NO CULTISTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Posted on 04/10/2012 4:52:33 PM PDT by Cato in PA
So it’s come to this.
Rick Santorum dropped out of the race earlier today, which leaves Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul in the running. By any reasonable estimate, Paul still doesn’t stand a chance and Newt won’t mount a serious challenge barring divine intervention.
We’re left with Willard Romney the open socialist, who stands against everything we believe in as conservatives. There are many among us who refuse to vote for him. We who feel this way must unite behind a third party if we’re going to accomplish anything. If we don’t, we’re no better than the party-line Republicans who cry about the need for change but do nothing about it.
JimRob hasn't called for a third party, and that's fine. I'm certainly not criticizing him. But if he won't, I will.
I’d like to take a moment now to quash any lingering doubts you may have about the necessity or wisdom of doing this in case you've somehow missed my other posts.
1) We know Obama is a Marxist. He’ll do bad stuff. Romney is a political weatherwane! There’s a *chance* that he might do good.
Wrong. Romney’s conservatism is 100% rhetoric. If you want to know what the man stands for, look at his record. He ran to the left of Ted Kennedy in 1994 and lost. He governed Massachusetts as a far-left radical, even going so far as to sign socialized medicine into law, a decision he defends to this day. He also defends the bailouts.
HE ADMITTED THAT HE IS A PROGRESSIVE. The vast majority of his judicial picks were far-left judicial activists. He lobbied Obama to adopt the individual mandate on a national level as late as 2009.
Nothing about Romney’s record could even cast him as a moderate. He'll do nothing to stop our economic collapse, and with him at the helm, the Republicans will take the blame. You thought 2008 was bad? Just wait until 2014. How do you think President Jellyfish would stand up to a Democrat-controlled Congress?
2) Okay, so Romney is a liberal. But he and the other Repubs will HAVE to listen if we elect a Republican president!
Wrong. We’ve fallen for this ruse time and time again. Even the historic Republican victory in 2010 didn’t work in our favor; we got Crybaby Boehner and Moderate McConnell, who refuse to listen to us even when a Democrat president is in the White House.
Why would they suddenly toughen up on liberalism if we replaced a liberal Democrat with a liberal Republican?
3) No, no, we have to change the Republican party from within!
How many years have we heard this? How well has it worked out? Will it EVER work out? No, because the Rockefeller wing holds the reins of power and will never let them go.
Even after a historic “Tea Party” victory in 2010, nothing has changed. If that won’t change anything, then how else can we achieve change at the voting booth?
4) But this is an election year, the WORST time to start a third party.
There will never be a ‘good time’. Most people don’t pay attention to politics in off-years, so we’d probably be ignored if we waited. If we do it during an election year, yes, we’re going to split the vote in certain cases.
Nobody ever said that change would be easy, but it’s necessary. If we do nothing, we’ll be no better than the Mittwits.
We need to strike while the iron is hot so we’ll get exposure. If we can get exposure, we can make progress. As difficult a fight as this will be, the only other option, trying to change the GOP from within, is a proven failure.
5) I think you’re just a sore loser. You need to compromise and accept Romney even if he’s not your perfect pick!
This isn’t about purity; this is about principle. Part of politics involves compromise, which is why I’ve said over and over again that I’d vote for Santorum or Gingrich. Paul never really had a chance, so the question doesn’t apply to him.
But part of compromise is having enough -principle- to know compromise becomes caving. And you know what? There are certain things that aren’t worth compromising over, like supporting an open socialist. These are the sort of distinctions that party-line Republicans are incapable of making. They’ve pulled the GOP lever all their lives, and they just can’t imagine doing otherwise.
6) A vote against Romney is a vote for Obama.
Wrong. A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for change in the only means still available to us: rebellion. We’ve tried to get the establishment to listen to us for so many years, but our concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
Your continued support will only result in more of the same. You don’t stop someone from abusing you in a relationship by staying with them if you can't resolve your differences; you leave.
7) It will be YOUR fault if we have another 4 years of Obama!
Dead wrong. If you want to blame someone for Obama’s re-election, blame the establishment for backing a far-left radical who has sharply divided the GOP and destroyed voter enthusiasm nationwide. Turnout is abysmal and Willard looks even worse in the polls than John McCain did.
The GOP base has basically already given up. It’s like 2008 but worse. If you want to vote for the person responsible for that, be my guest.
Now...we can talk about how angry we are, or we can do something about it. Let’s start throwing some ideas around for how to proceed if the inevitable turns out to be true and Romney is the GOP nominee.
Should we try to create a new third party? Would an existing third party suffice? Let’s discuss.
Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?
I think the line in the sand that we should draw is “Don’t let Obama win.”
That would be ‘We Republicans who support candidates in the Primaries and Caucuses.”
That sure don’t say much for the voting citizens...the chumps.
Romney/Palin might work.
NO CULTISTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE
Read my post. I don’t HAVE a “handpicked candidate.”
The only people who suffer are us.
The GOP has been pushing moderates since before I was allowed to vote. They’ve lost as much as they’ve won. Do they learn? Of course not.
We, however, suffer the consequences of hard-left governance.
Newt is essentially the 3rd party candidate — unless you’re a member of the moral vanity brigade.
What you don't seem to understand is that Romney is simply not an option. What would you do if somebody tried to force you to vote for either: Obama, or Reid, or Pelosi? Would you actually vote for one of those scoundrels for POTUS in the name of doing the least harm?
If the GOP-e pushes the Romney nomination down our throats, it guarantees a third party movement, and that's on them.
But.....he had his own money.
If Rush, announces tomorrow, he is ahead of Romney by 10 points. It become 43 Obama, 34 Rush, 23 Romney, give or take a few points. Or, make it Palin with the Koch brothers behind her. I think Jack Welch is too old, but someone like that. Trump, even though I didn't trust him to be a conservative, was in the running as a serious independent when he was out there for a while.
The strategy would be to outdistance Romney heading into the stretch, and then to convince the Rinos to throw in with the new party. If they don't, the new party can still win, because of the way our system is structured. What you need is a plurality in enough states to get to 270. All the states that Bush got in 2004.
Ironically, it is the exact formula used to elect Abraham Lincoln with something like 39 percent of the vote. As that 1860 election spelled the end of the Whig party, so the victory of the Tea Party could spell the end of Lincoln's party, which is fitting. The GOP has become the party of progressives who want to run corporations and manage the economy and the little people.
I would like to see this scenario play out, but the odds are long and time is fast running out. If no one steps up soon, the choice will be Mitt or Barry. I told myself last time that I would never vote for a RINO again, that if they did it to us again, I would not go along. Even then, I only supported McCain because of Palin, and because I learned more about Obama and knew he was a marxist. What will I do this time? If no one does step up this time, I have not decided whether the long term interests of conservatism and the USA will better be served by voting out Obama for Romney, or letting the GOPe get what they deserve. I will take some time to think about that one.
Let's hope someone steps up.
The Tea Party ABSOLUTELY is changing the Republican Party from within. The day I joined the largest Republican Party Executive Committee in Florida I took my oath with several fellow Tea Partiers standing beside me. And I've seen the influence of the Tea Party grow in surprising ways since then within the Republican Party (the long-time president of our own committee resigned her position to support Herman Cain - which was startling).
Maybe the change isn't as fast as we would all wish, but it is happening. It would be unfortunate if we didn't finish the job.
Logical contradiction. Working within a party can accomplish far more than any fringe party ever will.
“Why don’t we start working on a strategy to put Mittens in a corner where he has to do the conservative thing just to stay in the race.”
If that was possible, I wouldn’t have written this. There is no way for us to affect the establishment from within because they hold the reins of power.
Too many people are looped in to the party-line mentality to make a donation boycott a reality. If it was, I’d support that.
Oh C’mon. You are obviously a plant. Not voting for Mittens? You’ve obviously come here to force 0bummer upon us.
Come to think of it, the owner of this site hates Mittens, too. Mr. Robinson is a plant! He started this site for the sole purpose of getting us all to vote for The Won by not voting for Mitt!
Oh, the humanity!
/s
I’m an evangelical, and I’d have no trouble voting for Newt. His flat tax plan is fiscally conservative. Santorum is socially conservative. Either of those are acceptable compromises in my view.
Romney strikes out on both counts.
And this was the democratic strategy all along.
Get Romney the nomination and then push for a third party conservative candidate. This is exactly how the, ‘Little blue dress guy’, got elected twice without ever winning 50% of the popular vote.
I figure the Democrats figured out that the alternative media was putting out truth that conficted with their propaganda. Their response was the same as it was in the 60s: Take over the media. If they can’t block it, they can perhaps corrupt it, drive out the good people, and fill its channels with noise or more of their propaganda.
Free Republic was targeted after the Dan Rather-Bush NG forgery was in part revealed on FR. The ‘bots’ always have lots of spam loaded up to cut and paste into every thread.
They got to Charles Johnson on Little Green Footballs too. He was given an offer he could not refuse, and started kicking known and reliable people off. What they can no coopt, they destroy.
I wish we had a secret handshake or something. I guess Romney will have to be our secret handshake until something else comes along.
Wrong on facts. The Whig party had self destructed earlier than 1860. The Speaker of the House was Republican in 1856.
It was the Democratic party that self destructed in 1860, running no less than 4 candidates, each convinced that he had ‘the answer’ to the looming crisis.
Good for you and I've got just the candidate for you dumbass....maybe it will work this time. NOT!
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.