Notice: FR is and will remain a pro-life, small government conservative site.

April 10, 2012 | Jim Robinson

[Jim Robinson]

To hell with the GOP-e. Barring a miracle, they got their big government, unconstitutional mandate loving, socialist abortionist Obama-lite RINO on the ballot, they can now get him elected.

We are the resistance!!

Shove him down our throats today, we shove him up your donkeys in November!!

I can see November from my house!!

[RinaseaofDs]

“If you aren’t helping Romney at this point, you are an Obama supporter.”

I reject that on its face. Not just for all the reaons I previously provided, which you admit are true.

I admire your pluck - you want to form a new precedent.

Fine, let’s check the math. How many rock-ribbed conservatives you think it would take to completely core-out the establishment liberals now occupying positions of appointment by conservatives at this point?

By what device will we take a nation of federal checktakers into risk-taking entrepreneurs?

I don’t want to pour cold water on you like this, but we already had the 9th and 10th amendments. We passed the 14th and 17th, and then SCOTUS broke the key off in the lock with their ‘penumbras and emanations’.

While I agree that we aren’t locked into this, and everything is possible, you have to create a situation where people are compensated to change in some anti-leviathan government way.

I look at Europe, and they present the same symptoms a heroin addict does in getting off the junk. It took default to do it, and they aren’t done yet. They will be forced off the Euro, eventually, and they will have to go back to the Drachma. No one will loan them a buck.

This last statement is important.

No one will loan them a buck.

Why people are loaning us a buck to keep our economy going is a miracle of stupidity.

If people won’t loan you a dollar, and you are hungry, what do you think is going to happen next?

In Greece, they are vilifying the Germans because the Germans are insisting on managing the Euros they are currently pouring in to stave off the inevitable. Nevermind that Greeks were paying themselves 14 months salary for the same job a Germany was getting 12 months salary for last year. The Greeks had become accustomed to a certain lifestyle, and the Germans are ‘taking it away’.

Again, this boils down to math.

There aren’t enough conservatives
There are too many federally dependent people
There are too many establishment republicans pouring crap in beauracrats ears in DC too change anything this year.

Down the ticket, I agree that the Tea Party can be effective, and we should put all our energy there, because we will need a FIREWALL against the policies Romney is going to roll out.

First off, he’s not going to kill Obamacare. Ultimately, it was his idea, and politically he can’t. As soon as he gets the job, he’s going to change the tone from repeal to reform. He may even make a good show of trying to repeal it, or he may be praying hard that SCOTUS takes the knife out of his hand so he doesn’t have to reject his own idea.

Either way, if Romney is the only thing between you and socialized medicine, he isn’t going to be the guy who kills it. Like a lot of people, he’s incapable of learning from his own mistakes. He doesn’t have that gear. Everyone who’s ever worked with him will tell you that. This is another striking similarity between him and Obama - incapable of admitting a mistake - privately or publicly.

Without a Tea Party firewall in Congress, we will continue to pick up speed into the abyss, just not at the same rate of acceleration that Obama had.

Glass-Steagal will stay dead, for example.

Romney’s association with conservativism is not unlike a dry martini’s association with vermouth. It will require Congress in opposition.

[so_real]

I’m with Alexander Hamilton on this - If we can’t nominate a conservative, then let the liberal win, and let him wear the fruits of his labors.

BINGO! I wish all our FRiends could understand Hamilton's "wisdom"!

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Then I'll leave labels out of it. Newt, who I supported and voted for in the primaries, has said that he'll support whomever the GOP nominee is. Including Romney. Sarah Palin has said the same. So have Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, and just about every other elected conservative I can think of. Santorum has even said that.

Now, others here are perfectly free to choose otherwise. However, the argument being made here is that you can't be a conservative if you're voting for Romney in the general election. And by that definition, you've squeezed out everyone listed above, from Palin right on down, and I imagine just about every GOP member of the House and Senate. Probably all our governors as well.

Where does that logic leave us?

[CatherineofAragon]

There are no two ways around the fact that Romney has established himself as being pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Again, Romney appointed 36 judges in MA, and 27 of them were Democrats, some extreme leftists. I don’t know why I should believe he will appoint conservative judges all of a sudden. With that, and the fact that women today are taking advantage of their $50 abortions thanks to Willard, I find myself unable to associate myself with him. It’s a spiritual matter, and one of conscience. You may or may not understand it, or you may understand, and choose to disregard it. That’s all right-—we all have to make our own decision.

[LovedSinner]

Thank you Jim!

I have been saying something similar. I will only vote for Romney if he does not do an “Etch-a-sketch” and move even farther left, as well as pick a conservative for VP. I would also need reassurances about future Supreme Court picks, since his record there is not good at all, even after his pro-life conversion.

If I do not get this I will not vote for Obama but just leave my Presidential vote blank on my ballot. If Romney runs as a flaming liberal and wins, then he will be the nominee (barring a major scandal or health crisis) again in 2016. So we will be without a conservative President for another 8 years then!

Perhaps 4 more years of Obama is less bad than 8 years of Mitt Romney, if Romney moves even further left. I do not know.

[RinaseaofDs]

I’ll go farther on this. And its quite simple:

If you vote for Romney, then you own him. You’re answerable.

I can’t do it. I’m responsible for my vote, and I won’t vote for a liberal. With liberals, there’s no degrees or shades - their philosophy is all of a piece - government is a force for good, and not the problem. More of it is better.

I can’t identify a difference between the Democrat and the Republican on this core bit.

I’ll admit this much - the national defense aspects of this have me worried. I question Obama’s willingness to defend national interests. I also question Romney’s. I can’t tell where the guy stands on it. I think he has all the convictional resolve of an airport windsock.

He could bloviate on it for hours and I wouldn’t believe it. This is the problem, he lies at about the same firing rate as Obama does.

What a process.

[sam_paine]

A president can not simply decree that abortions must stop and then they magically stop.

True!

Now given that was obviously true in 1980, how many abortions could Santorum, Gingrich or Romney stop in 2012?

Notta goddam one.

It's schizophrenic for FR to freak out about "pro-life" candidates since it doesn't have anything to do with them, and further, if they're going to be consistent, then they would be anti-Reagan today as well.

[so_real]

I guess my question that goes still unanswered is okay, we allow Obama to win re-election. Then what? If there is indeed a bigger picture in play, how is another four years of Obama going to help US?

Having Obama in for four years won't help. Having Romney in for four (or eight) years won't help either -- in fact it will hurt by redefining "conservative". There are no "positives", so we focus on mitigating the "negatives".

Obama provides a target on the field in front of us we can unify to fight. Romney provides chaos in our ranks and constant discord that is difficult to overcome. It's pretty basic strategy really.

I would prefer that Obama lose to a conservative. But if he instead finds victory over a progressive liberal disguised as a conservative, the GOP is forced to become our ally once more and face a common opponent. And, maybe, the GOP will learn that buying a primary for a progressive candidate does not necessarily mean winning the general. They'll have to reconsider how they spend the coffer, especially as we quit contributing and dry it up.

My personal opinion is that the GOP would rather let the cat out of the bag on Obama's impeachable offenses than permit him four more years in office. It's a gamble, but I feel comfortable with it. And the alternative, having a liberal standard bearer redefine "conservatism", is not acceptable -- and in fact the Founders warned us against it.

You think it is a strawman argument, but that's the reality. If the GOP chooses Romney as its representative (our representative), then the GOP is little different than the DNC (we are little different). I can't abide by that.

We'll show up to vote. Don't worry about that. We'll vote for the conservatives on the ballot as we find them. But Romney is not in that camp. You say we burned up the phone lines and changed Bush. He left office right after igniting the "too big to fail" bailout fuse. How'd that work for us? Time to try something different.

[Not A Snowbird]

If he get the delegates, then he’s the nominee. How is that surrender? I’d prefer he not get the delegates before the convention, but the math isn’t working out.

What I’d like to see is a rule change that would allow for a runoff between the top two presidential candidates if one of them does not get 50.1 percent. That’s the only way a third party would have a prayer of winning in the general. Until that happens, voting for somebody who is not on the ballot is a throwaway vote and I won’t do it.

[Jagdgewehr]

However, the argument being made here is that you can't be a conservative if you're voting for Romney in the general election.

Yes, I agree. That is very counterproductive. With very few exceptions, we all belong in the same conservative camp. We have two opposing view points here and that is all.

On that note, those of us who have decided enough is enough are not going to capitulate to the GOP establishment who truly doesn't value our conservative principles. They regard us as their fringe. The Democrats are far more tolerant, if not all out accepting of their fringe elements. As I have said before, how many times are we supposed to be shoved up against this same wall? How many more times are we going to get the same go-along-get-along moderate to left, socialist-leaning GOP candidate shoved down our throats?

My vote is my voice. I only get one. My vote is a precious thing to me and I will not use it to vote for a Republican socialist over a Democrat socialist...though he be so much worse. The Republicans value my vote, but not my voice. So, I choose to vote for conservatives all down the ticket. Even the top spot. That may mean voting for someone not of the two parties who are bent on the same big, intrusive government status quo.

Romney does not get my vote. Ever. Period. All the derision from my fellow conservatives who ridicule my principled stand are not going to sway me in the slightest. The GOP bandwagon is heading the wrong way and I'm not staying aboard.

[so_real]

It's not that he's conservative. He is, as Gingrich as accurately labelled him, a "Massachusetts Moderate". But that is still significantly better than being a Chicago Socialist.

"Significantly better" ... like having a cancer but not a malignant one. Or, a punch in the gut instead of a kick in the nuts from the school yard punk.

Nobody is under any illusions here that Romney is a conservative dream candidate.

But some *are* under the illusion that Romney is a conservative. In fact, issue for issue I find him on par with the Obama administration on domestic items, and unreliable or unknowable on foreign items. I refuse to make him my standard bearer. I refuse the notion of him representing my values. Everyone, at least on this forum, should understand that. The day a candidate as liberal as Hillary Clinton becomes the leader of the Republican Party is the day the GOP has officially told its conservative base to go pound sand.

[itsahoot]

Why can’t Conservatives understand this?

Conservatives do understand, that is why they reject your Chamberlain solution.

[BizBroker]

Sure it is. Can’t handle the truth, that’s ok. Insults are not necessary. Cling to those “principles” as the ship sinks. Let’s see how that works out. Hitler was uncompromising too wasn’t he? Stalin? Mao? Pol Pot? Getting the idea?

[Finny]

Voting for Mittens is the same as telling the libs that they’ve won and we are beaten. Wanna scare a lib? Reject Mittens.

This is about the war, not the battle. If Mittens gets our vote the lefties know they’ve won the war. Vote for Mittens and we are done!!

WELL SAID.

[BizBroker]

So, according to you Romney, with a Conservative House and or Senate, would forestall their agenda. Color me dubious. Romney has no real beliefs. He will go where the leadership and agenda take him.

To say that he would be just as likely as the Commie to do that is not being truthful and it is allowing your hatred for Romney to cloud your judgement.

I have no love for the man, but he is not as evil as Obama.

[Jagdgewehr]

They understand incrementalism

It's happening right under your nose in the GOP. However, it is not in the direction you or I prefer.

Where you're seeing incrementalism, I see capitulation. I will not embolden the GOP's incremental shift to the left.

[Once-Ler]

The liberals have a point. If you want to screw it up, at least be honest about it. Liberals will come out and tell you the Constitution has outlived its usefulness.

"At least Jefferson was honest," said Hamiliton. Looks like you believe Obama is honest. One of two men will be president next year. I prefer Romney you prefer Obama. Why do you have a problem with me pointing out pro Obama Freepers?

You lost the election this year no matter who wins.

I'm a Republican. If Romney wins I'm good. Conservatives tried to stop Romney and proved they don't have to power to nominate a candidate. Just like they failed to stop McCain's nomination in 2008. If Romney wins the election he will owe nothing to conservatives. So you lost the election this year no matter who wins. Put some ice on it. Walk it off. Drink a little.

[BizBroker]

A win for Obama is a win for Obama. No one will care that he won by a plurality. The media will call it a mandate and we will be stuck with a Communist responsible to no one and the legacy of 3 leftist Supreme Court judges. That does not sound like tasty lemonade to me.

[ExCTCitizen]

Ditto Jim...

[Finny]

Newt, who I supported and voted for in the primaries, has said he'll support whomever the GOP nominee is. Including Romney. Sarah Palin has said the same. So have Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, and just about every other elected conservative I can think of. Santorum has even said that .... [T]he argument being made here is that you can't be a conservative if you're voting for Romney in the general election. And by that definition, you've squeezed out everyone listed above .... Where does that logic leave us?

It leaves us facing the fact that those politicians are allowing political expediency to lead them to error.