, accusing them of harboring desires of genocide against 1.4 billion Muslims, instead of answer the question put before him as to how his presidency would handle the growing Iranian instability. Specifically he avoided answering what he would choose to do in the event that Iran attempts to hi-jack international waterways. One of those other candidates is easily America's greatest authority on the Iranian matter, another one has seen the confidential national security documents that none of the others have, and another one has been busy catching terror suspects on his state's southern border.
Could it be that the other candidates have argued and demonstrated consistently that raising taxes and attaching fees to the basics in American life is burdensome to the economic health of the nation?
This would again be completely understandable given that Governor Romney raised taxes on education in state universities, for purchasing a home, to receive a certificate of blindness, on corporations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, gun licenses, and even gasoline?
Could it be that the candidates drawing 80% of the GOP Caucus goers support in the polls don't believe legalizing heroin and marijuana are good ideas?
No one can argue with the logic that seems to elude Dr. Ron Paul on the simple concept of dangerous narcotics and making access easier for them.
Could it be that you don't know if you could trust Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul to protect the sacred institution of marriage?
Neither man has given you any reason to believe that they would seek to keep radical courts from imposing a government defined view of marriage upon voters in every state. Yet Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich helped you overturn activist judges in your own state, and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have been long supportive of your state's rights to decide for itself what the definition of marriage should be. And when you consider the particularly heinous manipulation that Governor Romney has applied to the issue -- pretending to support marriage, while overseeing, participating in, and enforcing the view of the activist courts -- support for him is particularly troublesome.
Could it be that you really just need to know that the most offensive over-reach of government in our lifetimes will be overturned?
This is completely fair. Obamacare--and further--the entire idea of government forcing you to purchase anything--just to exist--is outrageously unconstitutional. Governor Romney, however, just this week said that not only did he still support his original blueprint for Obamacare (the one he actually authored), but he went a step further to claim that the idea of forcing citizens to purchase health care--a mandate at the force of a gun--was a "conservative principle." Never mind that fact that this type of audacity carries with it incredible hubris, how does it incline you to believe that he will do anything to repeal Obamacare?
Could it be--actually above all else--that you are more concerned about finding, getting, and keeping a job than anything else?
If so you're not alone and while Ron Paul has no experience in economic development, and Mitt Romney will certainly be bloodied in the general election campaign with advertisement after advertisement talking to people his company sought to have fired from their private sector positions. One of the other candidates has seen to it that the regulatory, tax, and litigative atmosphere in the state which he serves as Governor is kept in check, and as a result his state has seen the growth of close to half of all jobs created in the last three years--while President Obama was busy growing government payrolls, and killing private sector jobs by more than two million.
In short Iowa Caucusers you have a lot of reasons to be 80% against the two men that you really can't seem to identify with. This week you have the serious job of deliberating, debating, and convincing your fellow caucusers of the truth. Feel free to take this column with you to the caucus.
But whatever you do, don't give up on your principles! Don't bankrupt our future, and don't vote out of fear.
Ronald Reagan always said that if he agreed with someone on 80% of the issues, he would count them a friend. By implication 80% disagreement would probably indicate that he couldn't work with that person.
Iowans share 80% disapproval of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Therefore finding unity on what you do agree on and stopping those you disagree with should be of the utmost of importance. Consider that on Tuesday.
America will be the better for it.
Kevin McCullough Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations. His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.
Good question. Force feeding RINOs down our throat only results in vomitus.
That is a deceptive rationale because 100 percent of the time, Romney opposes the principles of limited government conservatism:
1. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of keeping abortion legal on the FEDERAL level and, if his RomneyCare in Mass. is the standard, making YOU and ME pay for the at-will murder of the unborn.
2. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of embracing save-the-planetism, global warming, and the regulation by OTHER NATIONS of America's energy production and consumption (Quoth Romney, who believes global warming is happening and that man is at least partially to blame: "Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scop. Let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one." -- CPAC speech, 2008).
3. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of forcing American culture, including its military, to EMBRACE open homosexuality in virtually every aspect of life, and PUNISHING people when they peacefully reject, by discriminating against, open homosexuality in their workplaces, their childrens's schools and youth groups, their business choices, their neighborhoods, and their military ranks. Understand that no rights are bestowed -- "gay rights" is all about DENYING Americans their God-given right to reject open homosexuality in their personal and public lives.
4. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of the appointment of activist liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Romney has a track record of piss-poor judge picks, and it is because CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE SAILS OVER HIS HEAD.
5. Vote against Obama by all means, but if you vote FOR Romney, you are voting FOR making the Republican Party the party of more and bigger governnment, increased statism, and heavier government tyranny.
When you vote FOR Romney, Obama has zero to do with anything, because you will be voting to increase liberalism in both political parties. You will be voting to allow statism and government tyranny to STEAL our nation under the Republican banner!
Obama we can fight. Romney ties our hands behind our backs. ROMNEY NEEDS TO LOSE.
DO NOT PUSH ROMNEY ON THIS PRO-LIFE SITE!!
A search like this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=paul+and+romney&ok=Search&q=quick&m=exact&o=time
I am voting for Rick Perry. Enough said.
The Paul voters who are independents or Democrats should not be included in the polling. These people are hijacking the Republican nomination process. No more open primaries!
I searched the title of the article, in the manner in which it was named...”Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney”...why is this your concern? Are you the new FR posting czar? If so, you will be very busy as there are duplicate threads posted quite often. In any case, get off my back!
Obama we can fight. Romney ties our hands behind our backs. ROMNEY NEEDS TO LOSE.
Excellent post. Bears repeating.
This is the most condescending piece of tripe I’ve read on this matter yet. Does the author actually think that Iowans are not evaluating the candidates with their very own brain cells and reaching their very own conclusions?
I tell you, I am sick to death of any statement of support for a candidate, or any non-negative analysis of that candidate, being perceived emotionally as someone “telling you what to think.”
Good grief.
Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots? Thank you.
IMO, and that of the owner of FR, anyone who supports Romney and/or Paul IS a mind-numbed robot.
I think the author makes a lot of sense.
Thanks greyfoxx39.
Frequently, that doesn't sound bad to me.
One is plastic—say anything to get elected sort of rich guy who thinks he can buy the office, the other guy is a nut—a libertarian who would be as bad as a liberal imposing his way of thinking on the rest of us.
“The other guy is driving us towards the cliff at 100 mph” is not a reason to vote for a guy who will drive us towards the cliff at a mere 80 mph.
Good grief, first off, I did not say anything about supporting Romney.
Secondly, my entire post was a comment on the ridiculous analytical framework of the article and the condescension involved in claiming that people with whom one disagrees are not thinking for themselves.
You, obviously, think otherwise. And you seem perfectly comfortable with the delusion that the only reason someone might disagree with you on who is the best candidate is that they are mind-numbed robots.
Sorry. I recognize and accept that most people are able to think for themselves and do. I don't need a bunch of psychobabble hooey to help me deal with the fact that people disagree with me sometimes. I don't condescend to people who reach different conclusions from me. I accept that they have their reasons and, if I am so inclined, I engage those reasons and set out countervailing arguments.
But to write an article about how a whole state is full of people unwilling to think for themselves — as “evidenced” by the fact that people are not supporting “your” candidate — is, in my view, a wagonload of lamentable tripe.
But suit yourself.
Upchuck: "Someone posted a duplicate thread on Free Republic!!!"
LOL
"Why in the world are you running to JimRob for a pat on the head because of my comment?"
For some reason you seem to believe I wrote the article heading the thread, which I did not.
And you seem perfectly comfortable with the delusion that the only reason someone might disagree with you on ..anything....is that they are mind-numbed robots.
Quoting you again.."if I am so inclined, I engage those reasons and set out countervailing arguments."...full of hostility and "condescension".
But suit yourself.
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.