Cruz: Tea party ‘overwhelmingly’ behind Romney

The Washington Times ^ | August 5, 2012 | Sean Lengell

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ted Cruz, who rode a tea party wave to win the Texas Republican Senate nomination last week, said Sunday the movement will “overwhelmingly” support Mitt Romney in the November presidential election.

Mr. Cruz said tea party activists will rally in defense of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee because they’re “energized” to defeat President Obama.

“I have spoken with literally thousands and thousands of tea party activists, and I have yet to met a single tea party leader that is not going to vote for Mitt Romney and work hard for him,” Mr. Cruz said on Fox News Sunday.

“Our country is in crisis, and we’ve got to stop this Obama agenda if we’re going to preserve opportunity for our kids and grandkids.”(continued)

[Nitehawk0325]

It's not that we are overwhelmingly behind Romney, it's that we are overwhelmingly against Obama. Half full half empty glass.

[RC one]

Don't pick one, you pick the other one by default.

That would only be true if I voted for Obama instead which I will not do. My vote is purely a protest vote which will neither help nor hinder either candidate. It's strictly a message to the GOP.

Wasn't the successful landing of Curiosity on Mars tonight just awesome?

I missed it but yes. Last I knew, scientists believed that there is H2O and CO2 locked up in the martian poles and oxygen locked up in the superoxides in the soil. If so, it seems like Mars ought to be terraformable, hopefully. I'm sure this mission will answer many questions about this possibility.

[Norm Lenhart]

Then man up and declare it for all to see...
“I, __________________, declare that I have decided that conservatism has failed and as such, I will vote for the Republican Mitt Romney, A man whose history I am aware of regarding his liberalism. It is with open eyes and no regrets that I will disavow everything I believe conservative ideals and the American Constitution ever stood for just to get Obama out of office.

Further, by doing so, I accept that I adopted the very things I formerly despised to get a liberal elected President and henceforth I have no legitimate right to ever be trustworthy again - since my newly adopted situational ethics allow me to bend like a twig in the prevailing political winds.

Signed, _____________________________”

[itsahoot]

You radicals that hate Romney are irrational, but that's your belief and you have every right to be wrong.

On the othe hand we might be right, uo have no empirical evidence to the contrary. The only thing you have is the Obama boogyman to bring fear into the equation, not rationality. I have voted for exactly on president in m life, Ronald Reagan, all th other votes have been against te other more evil guy. This vote eill be a loser, but I will vote for Palin.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

-- John Quincy Adams

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual--or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society

for which he is accountable to God and his country."

-- Samuel Adams

[Norm Lenhart]

Why would you throw your vote away on that Washington guy? If we don’t stick with the King like the Loyalists say, then .....

[Finny]

A third party will help O win.

Really? Third party favors the incumbent? Tell that to HW Bush.

[Finny]

Some of you are so full of HATE towards Romney that you will elect 0, instead of thinking of what the MARXIST will do in his second term.

And some of you are so full of hysterical fear of Obama that you will elect a liberal Democrat registered as a Republican instead of thinking what that would do to the future of conservatism and to the future of America.

Obama is weak and is in trouble with his supporters. Obama is loathed by many who voted for him last time. An Obama elected to a second term by a plurality could and would be dominated and overcome by a Republican congress backed by a majority of Americans who rejected Obama and/or liberal Romney at the ballot box. But you are so full of HATE for Obama and so full of hysterical FEAR of Obama that you have become a coward afraid to stand up to him and willing to roll over to letting liberalism take over the Republican party.

[Finny]

Be proud your vote for anyone other than Romney will support Obama.

Horse crap. That is a fallacy that you must cling to in order to demonize those who refuse to vote for a liberal Democrat registered as a Republican.

[Finny]

Norm to a desperate ABOer:

Fact: Mitt Romney is liberal. Supports abortion, gays in the military, mandates and gun control. Among other things. Fact YOU are voting for that. Fact: your vote enables those things. It is you Commrade, that is supporting the expansion of communism. Not me. I’m voting for a conservative. Everything above is 100% true. Deal with it.

Well said, Norm.

[Finny]

You need to look at Romney's record a little more closley. You also need to factor in the political power dynamics of a Congress where conservative Republicans are more powerful in opposing an Obama loathed and rejected by the majority of American voters, should he win on a plurality, which considering his weak support compared to four years ago, is probably the best he could get.

You reap what you sow, BushMeister, and if you sow Romney, you would reap his progressive liberalism and the government tyranny it would lead to.

I'm for sowing resistance and the courage to stand up and fight the kind of moral depravity advanced by both Romney and Obama, and having faith in God that He will help us reap victory over government tyranny.

[Finny]

1) vote third party
2) do a write-in
3) not vote
Any of these three choices is supremely stupid, in that it will help Obama.

Mathematiclaly false, and a fallacy borne of fear and desperation.

[Finny]

Rush is wrong. You guys who will vote for Romney because of ABO are living in WISHVILLE.

Romney is and has always been a liberal. You are wishing that he'll stop doing that once you vote for him.

Realville is over here, where we understand that:
a) there is no such thing as voting "against" Obama or anything else on any ballot; you can only vote FOR something. You cannot even vote "against" a proposition. You either vote FOR passing it or you vote FOR nixing it.
b) A liberal by any other name (Republican) is still a liberal
c) The more that people vote for liberals for any reason, even to avoid a more liberal someone-else, the stronger liberalism becomes

THAT is Realiville. Rush, sadly, has his feet firmly planted in Wishville.

I'm voting for a plurality to help push the numbers of the popular vote so that whichever liberal democrat wins, Obama or Romney, will be weak enough that a Republican/conservative Congress can do to him what it did to Clinton.

You guys who live in Wishville, if Romney wins with a landslide, will be wishing like hell you'd never heard of Romney, let alone voted for him.

[Finny]

Obama is clearly an enemy of America. Romney is many things - no he’s not a conservative - but he is no enemy of America.

Romney stated in his CPAC speech of 2008 that he believes that environmentally speaking, the world needs a carbon plan to fight global warming (*rolls eyes*) and that this "solution" should be world-wide one, NOT an American one. Clearly, then, he believes that America should surrender her sovereignty to global oversight in terms of American energy and food production and consumption.

Romney absolutely believes whole-heartedly that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the military. What that really means is that he believes others in the military should be denied their God-given right to reject open homosexuality in their midst.

Those are only two things right off the top of my head that sure make Romney look like an enemy of America to me.

Romney is a BAD choice, BAD for America, and in his way is as anti-American as Obama, and certainly as much a destroyer of our freedoms. The ONLY chance we have is to reject both him AND Obama, vote third party as it favors neither one, and pray for a plurality, which would be conservatism's ONLY and BEST CHANCE in successfully opposing whichever liberal becomes the next president.

[Finny]

You said it, Brother FReeper.

And they think they live in "Realville." *sigh*

[Finny]

Oh, man ... well said, Waryone. It's about time somebody did a good job of smacking down the Romney apoligist bimbos who whine that "Reagan wouldn't even be good enough for ya!"

Hey, I'd have voted for Gingrich, for Santorum, for Perry, for Cain, for Bachmann -- none of them are perfect conservatives by a long shot, but as Reagain said, if you agree with the candidate 75 or 80 percent, take that beauty and run.

I don't agree with Romney even 15 percent; the more I look at his record, the more I study the actions of his political career, the more I realize that there is no purism, there is no refusal to compromise, going on. The plain fact is that Romney is a liberal Democrat registered as a Republican.

It is the most despicable form of sophistry for Romney apologists to even compare a conservative's refusal to vote for Romney to an imaginary "Well, even Reagan wouldn't satisfy you!"

The red flags are high and glaring that Romney is a very, very bad thing to happen to the Republican party indeed. And he would be equally bad for America.

[Finny]

That Clintonian plurality lead to the Republican Revolution and ultimately got Clinton impeached. And frankly, who would rather have seen in 2008 -- Hillary or Obama? Today the mantra is "Anybody but Obama." Back then, it was "Anybody but Hillary." Well, we got our wish. WATCH OUT WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

I was ticked as hell at the "stupid" folks who voted for Perot. In retrospect, I see that if HW Bush had been re-elected, the GOP would probably be even farther to the left than it is now and the Republican Revolution would never have happened; if Clinton had won with majorities either time (thanks to third party votes, all he got was a plurality both times), it's probable that the Republican Revolution, and certainly his impeachment, would never have happened.

The "win at all cost" Republicans -- I used to be one of them -- are the only ones being stubborn and stupid now.

[Finny]

Try reading some of the thinking on these threads as to "And do what?"

AND TAKE A RISK, that's what. Take a risk that a plurality win for either one would be a GOOD THING in terms of helping conservatives oppose his liberal agenda, whether it was Obama or Romney. Look at history, and remember what happened the last two times a liberal president was elected on a pluralty -- the Republican Revolution, and then impeachment.

This is what I mean by ABO being an affliction. You have completely failed to consider in any way, shape, or form a single scenario BUT "we cannot survive another four years of Obama." You are afflicted. I pray you get over it before November.

[Finny]

And by your actions, you would put another chief advocate of all those policies in the White House for EIGHT years and pin a Republican button on his lapel!

Good Grief!!!

You really need to bone up on Romney's RECORD. His ACTIONS, his POLITICS IN PRACTICE.

My alternative is to vote for a plurality in order to deny a popular mandate to whichever "chief advocate of all those policies" gets the White House. The last time a liberal won the presidency on a plurality, he was impeached; the time before, he was forced to move right by the Republican Revolution.

Frankly, my alternative is a hell of a lot better risk than yours. Risk is the price you pay for opportunity.

[Finny]

Circular firing squad? Seems to me they're all aiming at the same guy, not just at the guy across the way as you imply.

The "circular firing squad" meme is always used by Romney supporters who just can't handle that some Republicans understand that Romney is in the wrong political party and deserves the boot.