Here are your presidential choices as it stands today

April 16, 2012 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

Here are their positions on some major issues important to conservatives based on their actual records in government or past boasts.

Issue	Obama	Romney	Newt
Advocated that abortion s/b safe & legal in America	y	y	n
Defended Roe v Wade as settled law	y	y	n
Advocated for abortion for underage girls without parental approval with judge's ok	y	y	n
Supported planned parenthood	y	y	n
Introduced $50 taxpayer funded abortion	y	y	n
Supports homosexual agenda	y	y	n
Better for homosexuals than Ted Kennedy	y	y	n
Ok with homosexuals in Scouts	y	y	n
Ok with homosexuals in military	y	y	n
Supported and still supports global warming hoax	y	y	n
Supports gun control (so-called "assault weapons" ban)	y	y	n
Supports amnesty for illegal aliens (by any other name it's still amnesty)	y	y	n
Is undeniable father of RomneyCare	n	y	n
Is undeniable grandfather of ObamaCare	n	y	n
Still boasts that RomneyCare is great!	y	y	n
Still boasts that RomneyCare is a "conservative solution"	n	y	n
Still believes RomneyCare is constitutional	y	y	n
Still believes individual mandate ok at state level	y	y	n
Believes state forcing individuals to buy health insurance is a conservative idea	n	y	n
Believes compulsory health insurance with mandates and penalties s/b imposed on all states at state level	n	y	n
Believes compulsory health insurance at state level is constitutional (states rights)	?	y	n
Believes the state has constitutional power to force you into a private contract against your will for no other reason than you live there	y	y	n
Supports government "stimulus" spending claims more is necessary	y	y	n
Believes personal income tax should be cut drastically (15% flat tax)	n	n	y
Believes corp income tax should be cut drastically (12.5% corp rate)	n	n	y
Believes capital expenditures should be 100% expensed in first year	n	n	y
Believes capital gains tax should be eliminated	n	n	y
Believes estate tax (death tax) should be eliminated	n	n	y
Believes federal government must be drastically cut per constitutional limits	n	n	y
Believes unconstitutional federal functions like education should be returned to the states and people per tenth amendment	n	n	y
Believes social security/medicare s/b phased out/privatized/returned to states and people	n	n	y
Believes everyone at EPA should be fired and start over as an agency to look for solutions/not hinder industry	n	n	y
Believes the constitution restricts the government from infringing on inalienable rights	n	n	y
Appoints/supports/cowers to liberal activist judges	y	y	n
Will challenge activist judiciary	n	n	y
Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up	n	n	y

[Defiant]

I don't think numbers did conservatives in. You had Bachmann at first, who was leading when people were against Newt and everyone else (Cain, Santorum) was a joke. Imagine if she had RNC people backing her like they did Romney, and if money started flowing, and you had some momentum build. Instead, what happened? She was ridiculed, attacked and out-moneyed by the country clubbers, with assistance by the MSM-e, who love to help the country clubbers get the nomination.

So, next you had the country clubbers convince Pawlenty to get out. Why? Because he would have taken votes from Mittens. Then they went after Daniels and his wife for the same reason. Wanna play with Mitt's nomination? Here's what you'll get! So Daniels says no.

The next conservative to get a lot of attention was Perry when he got in. He got Alinskyed. Like Palin, they made a successful Governor of a state seem like an idiot, because he talks almost as bad as Obama when the teleprompter is off.

Imagine if he got treated the way another Texas governor was treated, GW Bush. Back in 2000, the RNC was in love with W. He was the one who got to do the negative ads in South Carolina, and it worked. If Perry was not ridiculed by the GOPe, and stuck with a process that holds Texas' primary in the summer, he could have hung on long enough to get rid of Mittens.

Next up was Cain. We know what happened there. Bill Clinton would have survived it. But not a conservative.

Then it was Newt's turn, and he was on fire following some debates. He won South Carolina. Was on track to win Georgia and mabye Florida. So it was time to concentrate on him, and boy did they. All GOPe guns a-blazin at Newt.

That left Santorum. He was hot for a while, too, til the tried and true formula made him a woman hating religious zealot.

It could have been Mitt against any one of these candidates alone, and the final result would have been the same, given the money, RNC suport, MSM support and the process of making the nomination go through liberal states for the front-loaded part of the campaign.

No, it was not numbers or quality, it was a stacked deck and a party that does not want the rabble in charge. Us rabble ought to understand that.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the heads up. I’ll be busy grocery shopping and prescription picking up for my elderly mom. I do hope he gets a large turn out.

[D-fendr]

Who has better credentials than Newt?

Yet a sizable number on here won't unify behind him even though he's the only one left.

So who? DeMint?

Perhaps, we'd have to see him actually build a campaign to know.

What if he stumbled like Perry did… Sarah?

Perry, the candidate, hurt himself and didn't recover in time to stay in it, Sarah teased but never entered. So, no, these two were not strong candidates, one wasn't a candidate at all.

A strong candidate would be one who A) Entered the race; B) Had and communicated a strong and effective message; C) Campaigned well on the stump and in debates; D) Built an effective organization and staff, including fundraising; E) Unified the base voters.

Who would that be? Obviously no one this time. We really don't have bench strength, though there may likely be others out there I'm not aware of, I've heard names I know little about, that may have been strong candidates.

You want to blame the field rather than place the blame where it belongs

Partly the field for the reasons above (and partly because they did not unify behind one nonRomney). But also us for not unifying, worse working to destroy each other. You may remember that Perry was severely trashed before he got out of the gate, etc. It's axiomatic that opposition to an incumbent has to be united or it fails every time.

he blame where it belongs, with the GOPe and the media-e that they play footsie with.

Here I think you misplace the blame. The party didn't make others sit out and it didn't prevent unity behind one other candidate, nor trash the field. And the media? They're against us for the foreseeable future and they've had their candidate beaten before. In any case, I don't see your strategy for defeating the media here.

It went from Bachmann to Cain to Perry (or was it Perry to Cain, I forget) to Newt to Santorum. And in turn, each was attacked by Mitt's GOPe ..

They were attacked on here also. Even if the GOP *and* the media disappeared, the notMitt vote was still split.

It was murder in the first degree.

If that's the analogy, I think I've stated my solution; what is yours? How does it work, what is the result?

thanks for your reply.

[TheGunny]

Again, as a guy on AD I think I have twice as much to loose. I don’t really care much about your opinion of my service or its relevance to this thread. The interests of my country would be ill served if I were to squander my vote. The defeat of BO is the mission...for the sake of our republic.

[agrace]

I agree. It makes me sick to think about it but I can’t vote for Mitt. Anyone who takes mormonism seriously - with its documented history readily available - demonstrates a serious lack of judgment that is unfit for the office of president. Flame me all you want, but I can’t even hold my nose and vote for him as a vote against Obama. Can’t do it.

[mkjessup]

Well Gunny, nobody wants to see you loose everything.

[Artcore]

Do you know if there are any debates scheduled between Newt and Romney? While I know debates don’t seal it for everyone, I’m certain Newt would demolish Romney (or anybody for that matter!), and this could garner Newt some much needed support.

I’ll do my part to help Newt win our nomination. Nothing, and I mean nothing would make me happier!

[Tzimisce]

They need to start reaching across the aisle and working with conservatives.

[LibsRJerks]

Here’s the solution to our problems, conservatives.

Just vote NEWT.

Now.

Not that hard.

[LibsRJerks]

Had the NRLC call me today asking for money. I told them NO — because they were supporting Romney and that it was ridiculous as Newt Gingrich has been pro-life and voted CONSISTENTLY pro-LIFE throughout his career.

They seemed shocked over the phone.

[exit82]

I’m only a third of the way through the thread and I can see you are getting the MVP award.

Post 159 is great.

Thank you SO much for your support of Newt.

I am seeing the utter frustration of the past week turn into action, and that action is to support Newt.

This is what is needed to stop the Romney steamroller.

Newt to Tampa!

And onyx, too!

[xzins]

There are no more planned debates. If there were one, it would make most sense before Texas.

It would be good for Gingrich and Paul to schedule a debate, invite Romney, and then ridicule him when he refused to show.

[Defiant]

You can't take over the GOP without winning the nomination, and you can't win the nomination with the RNC stacked against conservatives. Not without taking them by surprise, like Ronald Reagan did. They are determined not to let that happen again. So, whenever any issue of any kind comes up, the RNC is always going to make the decision that favors the liberal. That is true whether it involves who gets to vote in primaries, the order of primaries, the seating of delegates, or money. Then there is the RNC insiders, the Roves, etc. who take their marching orders and go out and trash whoever is the conservative of the day. They also are good at coming up with funding for Mike Castle, Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter, but not so good at helping out Tea Party insurgents. Their ties to MSM helpers ensures that the press goes after whoever they dislike, without backup from the RNC.

With all that said, if the primary process could be changed in terms of the order of states, that would possibly allow a conservative to squeak through. But it never will be changed, and if anything, has been made worse for conservatives in recent cycles, as open primaries are skewing the process.

To win as a conservative, you'd need to be independently wealthy, squeaky clean, articulate like Newt and Reagan, likeable like Reagan, on your first wife, have lovely children, and able to use wit to turn ridicule against the Alinskyites. You are right, we don't have anyone out there who fits that bill. Darn.

For those reasons, and the many I have stated in this thread, I think it will be easier for conservatives to win the Presidency through a third party campaign than through trying to defeat the Republican machine. It would not have to be a true third party. You just have to be beating the Republican candidate in October, and then try to get the Republican party to coalesce around you by sweet talking how you will unite the Republicans again as President. You could reduce Mittens down to 10 percent of the vote (which is what John Anderson got when Reagan won his first term) If you are ahead of him in October. And when you win, you can rejoin and work with Republicans in the Congress, the way Lieberman did with Democrats, and in the manner of Murkowski. In that scenario, the Republicans want to be with the winner, and conservatives will get control of the party back that way. If the GOPe won't cooperate, they can just go the way of the Whigs.

Your view is a recipe for decades more of RINO socialist candidates, very few of whom will win and none of whom will change anything.

[RedMDer]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.

[mountainfolk]

Please remove me from your ping list. I don’t know how I got on it but I prefer to make my own selection of items that interest me.

[billys kid]

Maybe this will help you, I know alot of people are really afraid. I read this on FR Saturday morning and it really helped me.

This is powerful stuff!

So, tell me, who do we vote for? Romney=Obama=a vote for crimes against humanity.

Mitt Romney created the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate and Obamacare, both of these men reject the Constitution on freedom of religion.

Is it a matter of voting for vice presidents instead of presidents? Don’t vice-presidents just go to state funerals?

Two quotes from Evangelium Vitae of Blessed Pope John Paul II:

(1) When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a “tyrannical” decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone’s conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. [EV 70]

(2) In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. [EV 73]

So, basically, it’s a crime against humanity to vote for Romney or Obama as that is a direct vote for total war on children in the womb by these totally cowardly, anti-American, abusers of power out to harm children. Is one really better than the other? Really? Tell me why…

Obama has only enforced what Romney has already imposed on the good citizen’s of MA.

There cannot be Liberty if Human Life is snuffed out so easily or when little children are no longer safe from those who would violate their innocence under the perverted guise of Homosexual freedoms.

What about the God given right’s of the children? Have we become so hard-hearted as a nation that we can no longer differentiate between Good and Evil?

This is the Crux of the matter, it’s really quite simple.

God Bless!

[D-fendr]

I'm gonna disagree with your premise:

You can't take over the GOP without winning the nomination, and you can't win the nomination with the RNC stacked against conservatives. Not without taking them by surprise, like Ronald Reagan did.

That's not the way I remember it. The cleanup came the nomination and election of course, but much was done prior during the previous primary and afterward.

And, if I accept your premise, you still acknowledge Reagan did it. I don't remember that as a surprise but a multi-year struggle hand-to-hand.

My views here are based on my experience. I've seen and participated in radical change in the party on the local, regional, state and national level. These party positions in a great great many cases are the most insecure one could imagine. I've seen whole scale turnover in less than a week. Perhaps your experience is different, I'm certainly aware that could be the case.

As for a third party, I'm gonna repeat that if you can't do it within the GOP, you can't do it from scratch; anything you can do with a third party you can do easier and quicker within the GOP. All the tasks, tactics and strategy are the same and they're easier to do without having to do everything from scratch completely unknown.

I especially don't see how Obama's election changes anything on its own. He was elected last time too.

Thanks again for your reply.

[Windflier]

[Windflier]

Great list. Here’s another:

Great courage......(won’t back down to media drones or leftist zombies in a fight).

[hosepipe]

Wonder if Obama is punishment for America murdering their babies..
If so, a hard rain is about to fall...
America seems to be the new SODOM...
And the rain may not be “WET”...