Romney Lacks "Skills To Be Able To Be Commander In Chief" (DWS)

"I think he's demonstrated pretty repeatedly since he's been out of the country that he lacks the experience, he lacks the preparation and the diplomatic skills to be able to be the commander in chief; to be able to be the president of the United States," DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on "Face the Nation" today.

I believe RW means this answer of mine to FormerRep

To: FormerRep

perhaps be best if you did stay away from the polls.
_____________________________________________

Good grief !!!

You RomneyBots are that afraid of us Conservatives ???

Your boy Wee Willie is that desparate and insecure that he wants to deny me my Constitutional right to vote ???

WOW

IF your boy Wee Willie Mitty ever got into the White House he would be a worse Communist dictator than Obama...

at least Obama has not stopped me from voting...

53 posted on Monday, July 30, 2012 10:24:41 AM by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2912320/posts?page=53#53

Courtesy PING to FormerRep

Please review Romney’s record and positions he’s advocated for during the majority of his life then tell me where he’s any different than the Democrats.

That's the crux of it, Jim and Former Rep. Romney's RECORD -- things he has DONE -- is the epitome of a liberal politician's, and it included tax-funded on-demand abortion and forcing adoption agencies to accommodate homosexual "parents." Former Rep, that is what/who you are on the verge of voting FOR. Do you have the guts, the courage, the integrity, to face that FACT?

People are so busy looking at what they're fleeing from -- Obama -- that they are totally blind to what they're running toward. Former Rep, Romney IS A LIBERAL registered in the Republican party. If you vote for Romney, you can tell yourself 'til you're blue in the face that you're voting "against" Obama, but that's just talk. What you will be DOING is voting FOR a liberal. Period. End of story.

I will be voting for a plurality. I will be voting to weaken the mandate of whichever statist wins, Obama or Romney. My third party vote will be neutral; it will favor neither Obama nor Romney, and that is a mathematical FACT, though many mathematically challenged here claim otherwise. My third party vote won't favor the incumbent (unless you want to argue with HW Bush on that) and it won't favor Romney. What it WILL do, as will every single third-party vote cast, is to reduce the popular mandate of whichever statist wins, and therefore strengthen conservatives' ability to oppose his policies.

The last time a president was elected on a plurality, he faced impeachment charges a few years later; the time before a president was elected on a plurality, he got his ass creamed by conservatives in the mid-terms with the Republican Revolution. If Obama got re-elected on a plurality, conservatives and Republicans in Congress could and would overcome him.

If, on the otherhand, Romney gets a landslide, conservatives in Congress will get steamrolled and marginalized and you can look forward to what you voted FOR, Former Rep, what you voted for -- global warming regulation, state-run health care with abortion-on-demand (though you may be gullible enough to believe Romney's conversion), the homosexual agenda, and activist judges, with conservatives in Congress completly neutered with regard to opposing it.

PUT YOUR FEAR ASIDE AND THINK IT THROUGH.

I've faced my fear of Obama, stared it down, and realized that the only way I can use my presidential vote to help conservatism is to vote for a plurality; you, Former Rep, have yet to deal with your fear of Obama. Fear has overpowered you; you are on the verge of letting pure fear manipulate you into voting against your own interests.

You’re right: You’re losing it all
____________________________________

Then I hope you wont mind if I lose it again and laugh at your odd statement all over again...

it was meant as comedy right ???

You had said “to say that he is not qualified for the position defies logic. Maybe that’s how you and DWS are “birds of a feather.”

To which I had to laugh...

The birds of a feather are Obama and your boy Willie...

and this time you as a RomneyBot suggested I might be losing my mind, my manners , my common sense...

Kid Im not the one obsessed with voting for your boy Willie

Im not the one calling a Conservative with principles names...

Im not the one telling a Conservative4 to SHUT UP (I’ll leave off the ill mannered bad words)

Im not the one who has a sucked out mind...my mind is clear...Im not voting for your immoral trashy abortionist Willard...

thats you and your RomnbeyBot friends...

Meanwhile I reread what I had written in #42

Thank you for suggesting I do ...

Excuse me while I laugh again

ROFLMBO

Why do they insist that Willard has it all wrapped up ???

We havent had the conventions yet...

Willard could still be Repealed and Replaced...

Obama could be well also Repealed and Replaced...

Its anyones guess what will happen in Aug...

Sarah will be just outside the gates...

a cue would be GREAT !!!

Change we can believe in at last...

It wouldnt matter who the DNC put in Obamas place...

Our base would be ON FIRE !!!

Finally pumped up without the need for threats and bullying...

We would lick em in Nov coattails and all...

Glad to hear. No one here should be attacked for honest debate.

Excuse me, but those of us who have figured out fatal flaws of fear/emotion-fueled ABO have seen and even been subject to incredibly dishonest debate, such as:

"A third party vote is the same as voting for Obama -- it favors the incumbent." Really? Tell that to HW Bush.

"Not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama." Wrong -- there's only one way to vote for Obama, and that's to mark his name on your ballot. It's math. Electoral college votes notwithstanding, popular mandates weaken or strengthen the winner's mojo accordingly. A third party vote cast by anyone for any reason, necessarily reduces the popular mandate of the winner, favoring neither major party candidate.

"I'm voting against Obama." 100 percent illusion. You cannot vote "against" anything or anyone, ever. You can only vote for something. Even when you're voting "against" a proposition, what you're doing MATHEMATICALLY is voting FOR nixing that proposition. Voting "against Obama" is like voting for pretty pink unicorns: totally imaginary. Whether you like it or not, you cannot vote "against," you can only vote FOR. Can you handle that truth?

"If you're not voting for Romney, you're an Obama supporter. Go post on DU!" Tell it to Jim Robinson, the guy whose forum has welcomed ABOers, many of whom engage in dishonest debate with examples such as those listed above.

Thanks for your assessment, Finny. But you don’t know a thing about me and what I may or may not fear. I’ve been in this game a long time and I can honestly say that it’s the small picture voters - as you profess to be - that ultimately water down the system. Not the other way around. I know exactly who and what Romney is. I also know that when a majority is gained by conservatives in the house and senate that an Obama presidency would not allow itself to be over ridden without spilling oceans of media driven conservative blood creating conditions for another full scale apathy turn over. Only with a big R (even in a wish wash and wear suit) president can we turn back the tide and survive from one administration cycle to the next.

Vote independent if you like. Your vote is valuable. Maybe you can get a true blue conservative revolution or third party started. But we’re talking about what’s real and what’s now. We have to deal with the national stage that’s been set. Maybe the convention will change things - who knows. But I will, as always, take the long view on what I must do.

I wish Republicans everywhere would really take a hard, cold look at Romney's record. Most of the non-FReeper Republicans/conservatives I talk to have very little idea of the reality of Romney's record.

They're flabergasted when they learn that Romney created law to force adoption agencies to cooperate with homosexual "parents" seeking to adopt, and that Catholic adoption charites rightly and morally closed their doors instead of subjecting the precious children in their charge to such depraved social engineering.

They are shocked when they hear how extensively Romney buys into the global warming scam and how much he is okay with international oversight and surrendering American sovereignty to "save the planet," i.e. "a global solution, not an American one," Romney's own words.

They're obstinately obtuse when it's pointed out that indeed, Romney was the the defacto father and inventor of ObamaCare.

They're disturbed when faced with the fact that Romney's judicial nominations were overwhelmingly activist liberal.

Way too many American conservatives and Republicans are willfully ignorant of Romney's record -- the fact that he's registered in the Republican party has them assuming a whole lotta facts not in evidence. In fact, it has them assuming a whole lotta facts totally contradicted by the evidence, Romney's record.

I have turned off so-called conservative media because they are much failures at their job as the MSM is at theirs, with regard to keeping Americans appraised of the truth. And the truth is plain and simple: Romney is a liberal Democrat who is registered as a Republican.

Republicans who vote for him will be voting for liberalism. Plain and simple. And so-called conservative media and pundits (are you reading, Rush and Mark?) have failed by not putting the fact that the Repubublican nominee is a stone-cold liberal, front and center.

Lamenting Obama is preaching to the choir and takes zero guts. It would take GUTS for Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh, my two heroes (still, though considerably diminished in my eyes) to identify that the Emporer (Romney) has no clothes.

They must be too afraid to speak out. Fear makes people do cowardly, stupid things. Like vote for making a stone-cold liberal the most powerful person in America, and pinning the "Republican" badge on his lapel. Stupid and cowardly, and if the guy gets a popular mandate, the consequences would be bleak and wicked.

It's rich that you refer to "small picture voters." The small picture is ABO -- not looking beyond, not looking at the price (not to mention the illusion) of voting "against" Obama.

FWIW, I've voted in every major and every mid term election since 1976, and I have voted exclusively Republican ticket. 2012 will be the first time in my life I will ever have declined the Republican on any ballot, let alone at the top of the ticket. This is a hard thing for me to do, and it will take considerably more courage than voting for Romney would take, as voting for Romney is the easy path of least resistance.

I know a lot of people who've "been in this game a long time," some are idiots and some are pretty smart. So your bona fides on that count are moot. I doubt you're an idiot; I'm certain you're afraid, otherwise you wouldn't be voting for Romney IF you "know exactly who and what Romney is."

WHY exactly are you voting for him, if you know who and what he is? What could make you vote for a politicain who has advanced state-run health care, tax-funded abortion, full embrace of the homosexual agenda, global warming, and activist judges? What could make you vote FOR that, other than fear? Because certainly you are intelligent enough to understand the fallacy of voting "against." There is no such thing.

You lecture about how we should be talking about "what's real." Here are some REAL things. The last time a president was elected on a plurality, he was impeached two years later. The time before a president was elected on a plurality, he was creamed with the Repubican Revolution. That is WHAT'S REAL.

Here's another thing that's real. Every third party vote will count toward weakening the mandate of the winner. Odds are extremely high that either Obama or Romney will be our next president. I have no illusions that whichever third party guy I vote for will win. I know for a fact that my vote WILL count toward weakening the popular mandate of whichever of the two liberals does win. That is what's REAL.

It's rich, also, that you mention talking about "what's real and what's now," right after you've talked about "small picture voters." Obama is "now." It's all about Obama, and the small picture is focused exclusively on him, or more accurately, an hysterical fear of him. But the "here and how" if liberal Romney gets a majority, Obama will be forgotten and it will be ALL ABOUT ROMNEY, and all about that same media-driven manipulation twisting what was a referendum on Obama into a popular mandate FOR liberal Romney's "progressive style of governing." You had better get real about THAT consequence, Former Rep.

I know that you are sadly deceived in thinking that Romney might "turn the tide" if he got a "big R" win. He is a liberal, he has always been a liberal, and he will behave accordingly. You are Charlie Brown playing football with Lucy.

The REAL thing is that the only hope conservatives have is for the next president to win on such a weak plurality that he is as politically vulnerable as Clinton ended up being. Clinton was a lot more popular than Obama, and Clinton had two terms; Obama re-elected on a plurality would be only four more years of a despised Democrat being beaten by an empowered conservative Republican faction in Congress. Obama is so loathed that there's very little chance he could get even 50% of the vote.

You want to talk about reality? Then start acknowledging it: Romney IS a liberal registered as a Republican. Republicans in Congress, conservatives in Congress, would have a much more difficult time opposing their own party's powerful liberal statist president/leader elected by a landslide, than they would a despised and weak Obama in the public and REAL context of most Americans having voted for someone else. Obama would be a mockery and he would be vulnerable. Grow a pair, please.

You are letting fear manipulate you into thinking short-term. That's what's real and now.

Yes, I know a lot about you and what you do and don't fear. I know because of what you have written here on FR, and likewise, you know a lot about me as well.

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.