Posted on 10/05/2011 5:06:47 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
There's the Perry party line. And the stickler is the 'someone willing to enforce it' part.
If it was Duncan Hunter, I'd believe it.
Perry... Not so much.
Mebbe he'd be better off to haul ol Dunc outta mothballs and promise to turn him loose.
Only the POTUS can enforce it, a Governor can’t do it without support in Washington.
All I'm saying is, in a worst case scenario, if Romney were to win the GOP nomination, I'd vote for him. I'll vote for whomever the GOP primary winner is. Anyone of these Republicans would be far superior to the Marxist currently holding office. Anyone of these Republican candidates...even Romney, DO NOT HATE THEIR COUNTRY, AND ARE NOT MARXISTS!
There are some who are saying: “If Romney is the nominee, I won't vote!” This is complete lunacy! By these people not voting for Romney (if he were to be the GOP nominee) they would ensure an Obama victory. The country cannot survive four more years of Obama! Do any of these people who've already decided to not vote for Romney, really believe his goal is to destroy the USA like Obama is doing? Please.
Rush is right; anyone of the GOP contenders would be a Godsend compared to Obama. Again, there's not one GOP nominee (maybe Huntsman) who want to “fundamentally transform” this nation into a Banana Republic.
Jim's response to me concerning our country not surviving another four years of Obama was: “Shit happens, then you die.” Sorry, but when our children and grand-children’s futures are at stake, his attitude, and those who have already decided that they will not vote unless their candidate gets the win are supremely selfish and misguided.
Republicans who decide not to vote will be ensuring Obama secures a second term, and the certain destruction of our country.
Who do you think would be good in the Cabinet? I think Palin would be an excellent Sec of Interior (can you imagine all of the enviro-wacko heads exploding over it?), Gingrich would be a great Sec of State, and I'd love to see General Petraeus as Sec of Defense.
Any of them can beat Obama, so we shouldn’t be afraid to back the strongest conservative.
Poll shows generic Republican can win against Obama in a landslide!
“Election 2012: Generic Presidential Ballot
Election 2012: Generic Republican 47%, Obama 41%”
I like Bachmann, Cain and Santorum.
Obligatory inclusion of FReeper in mention...
- - -
I get what you’re saying, and I appreciate the explanation.
As far as I’m concerned, POTUS Romney is the furthest thought until after the primaries. It’s pointless to debate support for his nomination for reasons that should be obvious.
I’ll go out on a limb and say nobody here is indifferent about our kids and grandchildren under any circumstances.
Our battle today is not to defend POTUS Romney, but to ensure the nomination of the best Republican candidate possible.
Hypothetical Romney is a waste of time, FRiend.
As you noted, we still have to get through the primary process, and any projection of a definite winner is way too premature. I was just surprised at how many people were saying that if Romney won the primary, they simply wouldn't vote. I'm not trying to get too far ahead of myself, but if this thought gains strength, and it comes to fruition, we are screwed royally as a nation.
I'd rather deal with a RINO who doesn't hate his country, than a Marxist who not only hates it, but is trying to transform it into something unrecognizable. If we thought Obama did damage in his first term, well, we ain't seen nothin’ yet!
Cheers!
I honestly don’t know how you came to believe Perry is a statist. Everything I’ve read and seen of his record indicates that he’s the most pro-state’s rights candidate running.
I’d add Department of Education as well (we don’t need to duplicate efforts, and every state already has one - at best, we need a national education standards office).
Add to it, the Departments of Energy and Labor. (We buy and sell energy every day, so why not place it under commerce? Same with Labor, as we sell our labor to businesses in return for money.)
Plus the Department of Homeland Security (I thought the Department of Defense had that job).
What is with everyone saying that Obama, the man who can’t even talk to children at a school without a teleprompter, is the master debater that could easily win any debate?
Sheesh, he’s known as the TOTUS for a reason!
Considering the number of ‘Miss me now?’ billboards with Bush on them... do you really believe that America is going to say that?
That, and the economy are the two main issues for me this election.
Any candidate that doesn’t have either a good record on state’s rights or can’t convince me that they are serious about them will not get my vote.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Democrats use good intentions to justify all the garbage they’ve foisted upon our great nation.
And you ask me to support Romney because he’s got our country’s best intentions at heart?
That doesn’t cut it.
Honestly, if you find Romney more conservative than Perry, what do you find conservative?
(I’m not being sarcastic, either. I can’t see anyone finding Romney conservative at all, so I’m genuinely wondering what you find to be conservative?)
I would say that border security doesn not have to mean a fence... boots on the ground work for me.
I’d prefer the revocation of all benefits for illegals, though, as I figure that... for the most part, they’ll self-deport themselves in that case.
You know, your son, the border agent on in Texas... is backed up by the Texas Rangers, because Perry ordered them to police the border.
Which is more than anything Bush or Obama did.
It’s not the best, but it’s a far more than what you’re making it out to be.
Sorry, but there is nothing staunch about Perry.
May God bless and keep you here to fulfill your goal. Prayers up for you each day that you live to see Obama in jailhouse orange and a Conservative in the White House.
Thanks!
I am not a third-party supporter. I believe defeating President Obama has to be priority number one.
Having said that, I hope the moderate wing of the Republican Party, who are in many cases pragmatists who put winning elections before principle, listen long and hard to what Jim Robinson wrote here. Many people agree with him, and unlike 2008 when key parts of the Christian conservative movement decided they could tolerate Sen. McCain because of his pro-life views, and key parts of the secular conservative movement respected McCain's war record, Gov. Romney simply does not have those “bona fides” for many conservative Republicans.
My strong caution to anyone seriously advocating a third party is this: Yes, you'll kill the Republicans just as the Whigs were destroyed because they refused to take a principled stand on the key issue of politics in those days, namely, slavery. However, expect to lose the 2012 election, just as the Republicans lost in 1856. For a third party to stand a serious chance of replacing the Republicans in the current political context, the third party needs to win numerous state-level races for governorships and state legislatures, as well as numerous seats in Congress. It also needs to have key leaders of the right wing of the Republican Party jump ship to become affiliated with the new party, and that includes people currently in office at the federal level and key state positions such as governorships.
The problem is that in many cases, a third-party candidate will throw the election to Democrats who otherwise would have lost. Are we willing to have that happen?
I personally believe that Republicans like Romney and Schwarzenegger can play a valuable role in left-wing states where a standard conservative Republican is not electable. But putting people like Romney in the presidential election race is a grave mistake. Are Republican pragmatists really that un-pragmatic?
If the election of President Barack Obama taught us anything, it is that radical positions can be electable if they fire up the base. The Democratic Party learned that in 2008, and the moderate Democrats found out to their shock that the far left of their party not only won the nomination but won the presidential election.
Being radical is not necessarily a bad thing. Republicans learned that in 1980 when the “unelectable” Ronald Reagan defeated a traditional Southern socially conservative and born-again governor, and laid the foundation for turning virtually the entire South into Republican territory.
I hope I don't get placed into a position of having to decide whether to vote for President Obama, a RINO Republican, or a third-party true conservative. If Republican pragmatists are wise, they won't create that choice. Doing that is dumb, both in long-term and short-term perspective.
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.