Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney Denialists (editorial)
American Thiinker ^ | January 17, 2011 | Gene Schwimmer

Posted on 01/17/2012 5:46:32 PM PST by Clintonfatigued

It would be wonderful to rally behind a solid conservative with charisma, with the intellect and oratorical skills to effectively articulate and defend a consistent conservative philosophy. But as Ann Coulter pointed out, Ronald Reagan isn't running this year.

So we're left with this lot, every one of whom is flawed in one way or another, from Gingrich's environmentalism (to the point of appearing in an ad with Nancy Pelosi), to Michele Bachmann's running a campaign so inept that her entire New Hampshire staff quit (as, by the way, Gingrich's senior staff did, too) and the Tea Party, whose values she purports to represent, urged her to drop out.

The question really boils down to priorities, and precisely because we don't have a Ronald Reagan running this year, we're left with an either/or choice: Should the priority be standing on principle, or should it be defeating Obama? I suspect that the Romney Denialists fall into the former camp and I freely admit that that's a respectable strategy. It was, in fact, the strategy in '64 and we all know what happened: Goldwater got creamed -- but it set the stage for the conservative resurgence and Reagan's election in 1980.

It also enabled LBJ to enact Medicare and Medicaid. Those contemplating staying home on Election Day rather than vote for Romney might want to consider the virtual impossibility of repealing either program today and then decide how much they relish the prospect of trying to repeal ObamaCare if Obama is reelected and his signature "achievement" becomes equally entrenched.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Clintonfatigued

Try reading more carefully. ‘Stealth Romneybots’ was what I wrote. Do you consider yourself one of the Romneybots? Did I write that you were a Romneybot? Prickly feelings do not serve you well.


21 posted on 01/17/2012 7:13:55 PM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
As co-called "conservatives," we may not be focusing on the challenge of this moment. We say that the challenge is to "defeat Obama."

The sad fact is that it is the ideas Obama represents which must be defeated, if future generations are to live in liberty.

To accomplish that task requires a candidate who can speak so passionately and authentically of America's founding ideas that a majority of individuals will be convinced of the badness of the ideas and vote against the man they may possibly like as a person.

Minorities, especially, need to know that America's founding ideas are the ideas which offer them individual liberty, opportunity, prospects for success and prosperity, and escape from an existence which is the product of "other" ideas which lead to dependency and slavery to government.

The conservative candidate in 2012 who seems most likely able to articulate the ideas of liberty to generations who've probably never heard them before is Gingrich, warts and all.

22 posted on 01/17/2012 7:17:31 PM PST by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

“My only principle is in selecting the candidate most
likely to beat obama”

Me too.
I won’t do anything to help Rom get the nomination but
if he is then I will do whatever I can to get him elected.
And if Rommie gets elected then I’ll take my poll vaca-
tion in 2016 if needed, after evaluating his record and
weighing other options.

Am I tired of voting against a candidate (read Obama)?
You bet! But if it ends up being the only game in town
then point me to the voting booth.


23 posted on 01/17/2012 7:32:07 PM PST by Sivad (NorCal Red Turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

“If the GOP doesn’t want a conservative candidate, conservatives will be happy to run a third party conservative candidate in the general election.”

Has it occurred to you that the GOP-e might be hoping for that to happen?


24 posted on 01/17/2012 7:32:21 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (The party of Liberty - The GOP. Join today!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Freepers!

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.
In other words, FR could go away if the expenses for this quarter are not met.
Where would you go?

Click here or mail checks to:

Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794



25 posted on 01/17/2012 7:34:13 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

That what the democrats want, not the GOP.


26 posted on 01/17/2012 7:45:03 PM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

“But our top priority of all should be defeating Barack Obama, even if Mitt Romney is the candidate we run.”

Yes! We must support Menshevik collectivists in order to thwart Bolshevik collectivists!

By the way, I reject utterly and with absolute contempt whatever your definition of ‘we’ is. I am -not- part of your ‘we’.


27 posted on 01/17/2012 7:49:35 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes

“Reagan broke through, but he worked to take over the party from the precinct up too. Conservatives were able to agree on him. So what needs to be done: All the conservative Republicans need to get out there and become precinct chairmen/women, and vote for conservative leadership in the party.”

You’re absolutely right, but that’s not what is happening. Traditional conservatives are so enthralled with the circular firing squad that they’re going to end up marginalizing themselves.

Some other folks have taken the Reagan strategy and are running with it. But they aren’t traditional conservatives.


28 posted on 01/17/2012 7:51:55 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (The party of Liberty - The GOP. Join today!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gswilder

“At least be intellectually honest. This is not DU.”

Intellectual honesty would recognize that Romney is a distinction without a difference.

This is not DU, and persistent, lickspittle party whores will not stampede the people here to vote for hemlock over arsenic.


29 posted on 01/17/2012 7:53:00 PM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

“That what the democrats want, not the GOP.”

Of course the democrats want that. But I might politely suggest re-considering your premises regarding how the GOP-e sees the election salting out, and what victory might look like from their perspective.


30 posted on 01/17/2012 8:01:12 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (The party of Liberty - The GOP. Join today!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat

So the GOP doesn’t care if they lose there base, the bulk of there party? They have already lost most of us, read all the threads. 1 in 10 will vote for mitt and the rest of us are walking. People who try to control the masses will eventually be found out. If the RNC want to win, which I doubt, they will start treating Romney like they did the conservative candidates.


31 posted on 01/17/2012 8:16:22 PM PST by Linda Frances (Only God can change a heart, but we can pray for hearts to be changed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RKBA Democrat
It's very sad. So are all the Threads here. Mostly superficial talking points. And lots of inability to see the forest for the trees.

Only thing to do is pray that God helps bring forth candidates with a servant's heart, intelligence, and reliance on Divine providence to restore our Nation, and people worthy of the bounty provided by God.

32 posted on 01/17/2012 8:42:25 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

excerpt “from Gingrich’s environmentalism...”

There is no longer any reason to continue with this lie. Newt has has testified in the House stronger against GoreBull Warming than I have seen ANY of the other candidates speak against it.

People who are still putting this charge out against him are lying - they know the truth - they just hope no one else does. I expected more form the American Thinker, but I guess when you’re in th tank for the RomBot, anything goes.

Here is Newt testifying - in his best plain language - in the House...in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related

Oh, BTW, RomBot on GoreBull warming in 2011 and wont’ back down- anyone asking him about this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56580.html


33 posted on 01/17/2012 10:36:41 PM PST by maine-iac7 (A prudent man foreseeth the evil,... but the simple pass on, and are punished. Prov 23:3 KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
But our top priority of all should be defeating Barack Obama, even if Mitt Romney is the candidate we run.

Oxymoron. Romney will lose, period. Even Obama's people are admitting it now, they are slavering on themselves, waiting for Mittens.

Get a clue. Running "None of the Above" would be preferable to running the cipher Romney.

Stop the defeatist garbage.

Never, EVER sell out!

34 posted on 01/17/2012 11:58:25 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances; RKBA Democrat
So the GOP doesn’t care if they lose there base, the bulk of there party?

BTTT.

The RNC types saw the returns from 2006 and 2008 -- they were branded on their foreheads. That's what the Party gets, doing things their way.

Contrast that with 2010, with the Tea Party leading and Sarah Palin out there working for GOP candidates.

And still they insist that the proles come 'round and Come to Daddy? Hell no!

35 posted on 01/18/2012 12:04:40 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
Only thing to do is pray that God helps bring forth candidates with a servant's heart, intelligence, and reliance on Divine providence to restore our Nation...

She said she won't run.

Still, I hope she changes her mind .... or that Someone changes it.

36 posted on 01/18/2012 12:07:52 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“Never, EVER sell out!”

Kapos will never understand. They were born to sell out.


37 posted on 01/18/2012 12:22:41 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Voodoo Republicans: Don't read their lips - watch their hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Linda Frances

“So the GOP doesn’t care if they lose there base, the bulk of there party?”

I don’t think that the traditional conservatives at this point make up the majority of the party. Where is all this support for mitt coming from? While you could argue that it’s crossover voting, I think that’s just denial.

I think the GOP-e has had enough of what they view as a noisy rabble and is willing to watch the noisier ones simply leave. They believe, and I think that they’re correct in this, that if they run someone like mitt, the bulk of self identified conservatives might grumble, but they’ll vote for him.

While I have no doubt that the bulk of FReepers won’t vote for mitt if he’s the nominee, I don’t that’s particularly reflective of the GOP base. Zotting RINOs isn’t an option in the real world.

In my view, there are three broad ideological groups wrestling for control within the GOP. You have to get two out of three in order to win. The GOP-e, nominally led by mitt romney is one. The traditional conservatives, who really don’t have a leader is the second. And the smallest and newest is the libertarians who are of course led by the Paul faction. (Full disclosure: I’m a supporter of the Paul faction) While I would prefer that traditional conservatives get with the Paul faction and make a deal, I don’t think it likely. Traditional conservatives can’t seem to agree on a nominee amongst themselves let alone broker a deal with the other elements within the party. I think it more likely that the GOP-e and the libertarians will come to a deal.


38 posted on 01/18/2012 3:58:05 AM PST by RKBA Democrat (The party of Liberty - The GOP. Join today!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Politicians are only relevant when they are spending other people’s money. When there is no money it doesn’t matter...


39 posted on 01/18/2012 4:11:34 AM PST by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

In some ways it could be argued that a Mitt Milquetoast presidency would be worse than another Obamby admin. More harm has been done to this country by a liberal Republican President with a amicable Republican led Congress than with a divided government, i.e. a donkey President and an elephant Congress.


40 posted on 01/18/2012 4:23:04 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson