Posted on 04/03/2012 4:20:42 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Before I get to the thread title material, let me say that Bush is not going away anytime soon. Obama brought him up today with Medicare Part D and will continue to bring him up again & again.
If Romney praises Med. part D, Obama can say "See, Romney agrees with me that the first Republican president was right about the federal gov't..." as he said today. If Romney attacks Med. Part D as being big gov't, Obama can retort "Why is Romney attacking me for attacking Bush? Romney has also attacked Bush."
And the issue of whether or not Bush's policies wrecked the economy will not go away either. Obama will hammer away that Bush's policies wrecked the economy and that he is slowly fixing the economy. Romney will retort that Obama wrecked the economy and/or made things worse -- and round and round it goes.
The GOP will have to have it out once and for all on this in 2012. They will have to defend Bush's policies as Obama tries to tie Bush around Santorum or Romney. The GOP will have to convince voters that Bush's policies did not wreck the economy and Obama will have to prove that Bush's policies did. Romney (if he is the nominee) will then either have to embrace Bush's 2000-2008 policies or toss them under the bus.
Now to the following (and thread title material):
Does it seems that even before Romney passed the 200-300 delegate threshold, it was Romney on this segment at Fox, then another? Romney, Romney, Romney, Romney. Then Santorum on a show be it morn or night. Then Gingrich. Then Romney, Romney, Romney, Romney, Romney. Then Santorum. Then Romney again...???
Does Romney have his own room at Fox News? /s.
Before the 200-300 delegate threshold, it seemed to be "Romney is the most electable....Romney is inevitable."
Most electable, inevitable, most electable, inevitable, and all with a somewhat glassy-eyed look from hosts?
Romney won Illinois! Obama will win that state. Deep blue state.
Romney wins Maryland tonight! So what. Not a chance of taking it from the Obama column in the general election. Another deep blue state.
Romney wins D.C. Big Deal. In the tank for Obama.
Three weeks from now the headlines will say that Romney wins New York, CT and Rhode Island! Again, big deal - Romney will not take them from Obama in the general election. Just too blue. Not even close to being purple.
“don’t have to vote for Willard and do get a chance to wreak future havoc among the liberals.”
OMG, people! Don’t you get it that if we help Hussein grab a second (much more horrific) term, it’ll be the death of our republic and we won’t HAVE a future???
“Obama is very beatable this year. Even with a lousy opponent”
Really? You don’t think he’ll get the votes of those millions of blacks and hispanics (legal AND illegal)???
And how much massive voter fraud do you think we need to factor in this time?
OMG! In what alternate universe do you live where California goes Romney?
No one on this board is going to tell me to vote for Romney because he's great and ought to be president.
The only arguments in favor of voting for Romney are going to be purely utilitarian, i.e. vote Romney because he is at least slightly less pathetic than Obama.
Well, it turns out I have an even better utilitarian idea that you! I know for a fact that Obama already has California in the bag. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or delusional.
Because of that I am going to put my vote to the best possible use, i.e. helping the Green Party get 5% of the popular vote so that they can siphon some of the ultra-liberals away from the Democrats in order for the Republicans to squeak through for future victories.
If you have a principled reason for voting for Romney, then great. But if your only argument is pragmatic, and if you live in a solidly blue state, then you should do the even more pragmatic thing of voting for the Green Party.
I have been trying to scream this from the rooftops for years: CLOSE THE PRIMARIES!!!
This is the argument that was made against Obama in 2008 - he racked up delegates in Southern states (with huge black populations) that the Democrats had no chance of winning.
“OMG! In what alternate universe do you live where California goes Romney?”
Sorry - I wasn’t even referring to the CA issue. I get your point on voting Green there, but still - a vote against BHO’s rival is a vote for BHO. And it may very well be a closer race than people think.
“No one on this board is going to tell me to vote for Romney because he’s great and ought to be president.”
NO one’s saying Romney’s great (or even close). However, he (or ANY of the candidates we have) is a better choice for POTUS than America-hating, Muslim, treasonous BHO who is deliberately, rapidly taking our country and us down.
“The only arguments in favor of voting for Romney are going to be purely utilitarian, i.e. vote Romney because he is at least slightly less pathetic than Obama.”
Okay. And if he ends up being the nominee (I’m personally hoping for an open convention), ALL our votes will be needed to rid our republic of the evil threat currently occupying the WH.
We still have an electoral system.
So, no, all our votes won't be needed.
If we're going to vote pragmatically anyway, then why not try and kill two birds with one vote? Everyone in Red or "Purple" states holds their noses and votes Romney to keep Obama from getting another term. Everyone in Blue states votes Green Party to split the liberal vote.
Win, win.
If you truly believe that another four years of Obama will send this country into a communist/socialist tailspin then you might want to identify a battleground state that you and 10,000 of your closest friends can move to in time to vote there legally.
Republican Candidates could improve their Primary vote count by campaigning with the following idea:
Due to the FHA, Fannie and Freddie Bankruptcies of September, 2008, American home owners lost 30 % of the value of their homes. That is a 30 % cut in just one month. Home values are still down 30 %.
Thus, let us cut the total compensation to all elected Federal politicians, and their staffs by 30 %, and an additional 10 % cut to elected Federal politicians each year until Federal Spending is LESS THAN the average of the previous 2 years of Federal income.
BTW, since slightly less than half of the US House, and 2/3 of the US Senate are Millionaires, it will be a great opportunity for Congress to lead by example that EVERYONE should give up their “fair” share of the American Dream.
What better way can there be to demonstrate that Federal politicians are on the same page as the voters?
Totally agree with your statement. All Republicans and disenchanted Obama voters have to coalesce behind the nominee which appears to be Romney. We have to start focusing on what our objectives in the November election – save this country and make Obama a one-termer!!”
Yes, I LIKE your strategy!
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.