Posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:43 PM PDT by MindBender26
In Case You Don't Like Romney...
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election …
“If Romney wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who may have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago and has had cancer twice.
Whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win ... just imagine this possibility:
'SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER'
Did that get your attention!
I'd like to bet that this will not be the last time that you castigate us for not voting for Romney, but I know that you Romney supporters like to bet in increments of $ 10,000 and I have reason to doubt that I would ever get paid after I win the bet. So, let's just say that I predict you will castigate us again and, when you do, we can then discuss why you sometimes have trouble keeping promises.
And, beyond that, let's just each vote for our favorite candidate and agree to reunite for the common good after the election in November.
“It’s totally weird. I’ve never said one non-conservative thing.”
Oh? Really?
Then by all means, please explain how support for a man with the record Romney has and advocating his election is conservative.
Don’t give me the same old worn out ABO garbage. A conservative stands for something. The very statement “Anybody But...” is an affirmation that no principle, logic or reason occurs in the decision.
The bottom line is this. The very same people who now advocate for ABO will, when Romney wins (and I believe now he will) be right back here and other sites after the election taking ‘principled’ stands on a variety of issues. They will continue proclaiming their conservatism to the skies and think nothing of it. The fact that they wholly abandoned the very foundations of conservative philosophy will never occur to them as it does not occur to them now. Actually they are doing that already.
Now can you explain how your willingness to display situational ethics is ‘conservative’? Please.
I have posed this question on numerous Romney lovefests and have yet to get a straight answer. Lets see if anyone here can do it. Yourself included. And please, spare me the Obama boogieman. How do you vote for a man who is by his own actions, the very opposite of what you CLAIM you believe in?
It’s not complicated. Your ethics come with a caveat. You are willing to set them aside if the price is right. In this case, that price is Obama. You want to vote for Romney? That’s 100% your right. But please do not insult the intelligence of anyone capable of forming a logical thought with the claim that a person doing so is ‘conservative. You nay share many conservative beliefs. But when the chips are down on such a clear cut and defining issue, you stand with a liberal. Period.
How is it “conservative” to willfully misrepresent people you disagree with?
You nailed it.
In 07-08, there were a lot of passionate Romney supporters on FR. And they all, to a tee, did exactly that.
Passionate supporters of Giuliani, Thompson, Hunter, McCain (actually I don't recall a single McCain supporter!) -- they called each other names, they told each other they were bloated idiots, it came to purple verbal fisticuffs ....
... but that willful misreprentation of the other's position was lacking, at least in comparison to Romney folks. They flat-out lied. I remember on Romney's campaign website, he had a graphic quoting his endorsement by Michael Reagan, an excerpt from one of Michael's columns.
I looked up the original column, and found that the sentence directly following was: "The same can be said of Rudy Giuliani." The column was an appraisal of the range of candidates, very far from an endorsement of Romney.
Even Giuliani folks wouldn't stoop tht low. Not even close! I mean ... come on, what kind of guy knowingly fakes an endorsement? That's creepy.
I swear, honestly, it's a Romney thing, that lack of conscience. His supporters are the only ones who exhibit it. It's amazing to say that Romney, to me, makes Giuliani look good. At least Giuliani didn't go around snatching at any positive comment as an endorsement, and willfully misrepresent it.
Wait a minute.
You mean to tell me that just because...
...dozens...
...and dozens...
...and dozens...
...and dozens...
...and dozens...
(etc)
...of FREEPERs were outspoken vs. Romney on this thread before I was able to come on board,
...I can't be #1 on your list?
(That's unfair)
So tell me:
What do I have to do to get bumped up to #1 on your list.
(OH. And btw. I'm not voting for Obama or Romney; I'll probably vote for Virgil Goode -- because this is a matter of Goode vs. evil)
Tom Hoefling is also a worthy choice for a vote.
And...for those who go "practical utilitarian political relativism" on me...be consistent...
If you claim that it's not practical or utilitarian enough to vote Third Party -- that they will lose, anyway -- well, so will Romney in liberal states. Romney's going to "lose, anyway" on the Left Coast (WA/OR/CA) + NY, NJ, MD, other states...
(Yet I haven't heard you or other FREEPERs tell those citizens in those states NOT to bother voting for Romney...why not?)
You see, we live within an electoral system where the popular vote -- and therefore your individual vote -- doesn't necessarily matter.
I say necessarily because I suppose if there were several hundred FREEPERs who voted for Bush in Florida when he ran vs. Gore -- but had in some way not managed to do that -- obviously that would have mattered more than we can imagine.
But other than that...no...
FREEPERs will not make ANY difference whatsoever in the POTUS race in...
...(a) liberal states where Obama will win, anyway...
...(b) nor for that matter even in conservatives states in the South and some Midwestern and Western states...where Romney will readily win even if you subtracted EVERY FREEPER vote in those states...
Oh, and btw: Romney nominated 75% of judges in MA who were non-Republicans...
...he has no track record of appointing conservative judges...
...and people who point to that as "some reason" for now voting for him are making this out from sheer phantasms floating in their cobweb brains in the dark of the night.
You think "vanquish" means "to kill"?
When in doubt, look it up.
Your post and your tagline are in direct contradiction to each other.
Amen Brother/Sister FReeper.
Why do you think I have the words, "When in doubt, look it up!" seared into my brain? {^)
I've got a better idea. YOU get your head out of the sand and stand face to face with Romney's record.
Totally understandable goof.
... but you also claim that your vote for Romney doesn't mean you support him.
Isn't there such a a devious consistency to it! I'd say it was pretty much that compound word you mentioned.
Have you ever watched or heard one of Romney's speeches? They're so deep in BS platitudes that you need waders just to listen.
Voting for Romney is as nuts as voting for Obama.
“”... but you also claim that your vote for Romney doesn’t mean you support him.””
“Isn’t there such a a devious consistency to it! I’d say it was pretty much that compound word you mentioned.”
Does no one see the absolute absurdity of that claim before they make it? Lets compare and see how it stands up.
Which of the following, that uses the EXACT same logic as the “I don’t support Romney/his record but I’ll vote for him” statement:
“I don’t support abortion but I will stand behind Planned Parenthood”
“I don’t support special rights for homosexuals but I think they should be able to get married.”
“I don’t support Sharia Law but Muslims should be free to practice their religion.”
The very idea that one can vote for a person and not be providing support for the causes he backs and the beliefs he holds is the height of magical (liberal) thinking.
If you empower a person by placing him in an elected office, and thus giving him the power to act with legal weight on his beliefs/issues, how in Sam Hell is that NOT providing support? There are only three possibilities. 1; People have not clearly and logically thought this through/are acting with fear. 2: People are lying to themselves and others. 3: People are that stupid.
There is no other explanation possible. It’s no different than saying ‘water is dry’ or ‘fire is cold’.
So far.
Who knows how many names it will have by August.
NOTE that my list, now at 101 (a lot more than I expected) was began a few days ago, and will continue. Not just this thread, but many threads over many days.
EDIT
“Which of the following, that uses the EXACT same logic as the “I don’t support Romney/his record but I’ll vote for him” statement...would these people also agree with?”
Their ‘logic’ has me so blown away that I have a hard time trying to even forming a complete thought to counter something so asinine.
Thank you for your comments though I do think them a bit out of context. But perhaps I should have been clearer.
For the past 2 years, I argued tooth and nail with the ABOs. I didn’t want Romney to be the nominee. I supported the most conservative but now we are fresh out of them and (in all likelihood) are stuck with him. So, as a practical, but thoroughly distasteful, matter, my position is to vote for him to oust Obama. You probably agree that that is a desirable goal, right?
As for those choosing to go third party, I almost did in 2008. I strongly considered this year but decided (for now) that any vote not cast for Romney makes it mathematically easier for Obama to remain in office. I haven’t said that those who choose that route are wrong. I just disagree that their path is the best one (again, for now). That could change.)
I try to make my case without getting rude because, Lord knows, we are not faced with an easy decision. Many people won’t make their final decision until they walk into the voting booth. I hope that makes my position clearer.
Next thing ya know; you'll be associatin' with winebibbers and TAX collectors!
Boy; ah say BOY! - your reputation is sinking: FAST!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thh3zzmMsiw
Don't know; but claiming NOT to vote for Romney is the SAME as voting for Obama seems to be a habit.
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.