Posted on 03/20/2012 5:47:47 PM PDT by Steelfish
NBC: Romney Wins Illinois Republican Party By Michael O'Brien, msnbc.com
Mitt Romney won the Illinois Republican primary with some ease on Tuesday evening, allowing him to likely add at his advantage over his rivals in the tally of delegates needed to secure the party's presidential nomination.
NBC News projected that Romney had won the contest, the lone presidential primary taking place on Tuesday, shortly after polls closed. The primary offered Republicans maybe their best chance yet of a genuine one-on-one battle between the former Massachusetts governor and Santorum, his chief competitor for the Republican nod.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com ...
The Mama Grizz in me was raging. A couple squares of chocolate later and I was fine. :-)
If you want to teach the RNC a lesson donate to each individual candidate instead of them. That works well. Dropping out because things don't happen fast enough for you only helps obama. And if you really don't see the difference between Romney and Obama there is not much hope for you anyway.
“Well, there are many faithful thoughtful Christians who view Santorum’s personal rendition of the gospel of Jesus christ an apostasy.”
“he is about a gospel of works and self denial, of earned salvation”
Oh, ok. You are aware that Newt is Catholic too? Catholics, especially converts, reject sola fidae outright, because it’s unbiblical. As St. James says, faith without works is dead, and works without faith is useless.
As for Newt Gingrich - was Newt Gingrich not married in the Lutheran and Baptist churches, respectively?
Are you saying that those marriages were not Christian marriages? I’m not getting you - if they were valid Christian marriages, then how is Newt going from ‘unredeemed’ to ‘redeemed’? Wasn’t he always a child of Christ through all this?
“abortion is a decision that must be made at the state level.”
“we are satisfied, upon a careful examination of all the cases decided in the State courts of Missouri referred to, that it is now firmly settled by the decisions of the highest court in the State, that Scott and his family upon their return were not free, but were, by the laws of Missouri, the property of the defendant; and that the Circuit Court of the United States had no jurisdiction, when, by the laws of the State, the plaintiff was a slave, and not a citizen.”
I am saying that I believe Santorum will lose to Romney in the primary. With last nights results and a string of states favorable to Romney comming up in the next month I don't see how a protracted, money burning primary could be in our best interest.
Starting from that point I believe that it is now necessary for Romney to pick Santorum as his running mate to consolidate the GOP. Anybody but Obama in 2012.
And I believe that Romney will lose to Obama in the general. It does us no good to end the process now and nominate Romney.
“I don’t see how a protracted, money burning primary could be in our best interest.”
If it means defeating Mitt Romney, then yes, it is in our best interest to get a candidate who represents conservatives and can defeat Obama. Romney does neither. I’m not willing to support anyone who supported Obamacare or Mittcare in Massachusetts, and I’m going to fight Romney every step of the way.
Right now, RCP has Romney losing by 8 to Obama. Is this the wagon you want to hitch your ride to?
I have to wonder how hollow an existence one must have, how utterly frustrating it must be, the self loathing one must endure, to wake up every morning knowing that fear rules one’s life. Fear of Obama. Fear of Liberals. Fear in standing up for what’s right. Fear of tackling the hard questions....
Since you ignored my questions, I have to assume you fear that answering them honestly would utterly wreck your party line GOPE worldview. That’s fine. You are entitled to believe and vote whatever way you wish...even to the detriment of what you claim to believe in.
As for many of us, we choose to pull up our big boy pants, believe in and act on the courage of our convictions in what is right and what is wrong; and not live and vote in fear like the whole of the Democrats we oppose.
Everyone at some point in their life has to pick the hill they want to fight on, and if they die on it, at least they stood up for what they believed in - pretty much the same spirit of the men who fought for, died for and created this country.
But if you want to support King George’s representative to the colonies, well, God save the Queen and all that rot.
I and many others are not going to join you.
I just want to beat Obama and I will take any republican nominated.
By the way RCP has Santorum losing to Obama by 8.9% and Romney losing to Obama by 4.5%.
That’s all great for a John Wayne movie dude but this is real life.Future of the country at stake,sometimes you don’t get your way.
I stand corrected.
Is 4 points worth selling out conservative principles?
Fear sucks huh? And like our friend the Cheezeburger cat, you haZ it.
Perhaps instead of letting it rule you so thoroughly, you might reach around your back, locate your spine and straighten it, rather than cowering from your responsibilities as an American - AKA supporting the principles of the Constitution...”Dude”.
Spare me. He was a child of Christ who sinned. It happens to a lot of us. Unfortunately, none of us are quite as perfect as Saint Rick (thinks he is) and his followers.
Sorry for the brief reply, but I no longer spend time trying to reason with santorum supporters, too stubborn, too sanctimonious, too blind; I hope you understand.
This is a good example of the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Nice strawman but it won’t work. You’re comparing apples and oranges. Yes, that was a state level decision, but at the time, slavery was legal in the United States at the time (federal level as well). Some states had decisions against slavery, some had decisions for slavery. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. States make their decisions and you live in a state that supports what you want. What you want is the federal government to TELL states what to do, which in your case is to ban abortion. But why do you want the federal government to have such power? Do you realize that if you get people in who will give you what you want, you establish a precedent, federal government as all powerful over every decision in your life. Then somewhere down the road people get elected to a majority and they don’t think like you...but guess what, they have that power that you let your friends establish. Now you have people who are opposite of you TELLING you what you can do with intimate details of your life.
I’m sorry but limited government must be for all, not just for those we don’t like. You’re no different than liberals if that’s what you want.
What can be done about that though short of a mad scientist inventing a mind control machine? I only have two ideas.
One, the TEA Party on a national level organizes a SuperPAC and raises a ton of money for it. They hold their own poll of members before Iowa asking them to pick one candidate. Then they finance advertising for that candidate no matter what happens...unless they get arrested for murder I guess.
Second, a new way of voting, ranked choice or scored voting. Forms of this voting have been done on local levels. The voters’ second choice, third choice, etc. would all be counted on the ballot. Or you could simply put a Yes or No by whichever candidate you like or dislike. Or you could score every candidate by Strongly Approve, Approve, Disapprove, Strongly Disapprove, in order to get an “approval rating” for each candidate. When that’s counted up we’d have a much more accurate picture of which candidates people really like. At that point you could award winner-take-all to the top choice, or assign delegates proportionally based on how well they scored. All of this avoids the problem of two very similar candidates splitting the vote between a similar group of supporters.
Like I said, grow up!
Rules of debate: Calling your opponent an azzhole pretty much forfeits the game. If that’s the best you can do, you pretty much lost the argument.
Fear. You indeed HaZ it.
Perfect! And people who decided that being called an a-hole automatically wins a debate for them are those who have turned their constant labeling into positive reinforcement...
Ducks quack, shoes fit and labels become affixed to things that earn them.
Very true. But, calling your opponent stupid (in so many words), ... That's the stuff of genius, huh?
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.