Posted on 10/16/2012 10:52:22 AM PDT by SarahPalin2012
Or would you have still backed Cain/Gingrich/Santorum/Christie/Palin (whoever your choice was from before or during the primary). I think it's an interesting question. Mitt wasn't my first choice, but am glad that he is doing so well. Would you now prefer Mitt over another who may or may not have done as well? Of course, I myself am a completely committed supporter of Mitt Romney since the primary was decided.
It don’t matter He is the nominee!!!
I’d say rebuilding our navy, reversing defense cuts, backing Israel, standing up to Russia and China- are damn BIG differences.
Even Snarlin Arlen Spector would have been a better President than BArry Zerobama... and he was a turncoat and a moron..
Great Line Up
Being in a swing state,if Osama Obama saw your post and was able to contact you he'd invite you to visit the Oval Office where he'd offer to perform an unnatural act on you...right in that little kitchen down the hall.
Absolutely not. I’m voting total Conservative on the entirety of the ticket - writing in or voting third party where applicable.
Conservatives were sold out by the Ruling Class, I refuse to be bullied or forced into voting for the presented choices of a Democrat Socialist or an Anti-Colonial Marxist.
If the country wants Leftists to run the oligarchy - they can vote for it without my help.
No. Willard was last on my list. Ron Paul was next to last on my list...
What am I supposed to know now?
Dude, please read the whole question. It says "before or during the primary" -- most of us had preferences before anyone was actually running.
In the last debate, replace Mitt with Newt.
But Romney has redeemed himself and calmed any fears I may have had.
Romney held his own, gained ground and has the enemy surrounded.
What will a cornered rat do?
THAT'S the question.
Gingrich comes across WAY more positive than Romney. He had a definitive vision for America that was something you wanted to follow and help make happen.
But time has a way of putting perspective on what is important.
I still do not like Romney and do not trust him, BUT between the disaster brewing in the middle east and our own impending economic disaster which candidate is more likely to keep freedom and liberty intact when the whole world goes crazy? And it IS going to go crazy within the next 4 years.
Romney is no absolute guarantee, but there’s a much better chance we will still have a Constitution after his term rather than a guarantee we will not with Obama.
Mormons also as a generaization believe in preparing for bad times and in defense when necessary. Aside from my beliefs as a Christian about his mortal soul, we are choosing a President not a pastor.
So the choice is clear. If we want an economy and if I want to be able to feed the family and still have a home a couple of years from now Romney is it.
Nine months ago I would have said there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Romney and Obama. Today I know that the 9cents worth of difference is enough for me to work for Romney and for O’s defeat.
The primaries are like family squabbles. Hot and fierce within the family but when outsiders put their nose in everybody lines up (or should) to give them a good a** kicking. I cannot think of a single Republican I would not prefer over what's in the White House and running the Federal executive agencies now. Guess that makes me a YDR: Yellow Dog Republican.
No. Romney is better then I had hoped but he was not my first choice. Or my second or third or fourth come to that.
I was actually a strong backer of Perry from the beginning. Looking at the vicious tactics used by the obama team, the media and the left — I don’t think Perry would have been able to out debate obama. He’s probably too nice. I’m glad things turned out as they did.
Initially I was hoping Palin would run. When she demured, I supported Perry until it became obvious he was out of his depth. Then I supported Newt. I still think Newt has the best understanding of the issues and the best solutions. But in based on the current situation, I don’t think Newt or any of them (except maybe Palin) would be doing as well as Romney is now. In other words they probably would lose. So while my heart says otherwise, my head says it worked out for the best.
No.
Cain. Or Newt (arrgh).
Romney is still just a vote against Obama.
IF he keeps those promises. I don’t think anything will change in 2013 with a Romney White House. If it does - I will be pleasantly surprised. But I follow what the guy will do - not what he says.
Talk on the campaign trail is cheap and is mainly for the gullible. My attitude towards Mitt Happens is - “verify, then trust.”
I’m still right - conservatives have abandoned principle because they’re hungry for a win. I’m not sanguine and still have mine.
Yes, but I couldn’t have known it. But what I could have known if I had thought about it, was what someone posted recently: Mitt was too clean to be blackmailed and too rich to be bought and something else I dont recall right now. At this point, I think that counts for a lot, because his position on an issue could change in our favor, but his incorruptibility is permanent.
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.