Posted on 03/27/2012 4:30:27 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Under pressure to help unify his party, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich pledged Tuesday to support Mitt Romney if the former Massachusetts governor wins enough convention delegates to clinch the nomination by the end of the GOP primary season in June.
If Romney falls short, "I think you'll then have one of the most interesting, open conventions in American history," the former House speaker said as he campaigned for votes in next week's Maryland primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs8.com ...
No, I am not familiar with judges appointed by Mitt Romney. I have never lived east of Chicago. May be you can list a few of those judges and I can do research on them.
However the point remains...I am deathly afraid of future Obama appointees. Because I have seen his federal apppointees in action. Obama never worked in private sector, but Romney spent practically his whole life in private sector. I have spent 25 years in private sector including executive positions & 12 years in government, and I can recognize the two types of people a mile away. There is no way Romney and Obama think alike in fiscal matters. I have never met an executive in 25 years in private sector who thinks like Obama.
No worries, both my daughters will be voting for the first time in 2012, and both will vote WHOEVER the GOP nominee is.
Answer: Yep! Next question, that one was too easy! (That’s how much I hate Obama...it’s personal)
Everyone has to ask themselves what if they wake up November 3rd and find out that the candidate they voted for won the election in their state by one vote, and their state’s electoral votes decided the election. Are you going to feel comfortable knowing the man in the White House for the next 4 years was put there by you?
Or ask yourself if God came down and granted you the power to appoint the next President singlehandedly. That the election’s outcome would be preordained by your pick. Would you pick Obama or, if he’s the nominee, Romney?
This is the first election where I’m genuinely one of those undecided voters I typically malign as being pea-brained ignoramuses. I honestly don’t know yet whether the likely gridlocked radical communist Obama would be better or worse for the country overall than the likely empowered progressive socialist Romney. This election will define the lesser of two evils like it’s never been defined before.
I reject the premise of your statement, what you have presented is a “foreseeable” supposition regarding Romney. What we have regarding Obama is a concurrent reality thus we cannot base failing to cease and desist the ongoing destruction of our constitutional republic on an assumed probability of “foreseeable” destruction down the road by another (i.e. Romney).
That's the biggest long-term, existential threat presented by Romney. How do you ever get the party back to the conservative values espoused by the Reagan revolution after electing Romney? At a bare minimum it would take 8 years, only if he fails and then a Democrat is elected to replace him who also fails, and then we manage to nominate a conservative. If Romney succeeds in his first term, then conservatives are in even worse shape. We'll be up to waiting 12 years for a conservative if he fails in his second term, or who knows how many years if his undoubtedly fellow liberal V.P. wins election after him. The Republican party could be changed forever, with conservatives officially sidelined as a bunch of "unelectable" sideshow characters. I don't think there's a chance in Hades that Romney nominates any kind of full-blooded conservative as his V.P., i.e. someone like Cheney, Gingrich, Palin, West. I guess that depends if you think Rubio is a real conservative. I don't, and he remains the most likely Romney nominee, followed by Christie. Never in a million years would he nominate a woman as his V.P. Someone as power hungry as him would not be willing to share power with a woman.
OK, Romney's not liked here on FR, I get it. But if you believe Romney is more evil than Obama, then maybe you made your way to the wrong web site. Or you are completely ignorant of the dark forces behind Obama.
“... We would be the ones to have voted for him. ... Evil begets evil. Vote for Romney with your eyes wide open and answer to God for it.”
You are thorough and accurate in your assessments. I agree with every particular in your post. The tophet on the right is as much an abomination as the tophet on the left. This is a parting of ways. The division is between those who submit to what the corrupted GOP demands, and those who actually mean it when they say they support life and liberty.
Since Roe v. Wade, the United States government has overseen and supported the systematic destruction of roughly 54,559,600 innocents in the abbatoirs called ‘clinics’. This is more than three times the number of deliberate civilian homicides carried out by the Third Reich.
God is not mocked. Not by anyone. Not now, not ever.
Go to the tophet on the left, and you are a guilty participant. Go to the tophet on the right, and . . . you are a guilty participant. Roughly half of the nation will go to the left. A similar number will go the right.
And ALL of them will have stood on one tophet or another.
God is not mocked, and vengeance is His. He will repay.
You never met John Corzine? Warren Buffett? There are a whole lot of liberal businessmen out there. Especially people like Romney who have no blue collar or middle class roots and were actually born into a political family. Especially businessmen liked Romney who never actually ran a business with blood, sweat and tears. He just pushed massive sums of money around in sweetheart deals where he might not always win but the structure of the deals dictated that he COULDN'T LOSE. He's someone who had everything in life handed to him. Therefore he thinks everyone should have things handed to them by a socialist government.
He passed Romneycare. 'Nuff said.
He raised fees and taxes (or as he tells it, "closed loopholes") in Taxachusetts to the tune of about 700 million dollars in new revenue, even while job creation ranked only 47th among all states in the nation.
He had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20% across-the-board tax cut he's promising, after his tax plan was described by the WSJ as "timid" and similar to Obama's. We'll have to see if his new plans survived the Etch-a-Sketch shake-up.
His earlier plan said he would not cut taxes for anyone making over $200,000. Obama said he would give tax cuts up to $250,000. So Romney was more liberal than Obama on tax cuts.
He said on the campaign trail that he would index the minimum wage to inflation. I think that's a more liberal policy than Obama's.
He refused to speak up in favor of John Kasich's union-busting legislation when asked.
His vision for the "very poor" is for them to be permanent members of the underclass supported by the "safety net." That is exactly what every socialist's vision includes. They don't believe in class mobility, they believe in class division and class warfare. And their goal is to redistribute income through the state to the lower class from everybody else.
Romney's an economic liberal and a progressive socialist. For some strange reason most Republican voters seem to assume that being a businessman or being rich automatically makes you an "economic conservative." One way or another, Romney has managed to pull a thin veneer of wool Republicans' eyes on that point. They are going to have a rude awakening if this man is elected and they get to find out what his economic philosophies really are.
“DC cannot be rolled back.”
The pustule on the Potomac will go the way of the Politburo, and for similar reasons. The only question is when.
Papa, don’t let your babies grow up to be RINOs.
I never said Romney was perfect or my first choice. But over Obama, I will vote for any republican, RINO or severe conservative. You must understand I do not get to vote for my 1st choice in November. But I do get to register my vote against Obama.
As for Romney, I am completely aware of his flips on social issues. I will give him credit for balls to use veto 800 times in 4 years. I will give him benefit of doubt over any judges he may have nominated/appointed in Massachusetts. There is no way in heck he could have had any social conservatives approved by the overwhelming democrat legislature.
In the final analysis it is the GOP nominee versus Obama. I despise what Obama has done so far. So my vote is essentially against Obama, not pro-Romney should he be the nominee.
On Romneycare....amazingly it is popular in MA. Voters in MA keep voting for politicians who will keep it. I have zero problem with any state passing anything their residents want. One can always move to another state, like I moved out of Illinois. Federal laws are one size fits all, and must be opposed whenever possible.
As for my kids, they have decided they do not like Obama, so they will do the same thing I am doing, register a vote against Obama and for whoever his opponent is.
That is why we’re a republic, not a democracy. Politicians have begun competing with each other on which one can hand out the most loot from the treasury to buy votes. That is what will drive our country into oblivion. We desperately need politicians who won’t play that game and sell the people that bill of goods to be paid off later on the backs of their children and grandchildren, or most likely never paid off at all.
I suppose what makes things less onerous at the state level is that they have to balance their budgets. I believe Hawaii passed its own socialized health care and had to repeal it within a year a few years back because it was going to bankrupt them. On the other hand, California is driving itself into massive debt and seems to be counting on an eventual federal bailout. They’re also in that position because so many of their laws are decided by direct democracy as ballot initiatives. We need to elect good leaders who are willing to explain to people why they can’t always have everything they want when they want it.
Doing something at the state level is simply a slippery slope to doing it at the federal level, as Romneycare has already proven. And either way it inculcates the wrong attitude in the minds of the people. Not to mention, it institutionalizes a tyranny of taxation which, while the majority of voters may like it, the minority of people who are coerced into funding it through taxation may not like at all. They may also have businesses rooted in that state which are not easy or perhaps impossible to simply uproot and move.
My conclusion, opinion, is arrived at after many years, much thought, much reflection, and much trying to anticipate the future by looking at the past.
Your automatic pilot, steered by blind fear, sends you to Romney and blinds you to considering the consequences. I am sorry to say it, but it's true, and I'm even sorrier to say that you're the norm.
ANYBODY who votes for Romney out of pure political expediency that he's "the lesser evil" and the bastard wins, the next time you sing "God Bless America," or ask Him to bless our nation, don't be surprised to see things get worse. On the other hand, if God loving, God fearing Americans show some FAITH that God's simple decency is worth hewing to even if it "helps" the enemy in the short run, God might well smile on us and handle the Obama situation Himself in His miraculous ways, as He has always done for the righteous in times of war, and this is war.
You'd be asked to fight FOR an agent of depravity to become leader of this nation, and that is wrong no matter how you rationalize it. Romney vs Obama would be a pretty stiff test from the Almighty. Those who have courage will go one way. Those willing to let fear trump God, will go another.
Put emotions aside, Navy, and heed Antonius.
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.