Posted on 04/10/2012 12:29:15 PM PDT by 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!!
Gingrich is our last hope. I can’t get past Rove’s comment: “they (conservatives)will have a temper tantrum, but when it comes time to vote they will all fall in line.” Then Romney: “The voters will get behind me.” Now, I have a contrary streak and when anybody assumes that I have no choice, it stirs up the Irish in me. I ain’t gonna fall in line or get behind the selected one. I will do my own choosing and I choose Newt as long as he will hang with it. Then if I have to, and am allowed to, I will write in Sarah Palin. I wish every Tea Party member in America would do likewise. Want to kick the GOPe in the teeth? Write in Sarah Palin on election day.
Eff the GOP-e...They’ve gone a RINO too far.
Respectfully disagree. We must not let 0bama (Shicklgruber, or whatever his name is) make another SCOTUS appointment. Unless something drastic happens, we're stuck voting for Willard. Genuinely fear 2012 will be the slimiest, most fraud riddled general election ever.
On the other hand, you've made great progress against GOPe, despite Ted Baxter bashing FR from FoxSnooze.
This was the first primary in my lifetime where the GOP candidate wasn't selected before super Tuesday. We started this election with a great lineup of conservative candidates. And despite all the GOPe celebration, not-Romney GOP and not voted still has more delegates than GOPe Myth earned.
At risk of sounding like a Cubs Fan, wait 'til 2016.
Cheers,
OLA
Obama wouldn’t have won without them.
My goal from early on in this primary was to see a Republican candidate emerge who
1) meets the biblical qualifications for civil office in Romans 13,
2) has enough experience with a solid track record of leadership in lower offices (preferably executive office) to demonstrate proven ability to govern, and
3) has a realistic possibility of actually being elected.
Meeting the biblical standards for office in Romans 13 means, among other things, that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil” (Romans 13:3) because civil rulers are God's servants for praising what is good (v. 3-4) while making evildoers “afraid” for they “do not bear the sword in vain... (as) an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (v. 4). Civil rulers receive our taxes so they can be “God's ministers attending continually to this very thing” (vv. 6-7) and we are to give civil rulers proper respect “not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake” (v. 5).
By definition, godly civil rulers ought to strike fear in the hearts of evildoers. What fear does Mitt Romney strike in the heart of baby-killing abortionists, sodomite advocates of homosexual marriage, etc.? At most, he causes them to fear that they can't trust anything he says based on his past record of flip-flopping.
We, as conservatives, also have good reason to be fearful of Romney's flip flops. He's not a good candidate for liberals or for conservatives, and he shouldn't be our candidate as Republicans.
Romney may well be an economic conservative, but promoting the economic well-being of a nation's citizens is quite low on the priority list of God's standards for civil rulers. It's not irrelevant, and a true socialist is advocating theft, sinning against at least the Eighth Commandment and probably also the Tenth Commandment against coveting our neighbor's goods, so outright socialists ought to be opposed, and in that sense Obama is worse than Romney. But the primary purpose of civil government is upholding justice and punishing evildoers, and Romney has a long history of opposing punishments for baby killers, promoting sodomite marriages, and appointing judges whose records showed something very different from the biblical standard of punishing evil and promoting justice.
Apparently we're supposed to believe that Romney has changed his mind and ignore his long record of liberal campaigning and liberal governance. Even if we believe Romney really has changed his mind, he needs to get some governing experience as a real conservative under his belt to prove he actually means what he says. I personally believe if Romney is sincere, he ought to move to Utah or Idaho or some other state where he has a good chance of getting elected, run for governor, and prove from practical deeds that he actually means what he says he now believes. As a devout Mormon, I think Romney of all people should understand the importance of demonstrating good deeds.
Now what about the rest of the Republican field?
After Iowa, I thought that Santorum was the best of several viable candidates; the South Carolina vote shocked me and I still am not sure how Gingrich won that state. For a while I thought the South Carolina vote showed evangelicals were backing Gingrich; later votes showed otherwise. However, the fact is that Bachmann, Cain, Perry, and now Santorum are all out, Gingrich is the only candidate left standing, and I think those of us who are conservative Christians need to unite and try to help Gingrich make a last stand to defeat Romney.
Will that work? I don't know, and I realize it's a very long shot at this late date. What I do know is that Mitt Romney is not only a bad candidate but a disqualified candidate under biblical standards and he needs to be fought against as long as there is any viable alternative left.
I'm not going to try to discern the mind of God on things which are not clearly written in Scripture. What I am going to say is that media reports during George W. Bush's presidency consistently show that Bush's virtually unprecedented razor-thin victory, caused in large measure by millions of disgusted evangelicals staying home on election day 2000 after learning shortly before the vote of Bush's drunk driving conviction many years earlier, caused Bush to realize that his presidency depended on keeping evangelicals happy, and that was a major contributing factor to Bush running the country based in significant measure on his Christian principles.
King David's sin with Bathsheba didn't deprive him of his kingdom, but it did bring chaos: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house...’” (II Samuel 12:11). The subsequent history of King David shows clearly that sin has consequences, and they were pretty serious consequences that almost but not quite deprived him of his kingdom.
Maybe a narrow skin-of-the-teeth victory by Gingrich is the sort of “chaos in the kingdom” a President Gingrich will need to remind him that it's God, not politicians, who raise rulers up and tear them down again. A very narrow victory seems to have worked with Bush.
Amen!
Yes, I’ve wanted to shove my fist in the nose of the GOP for a long time. My brother, like many diehard conservatives, has re-registered as “Decline to State” about 12 years ago, because he did not even want to affiliate with the Republican party anymore.
He is not alone and many conservatives are no longer registered Republicans. It really skews the numbers, as I believe there is this huge group of conservatives who appear to be off the train, when in fact all they need is a new party to join to combine them from being scattered in the “Decline”, “Independent”, “Libertarian”, and “Constitution” parties.
But yes, I have wanted to go Galt of the GOP a long time. I just have been playing defense for years as the Dems keep nominating commies. I mean, was Kerry or Gore much better than Obama? Gore would have destroyed our economy, too.
Clinton was every bit the Soros butt-boy communist Obama is (without the Islam passion), and tried Hillary Care and tried giving our land away to the UN, and tried cutting the military and doing much of what Obama succeeded in doing. He just didn’t have 2 years of a combined Dem House and Senate to rubber stamp his plans.
So yes, it feels good to go Galt and no longer have to worry about voting RINO in national elections as a California voter.
Obama has already locked up California, so I just don’t have to worry about it.
California is now a 1 party state, with 4.5 registered Dems for every 3 registered Republicans, and that ratio is climbing as the Hispanic illegal anchor babies and all of their other children, come of voting age and register with the commie Democrats.
Outnumbered by 50%, California registered Republicans just can’t get a turnout big enough to win national elections anymore. That goes for California’s 2 national Senate seats.
If only 50% of the Dems turnout, fully 75% of CA GOP must turn out just to tie. That margin of turnout difference just doesn’t happen.
So CA is a doomed one-party state, and I no longer have to vote RINO!
I AM FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.
As if Romney, who nominated only 1 in 4 MA judges who were Republicans, has a non-liberal track record on this
For me & my sphere of influence...no vote for Romney...
For me, the month that Romney is nominated, I will exit the GoP & encourage others to do the same
No, FRiend, not trying to get you zotted! But I didn't ask you if you liked Romney better than Obama. I asked if you would rather see Romney win than Obama. :^)
My conclusion, arrived at after a LOT of dispassionate thought and calculation, is that in fact Obama would be BETTER for making conservatism stronger than Romney would be (Romney would be a much more powerful destroyer of conservatism, in fact), especially if Obama was elected on a pathetic plurality such that as much as 66 percent of American voters were on record as OPPOSED to Obama. Cynics and surrender monkeys wail that "it wouldn't make any difference! A plurality win is still win!" but that is plain fear and emotion talking, unless they actually believe that the Republican Revolution in Congress would have happened if Clinton ahd been elected with 53 percent of the vote instead of 43 percent.
Both Romney and Obama are bad news for America. There is no "lesser evil" between them. Voting for one is as bad as voting for the other.
I'll have to work with the hand I'm dealt, and if it comes to Obama vs Romney in the 2012 presidential race, the BEST way to play the hand is to vote third party so whichever bad guy wins will get in in such a way as to make him as weak a vote-getter as possible and to make his opposition as motivated and validated as possible.
#1
Allow me to quote FREEPER Ansel12 -- in a comment he made on a thread Feb. 9, 2008 Reagan re: Abortion as CA Guv
Reagan’s most able biographer, Lou Cannon, has documented* that in contravention to Romney’s claim that Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice” Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento. Cannon documents that after the abortion bill passed the California Senate, Reagan was asked by reporters during a press conference about his stance on the bill. When asked if he would sign the bill, Reagan answered, “I haven’t had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that.” Such a reply certainly does not reveal an “adamant” position on the issue, as Romney claims Reagan held. Further, such indecision was not in any way a hallmark of the Reagan mode of operation. In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that “those were awful weeks,” and that he would never have signed the bill if he had “been a more experienced governor.” In light of the evidence it cannot be said that Reagan was ever an “adamant” pro-abortion supporter who later “grew” into an anti-abortion advocate. For Romney to invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan in this way is a disgraceful attempt to co-opt the reputation of the most famous and successful politician of his age and an icon of the conservative movement to the aid of a candidate floundering on an issue. Mitt Romney’s abortion problem bears no resemblance at all to Ronald Reagan’s views “grown” or not.”
Ansel then linked to: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27404.html
#2
Besides, Reagan flipped; Romney flip-flopped, flip-flopped, flip-flopped, and is now trying to flip yet once again...
Whereas Reagan's flip culminated in his 1984 book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation...all Romney can do is bounce back & forth as an enemy of the womb. Pro abortion in the early 90s...claimed in a 2001 utah letter to the editor (circa being in Utah due to Olympics) that he did NOT consider himself "pro-choice" (a flip)...
Flopped back to abortion 2002 when he ran for MA gov...
Romney then flipped to "pro-life" supposedly Nov of 04...
Then he flopped back to maintaining status quo of abortion comment during May '05 press conference + pro-abortion MA healthcare in '06...
Then he flipped to "pro-life" again in early '07 as he began his campaign...then flopped to a pro-abortion comment during Katie Couric interview Dec of 07 -- saying it was "OK" for parents to give their offspring to research.
Now, he's trying to flip again to "pro-life."
People who are ignorant of Romney's pro-abortion history are often looking for any reason to justify him -- and essentially become Romney's personal apologists.
I do, but apparently you don't.
To put it as "implementing some policies you don't like," is as laughable as it is pathetic.
SOME POLICIES???
Try ALL OF THE POLICIES THAT I AS A REPUBLICAN REJECT. On the five MAIN ISSUES, Romney's philosophy is documented, and it is the same as the Democrats I've spent a lifetime voting against.
SOME policies??? *shakes head* Oh, yeah, sure, Romney's not bad, except for that little flaw that philosophically he's all for government-run health care, on-demand cheap taxpayer-subsidized abortion, harsh punishment of anyone who rejects open homosexuality even when it comes to gays attempting to influence thier children, appointing liberal activist judges who'll defy the Constitution, and cap-and-trade global warming regulations.
Gee, sure, except for those little MINOR issues, Romney's not bad at all!!! NOT.
Do you have any concept of the difference between Obama’s burning desire to destroy America, and Romney’s “potential” for implementing some policies you don’t like?
*snort* Get a clue, FRiend, and grow some concepts yourself. The smartest thing to do is to vote ABOOR to make whichever liberal wins gets a piddling plurality to make him as politically weak as possible as indicated by how many Americans voted AGAINST him.
The “clue” you reveal is mind reading and projection based upon vitriol and hate.
See weave of flips & flops by Romney below...
(That goes well beyond THE change made by Nathanson)
I didn't say Reagan was pro-abortion... [Once-ler, post 1,192]
No, Once-ler, but you implied it in post 1,187...(which I addressed in a post)
Once-ler, you sound like you want to skirt on the outer edges of justifying Romney's flip-flops...Am I onto something there?
******
Romney's Track record of abortion 'waffles'
(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]
(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.
Well, what are the 1994 facts?
FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent
(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?
(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!
(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?
(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"
(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Anne Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)
What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Anne Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."
Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.
I can’t disagree with that.
Please cut-and-past examples of vitriol and hate as worded in my posts.
I think you described it perfectly, there is no way i can idly sit by and if I have 1/1 millionth of a chance in voting against a communist, i will do it.
I will take a Rino over a communist any day
Of course you would...And in 24 years, as your kids & grandkids go to the polls...they'll take a GoP communist over a worse ______________ (fill-in-the-blank)... because you've taught them well the "ethic" of voting for the lesser of 2 evils!
WELL SAID [Finny]
Amen and amen.
The lefties know that if they can get most Republicans to vote for a pro-abortion socialist who's track record it is to appoint liberal judges, that block of voters have seared their conscience once-&-for-all & will no longer balk @ ANY socialist pro-abortion or liberal judge-appointing agenda again!
I mean, how can they? They've once-&-for-all forfeited any high ground.
So to liberals -- especially RINOs -- it's not only a specific candidate attempted "reformation," but a social-issues Waterloo of sorts. It's becomes a "Bridge Too Far."
Yes. Those with short-sighted mentality are willing to toss whatever remnant there is in vain hopes of defeating Obama. But GoP extinction awaits now that they've ostracized the base of the party & eliminated both its foundation & backbone.
Obama's successor can be worse -- and there won't be a GoP left to oppose him/her.
There's also yet another way to scare a lib here...
The fact is, there's not enough liberal voters in this country to support two mainstream liberal candidates in a normal high 40%something to high 40%something race.
Romney & the GoP-e have already dissed the conservative base...and a good chunk of it is pondering whether to permanently jump ship from the GoP...If Romney banks "right" now -- which just doesn't happen post nomination...it won't matter to true conservatives...who would believe such a flip-flopper, anyway?
But liberal independents & liberal Dems? They're gullible. Besides, Romney won't have to tell any lies to prove his liberal credentials. For example...
* The porn lobby could get behind Mitt -- see The nasty taint of porn [Less than 5 years ago, Lds church-owned paper took Romney to task], whose taken income from that industry. Perhaps Mitt could offer govt paid-for porn -- socialized porn...for those too poor to own a computer or cell phone.
* Same with the abortion lobby. Mitt's got his $50 taxpayer funded abortions & Planned Parenthood ties to boast of...
* And Mitt was the pioneer of both socialistic healthcare AND same-sex marriages! He could replicate Massachusetts all across this land!!!
* All he needs now to "seal the deal" in stealing more libs away from Obama is to get Hillary as his running mate!
For that, see: Five reasons Romney should pick Hillary as his VP (Vanity)
Mitt...the NEW GoP Trojan horse!!!
Oh gee whiz people voted for Romney, he campaigned and got the votes.
I put in $200 for Cain and look what that got me.
No Colofonian, I don’t think so. I supported good candidates
and Mr. Romney won. Gingrich, Santorum ran out of money. I can’t help it. But I will be dog gone somewhere very hot, before I not vote against a flaming fag communist
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.