Romney Takes on Tea Party in Idaho

Newsmax ^ | March 21, 2014 | Courtney Coren

[greyfoxx39]

Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney this week campaigned in Idaho for Gov. Butch Otter and Rep. Mike Simpson, who have primary battles against tea party challengers, to prevent the GOP from veering "wild right."

"I'm here today in Idaho . . . to make sure people understand that the people I'm standing with right here are the right team of conservative leaders to help the people of Idaho," Romney said, according to NPR.

-SNIP-

According to David Adler, director of the Andrus Center for Public Policy at Boise State University, Romney's purpose in the state is to help with voter turnout and to keep the Republican Party from veering "into the wild right, which will hurt Idaho and hurt America."

Adler said that voter turnout is key for establishment Republican candidates because "the assumption [is] that there are more moderate members of the GOP then there are hard right wingers."

[Colonel_Flagg]

Mutt, doing what Mutt does best, attacking conservatism.

[steelwheels]

HOW do you vote "against" the bastards?

It was easy, I pulled the lever for Mitt. What lever did you pull?

[Finny]

It was easy, I pulled the lever for Mitt.

Okay. What were you voting FOR? Please be specific. Since a vote is by definition literally and materially only ever for something, please state what you were voting FOR.

What lever did you pull?

I'll not only answer your question, I'll do you one better and tell you want I was voting for. I can do this because it finally got through my head that voting "against" is materially and mathematically an oxymoron. See, steelwheels, I used to think like you -- that I could vote "against" opponents. I know better now, and I am joined by tens of thousands of fellow Americans in this.

I pulled the lever for Tom Hoefling, an official third party (America's Party) candidate. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he certainly rated 80 percent, easily, so met Reagan's requirements. It would be a lovely pipe dream to see him win the office, had I indulged. I would love it!

What was I voting "for"? Ostensibly, I was voting for him to win the White House. PUH LEEEEZE, as if that was going to happen! I was in action and function voting for something entirely different. I knew EXACTLY what I was voting for. It was a long shot, but not nearly as long as Tom's shot at the White House!

I was voting FOR a plurality. I was voting FOR making sure that whichever damned leftist government tyrant got the White House, Romney or Obama, got in with as little and weak a show of support as possible. Perot forced a plurality that so weakened Clinton that he was plowed by the Republican Revolution his first term, and impeached the second term. The first time, 57 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. The second time, 51 percent of Americans voted "against" Bill Clinton. It weakened him and made him vulnerable.

Had HW won, conservatism would have made less gain.

So steelwheels, please specify what you were voting FOR when you voted for Romney.

[fieldmarshaldj]

You seem to like left-wing RINOs. Why ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

This one is a devout WillardBot. Check its posting history. It was anxiously awaiting for when the Willard lovers could post hosannas without truth and reality daring to rain on their parade. Apparently they missed JimRob’s statement on the matter.

[fieldmarshaldj]

So you were voting FOR the bastards. So much for “fighting” them when you’re right in bed with ‘em.

[steelwheels]

Come on fieldmarshaldj, you know you don’t now or ever will have the numbers that will make your pipe dream come true. You vote your way and I will vote my way. Your way elected Obama and my way may keep Hillary at bay.

[Finny]

Hey, steelwheels, got an answer to my question in post #83? What were you voting for when you pulled the lever for Romney?

I don't want to hear about what you intended to vote "against." I want to hear about what you were in fact and in function voting for.

And explain how voting for leftism as a way of keeping Hillary "at bay" isn't voting for leftism just the same.

What did you vote FOR when you pulled the lever for Romney?

[fieldmarshaldj]

What’s my “pipe dream” ? Electing an actual Conservative to office ? Heaven forbid ! You’ve already exposed yourself as a liberal troll with your pimping for establishment RINOs. Jim Robinson already explained how “welcome” your agenda is here. Hit the bricks, sis.

[fieldmarshaldj]

This one needs to take a ride on the ZOT Train.

[Finny]

Yes, but what he really needs to do is to answer the question:

He's eloquent in detailing what he was voting against when he voted for Romney.

And he's dead silent about what he was voting for.

Facing the question myself after having voted for Meg Whitman, a Romney MBA clone intensified, was a difficult one. What had I voted for? What if she'd won? One and one is two. If you vote for leftists, you're a functional leftist. I was a functional leftist.

You, steelwheels? How about you?

[Irish Eyes]

You guys will never have the perfect candidate.

Show me one single post, steelwheels, ONE SINGLE POST, ONE SINGLE WORD, that says or even implies that we are insisting on a "perfect candidate."

Steelwheels, you have to engage in falsehoods in order to support your argument. That's a bad sign right there.

Just look at any of the threads during the last Republican Primary....per this very site there was a concentrated effort to find the perfect candidate. No one was good enough. How many times was it said that I will just stay home. They did, welcome obama.

[fieldmarshaldj]

*SNIFF*SNIFF*

You haz a smell.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Trolls never answer questions. Check out the ubertroll in post #93.

[Finny]

So a candidate you want me to vote FOR knowing that he holds directly opposite philosophical political views on six major issues -- government run health care, the gay agenda, abortion, global warming, activist judges, and 2nd amendment rights, is merely "imperfect"?

Once again: You've talked until you're blue about what you're voting against. What are you voting FOR?

Purists and circular firing squads are imaginary. People who call others "purists" and of being part of "circular firing squads" are real.

Voting "against" is imaginary. Voting for is real. It is FUNCTIONAL.

[Irish Eyes]

From your last statements I believe that you are in the wrong party

[SoConPubbie]

Did you thank God BO won?

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

[Finny]

Romney is the guy who’s in the wrong party, dear.

[Finny]

Take the challenge, Irish. Tell me: when you voted for Romney, what were you voting for? Dont' talk about what you voted "against," tell me what you were voting FOR.

Then tell me: Why are you in the Republican party?