Mitt Romney is the worst of the Republicans running and under no circumstances will I vote for him in the Repubican primary. Stopping him before the convention should be our top short-term priority. But our top priority of all should be defeating Barack Obama, even if Mitt Romney is the candidate we run.
Yes well everyone tried to clean it up with Nixon. But he allowed the onslaught of the media to create a paranoid angry President.
Then the milk toast Ford that the establishment put up over Ronald Reagan.
It’s like deja vu, Romney the establishment Candidate against a bunch of other insider candidates. And then there is Perry.
Outside the establishment, a man with a core. Only this time we have an out and out commie/fascist/socialist/marxist progressive, hell-bent on destroying America.
The superficiality of American voters vs the committed ideologues that want to destroy us is upon us and no one takes it seriously.
No one is denying Romney, we just don’t like him. Call us the 75 percenters. Only Rombots think this has anything to do with Reagan. Newt can do the job.
My only principle is in selecting the candidate most likely to beat obama
Ann Coulter jumped the shark this year, and nobody knows why or for what reason.
Ann has sold a ton of books, so loving Romney to get rich is probably not a reason.
Maybe ann loves Mitt and wants to marry the slimeball. Okay, Ann loves Mitt -
Smooch. Hug. Hug.
Mitt! I love you. Be my left-wing sweetie. Hugs.
Ann, you’re impressive with your books, but Baine vulture capital makes more...
Hugs. Smooch. Kiss! Kiss!
It is not possible to be both conservative and a supporter of Romney.
So, Gene, consider yourself insulted.
Sure now there's all sort of polls giving him a close or slight edge, but once non-political junkies get to know him through the (OM)Obama machine/LSM media prism, it's an up hill battle. He is the perfect foil to help Obama gin things up enough that his base will be so angry, they will turn out in higher numbers.
A conservative message, with an articulate person standing up passionately for America and American ideas and job creation, is absolutely necessary to cut through the crap and win over those RDs in swing states.
So the Pubbies base doesn't like Gingrich sitting on the bench with Pelosi, but those RDs probably don't give a rip. That can be portrayed as just a statement that even a Republican wants clean air and water. I doubt it has the same impact on non Pubbies as it does with the Pubbie base.
RDs would like to have the years of prosperity from the Reagan years, but more importantly, they are going to remember the prosperity of the Clinton/Gingrich years.
Put the memory of Clinton/Gingrich years against the Obama record. It plays pretty well, economically. And that's the number one issue.
Now put the Bain Capital record up(as the OM will portray it) with closed factory's and heart wrenching stories. Jobs eliminated and sent to China, while rich people pocket millions. That's not going to play well with RDs or the unemployed, and will help GOTV for Dems.
If the Pubbies base doesn't trust Romney, what makes anyone think that Dems and Independents will trust him either?
As to the GOP E picking the candidate. Yup they do that. Yop they have their reasons. Yop they put up enough money to keep enough conservatives in the field long enough for their choice to win without the majority of the vote.
Reagan broke through, but he worked to take over the party from the precinct up too. Conservatives were able to agree on him. So what needs to be done:
All the conservative Republicans need to get out there and become precinct chairmen/women, and vote for conservative leadership in the party.
Redesign the primary process, and consolidate the vote around no more than 2 candidates to put up against the Rockefeller wing's choice.
If the candidate has a good vision, can speak to the heart of the average American, and is articulate enough to get through the LSM to the average American, we all win.
If GOP E keep playing this game, they are once again going to be out in the cold where they were before Regan and Gingrich came along. And if they are so all fired SMART, how come it took Reagan and Gingrich to get them back in power?
These GOP establishment types are amazing, they are as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. Rush has been saying for months that these people have never gotten over the ‘64 Goldwater shallacking, and this is the VERY thing they use to defend a Romney candidacy, to imply that somehow any of the other candidates will amount to a Goldwater-type result.
This really is all they’ve got to defend this guy with. Just to scare us with “oh, what will 4 more years of Obama look like?” I’ll agree to vote for Romney if he’s the nominee, but I will not lift one finger to help campaign for him, and my excitement level will be below zero. And if I’m at all indicative of the sentiment of conservatives at large, I think a Romney nomination almost certainly means another 4 years of Obama.
The sad fact is that it is the ideas Obama represents which must be defeated, if future generations are to live in liberty.
To accomplish that task requires a candidate who can speak so passionately and authentically of America's founding ideas that a majority of individuals will be convinced of the badness of the ideas and vote against the man they may possibly like as a person.
Minorities, especially, need to know that America's founding ideas are the ideas which offer them individual liberty, opportunity, prospects for success and prosperity, and escape from an existence which is the product of "other" ideas which lead to dependency and slavery to government.
The conservative candidate in 2012 who seems most likely able to articulate the ideas of liberty to generations who've probably never heard them before is Gingrich, warts and all.
excerpt “from Gingrich’s environmentalism...”
There is no longer any reason to continue with this lie. Newt has has testified in the House stronger against GoreBull Warming than I have seen ANY of the other candidates speak against it.
People who are still putting this charge out against him are lying - they know the truth - they just hope no one else does. I expected more form the American Thinker, but I guess when you’re in th tank for the RomBot, anything goes.
Here is Newt testifying - in his best plain language - in the House...in 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw&feature=related
Oh, BTW, RomBot on GoreBull warming in 2011 and wont’ back down- anyone asking him about this?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56580.html
Politicians are only relevant when they are spending other people’s money. When there is no money it doesn’t matter...
In some ways it could be argued that a Mitt Milquetoast presidency would be worse than another Obamby admin. More harm has been done to this country by a liberal Republican President with a amicable Republican led Congress than with a divided government, i.e. a donkey President and an elephant Congress.
It seems to me that 2008 was a reaction to ‘64 because establishment GOP types keep themselves reminded of it without seeing 1980.
So they just keep repeating the same old middle of the road candidate and it always fails. Nixon and W Bush got reelected being moderates and look how those second terms turned out. And look at all the big government programs created or expanded under both.
Unfortunately, the GOP is back to a Rockefeller Republican party and it will take probably to 2016 to get a true, good conservative back into the WH.