Posted on 04/16/2012 10:47:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Here are their positions on some major issues important to conservatives based on their actual records in government or past boasts.
| Issue | Obama | Romney | Newt |
| Advocated that abortion s/b safe & legal in America | y | y | n |
| Defended Roe v Wade as settled law | y | y | n |
| Advocated for abortion for underage girls without parental approval with judge's ok | y | y | n |
| Supported planned parenthood | y | y | n |
| Introduced $50 taxpayer funded abortion | y | y | n |
| Supports homosexual agenda | y | y | n |
| Better for homosexuals than Ted Kennedy | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in Scouts | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in military | y | y | n |
| Supported and still supports global warming hoax | y | y | n |
| Supports gun control (so-called "assault weapons" ban) | y | y | n |
| Supports amnesty for illegal aliens (by any other name it's still amnesty) | y | y | n |
| Is undeniable father of RomneyCare | n | y | n |
| Is undeniable grandfather of ObamaCare | n | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is great! | y | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is a "conservative solution" | n | y | n |
| Still believes RomneyCare is constitutional | y | y | n |
| Still believes individual mandate ok at state level | y | y | n |
| Believes state forcing individuals to buy health insurance is a conservative idea | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance with mandates and penalties s/b imposed on all states at state level | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance at state level is constitutional (states rights) | ? | y | n |
| Believes the state has constitutional power to force you into a private contract against your will for no other reason than you live there | y | y | n |
| Supports government "stimulus" spending claims more is necessary | y | y | n |
| Believes personal income tax should be cut drastically (15% flat tax) | n | n | y |
| Believes corp income tax should be cut drastically (12.5% corp rate) | n | n | y |
| Believes capital expenditures should be 100% expensed in first year | n | n | y |
| Believes capital gains tax should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes estate tax (death tax) should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes federal government must be drastically cut per constitutional limits | n | n | y |
| Believes unconstitutional federal functions like education should be returned to the states and people per tenth amendment | n | n | y |
| Believes social security/medicare s/b phased out/privatized/returned to states and people | n | n | y |
| Believes everyone at EPA should be fired and start over as an agency to look for solutions/not hinder industry | n | n | y |
| Believes the constitution restricts the government from infringing on inalienable rights | n | n | y |
| Appoints/supports/cowers to liberal activist judges | y | y | n |
| Will challenge activist judiciary | n | n | y |
| Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up | n | n | y |
Ok.
But I don’t need to know anything about Mormonism to be a Christian (even though I’ve now been told on this thread that I’m not a “serious Christian”,) and yet I also didn’t know anything about “Branch Davidians” either.
Still I’d vote for David Koresh for President before I’d vote for Obama. Because with a 2nd term of Obama, there’s going to be a lot more “stockpilers” set on fire I suspect.
There’s nothing wrong with voting against someone for having the “wrong” faith I guess if that’s the root problem. Just seems like there’s a lot of other reasons to worry about first so that you don’t have to go there.
Obama’s muslim-childhood and anti-American Christian preachers and atheist-mentors give me pause, but there’s thousands of problems with the guy to disqualify him my vote before I have to get to that.
Romney is NOT the nominee. He does NOT have 1144.
I agree. Mitt is probably worse than McCain was.
Obamney is NOT the nominee. He does NOT have 1144. The primaries are not over and Gingrich can still stop Obamney from getting 1144.
I’m hoping and praying that Newt can pull off some type of miracle, but if Romney is the nominee, I WILL vote for him.
“Sitting out is the worst option.”
________________________________________________
Exactly!
I'm taking the advice of Sarah Palin: “ABO!”
That being said, I'm a huge Newt supporter and hope he can energize some of the Santorum supporters to get on board with him. Newt will slaughter the Jug-Eared Marxist in a debate!
Why isn’t there any conservative representation in Washington? :(:(:(:(:(
Axlegrease has to be sitting in his new $1.7 million house on Michigan Ave. thinking “I’m the luckiest sumb!tch in history”
I’m gonna get credit for re-electing a guy with $4 gas, 16% real unemployment, recurring $1.5 trillion deficits, massive real-world inflation, and the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter.
Sounds like the Lancaster deal is $150 a plate and you can still call 717-392-4165 to get your ticket. Mitt, Rick and Newt will all speak.
Order of Speakers — Though the program order is scheduled to change, at the moment, Gov. Romney is scheduled to speak first. His remarks are scheduled to begin between 7 and 7:15 p.m., with dinner to follow. Sen. Rick Santorum is scheduled to speak following dinner and Speaker Gingrich will close the evening and make himself available in the VIP reception following the event.
http://www.lancasterrepublicans.com/2012/04/spring-event-updates/
GREAT post...bookmarking for future reference! :)
Oh good Lord, not this bovine excrement again...
Hey, Dad! Click on some links and educate yourself. Get out of the RomneyBot echo chamber. You're embarrassing yourself.
Party elites and the MSM are using fear. And it’s working. I’m appalled at the defeatism. It’s like we never won the Revolution against great odds. And you can’t win if you don’t fight.
That's flat out not true. The party is the one that went all in for Myth from the get go, with money, their hack consultants and ad men, with media coverage and the punditocracy. Money has been central to Mitt's success, he used the money from the GOPe to outspend Newt and destroy anyone that stood in his way. He will never do to Obama what he did to Newt, Santorum, Perry and Bachmann.
Even more significantly than his money, though was the GOPe's control over the process. Ever since Reagan stole the RNC from the Bush family, the Republican elites have worked desperately to ensure that no conservative could ever possibly wrest the nomination from the elites again. How do they do that? Easy, look at the timing of primaries and the rules for securing delegates. Conservatives, and the GOP in general, are located in the southeast and states like Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho. There are purple states like Iowa and Ohio. And then there are solidly blue states, like in New England, Minnesota, California, the Pacific Northwest.
What would a party that wanted to field a candidate representative of its values do? Well, it would hold a primary process in which the core of its base was most prominent in choosing the candidate. States like Texas and Alabama would lead the way, both in temporal terms and in terms of the number of delegates awarded. A state like California, that has ZERO chance of voting for the Republican candidate, should not have much say in who the Republican candidate is. A state like Texas, that is GUARANTEED to vote for the Republican, should have an outsized say in who that will be.
But, ever since GHW Bush's loyal service to the Gipper earned him the nomination, and thus control of the RNC, the RNC has diligently worked to ensure that the process is front-loaded with liberal states and with states from the Northeast, where the GOPe has its base. The RNC ensures that delegates from liberal states get the same value as those from conservative states.
This was the case to some extent before Reagan, but not so pronounced, which is why he was able to get through the early primaries and secure the nomination down the road against an RNC that was decidedly against him. He also had some advantages that are not available to candidates today, due to financing laws. He had an independent source of funds and was able to use alternative ways to get his message out, due to his ability to communicate. It would be very difficult to get any conservative nominated today.
Thus, the GOPe has a lock on the nomination. That gave us Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain and now, probably, Romney. I said last time that McCain was my last RNC hold my nose vote, and that was only because of Palin. That if the party could not be reformed in a way that allowed a conservative to get the nomination, then the party had to be abandoned by conservatives.
Well, the party has proven that it is not about to allow a conservative to get the nomination. Whatever it takes, the RNC will do it to ensure that the progressive wing of the party gets the nomination. For conservatives, that means that there is no future in the Republican party, at least at the Presidential level, and with Boehner and McConnell running things, at the Congressional level, too. The question is at what point do we dump the RNC. Now, or next time. Or the time after that? Or maybe in 2024?
I decided in 2008 that 2008 was my last vote for a Progressive. I am sticking with that at the Presidential level, and voting solidly Republican down the line. For this election, I am hoping for a third party to rise up. This thread has certainly exposed the reasons why it is needed, and why it has a chance to supplant the GOPe.
Again:
The party didn’t make the field weak and didn’t make voters split the notRomney vote. The party didn’t pull the voting levers. The weak field and lack of unity in opposition got us here.
We need to recruit and develop strong candidates, support them - they need to actually run for office. And we need to unite behind them, get their message out, communicate, educate and convince voters to join, contribute and vote for them. Effective political action.
The party is an apparatus that can be used by whomever organizes and executes most effectively. The party wasn’t a problem under Reagan because Reagan forces took control of the party, bottom up. I watched it happen.
And it happened against strong opposition, entrenched, that had to be pushed aside. Do you think you get to take over without opposition? Is it supposed to be that easy? No, never is when a lot of power is involved.
A weak field, constant infighting, complete lack of any kind of unity...
This won’t work in any party. Won’t work tomorrow if you pick another party or start your own.
The party ain’t the problem. If we owned the party all along this primary, we’d still be where we are now.
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.