Posted on 12/26/2007 12:14:06 PM PST by lady lawyer
I donate regularly to Duncan Hunter, and also to Fred Thompson twice.
But I openly support Mitt Romney, who by all means is a decent, wholesome patriotic American who deserves some respect.
I identify more with Hunter's rock-ribbed take-no-prisoners attitude, and Thompson's folksiness, but see them both as not having the personality needed to become POTUS. (sorry Duncan. sorry Fred. just facing reality)
Also, I would never want to see Duncan be in debt for doing something as gallant and noble as running for Prez.
Romney is well funded, telegenic, smart as a whip, and well on his way toward the upper tier (and thus doesn't need $ as badly).
Mitt Romney would be a much better representative of ALL the GOP than the other two, I believe.
The article curiously failed to mention that Rubens is in the tank for that notoriously socially conservative, true-conservative Rudy Julieannie. Too bad you didn’t think to mention it. Nice try, Master Spinner.
I did not write it.
Exactly. A Julieannie supporter wrote it and you posted it without mentioning that tidbit about the author. That’s called spinning because you failed to identify the spin put on the ball by the author so that the readers of what you post would know how to assess it’s trustworthiness, its degree of spin. So you spun the article as if it were a true, trustworthy assessment of Romney.
WHEN IN FACT ITS A HIT PIECE BY ONE OF HIS OPPONENTS, a backer of someone who is against everything the anti-Mitt “true conservatives” supposedly stand for.
Now let’s see if I understand this: Mitt Romney is EEEEEEEVVVVVILLLLLLLL because he’s not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE.
A supporter of rabidly pro-abortion Julie the Cross Dresser supporter writes a crocodile-tears piece about Romney, saying that Romney’s not a true conservative on, say, abortion or on the rest of the litany of “true conservative” issues..
But you just incuriously fail to mention that the author supports the most un-conservative candidate in the entire Republican field.
For you, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Which means that you are just plain unprincipled—you’d take help from the Father of Lies himself if you thought it would help.
You’re not much of a principled conservative, now, are you?
Before June, Mitt will be an “also ran” then you can go back supporting Clinton
“Before June, Mitt will be an “also ran” then you can go back supporting Clinton.”
By June I’ll be supporting the Republican nomination-in-formation, even if it’s Fred or Huck.
And in June you’ll go back to attacking whom? You’ll have no one to support because you’ve eaten all your own, in the name of “true conservatism.”
And after November you’ll be whining about President Obama for the next eight years. And blaming it on everyone but yourself.
In today's nut job society the price of self regulation would be steep. The number of citizens who would step up to some out of control person and die for that action would be substantial. But after a time society would become like the old West, relatively calm and well behaved. It has been proven over and over again that areas with concealed carry laws are safer than "gun free zones".
People need to understand that cops are not there to protect you - as ruled by many courts - cops are there to clean up the mess. The coming unrest that will grip the world and this country will not be pretty. I want the best weapons I can get. If I have rock I can get a gun, if I have a gun I can get an AT-4, if I have an AT-4 I can get a tank and so on. I would like to start as far up the weapons chain as I can and prevent the possibility of losing at an early step in the process. I know I did not answer your question directly but the issue may not have an easy answer - some things do not. Maybe one answer is private Militias but the possibility of winding up like Mad Max is a concern there.
The other thing that people need to realize is that Government is not your friend.
ONLY if he's going to listen to the base and tell the RINOs to shut up or pack up.
Because of his record in Massachusetts, a lot of people aren't convinced he will do that.
And plenty of people have already said they refuse to vote for him in the general; in that respect, he is our Hillary.
Many Repubs said the same thing about Guiliani and McCain.
In fact, I've never realized there were so many strident, dogmatic Republicans who would ... as the saying goes, cut of their nose to spite their face.
Or perhaps it is just that small segment which is making noise, because after all, Romney has done fairly well in the polls over the past few months.
The way I see it, Romney HAS made some stupid pandering comments regarding abortion and homo marriage over the years (mostly pre-1994 actually).
But the record shows he has governed from a fairly conservative stand -- especially when you consider it was Massechusetts where he had to win.
The bottom line is that I believe wholeheartedly that Romney as Prez would govern from and get his power from the conservative base ---- because the left Democratic media wackadoodles in America would NEVER help him have a successful Administration --- and he knows it.
Don’t die wondering
says I.
But I'm talking about the general, not the primary. Rasmussen is reporting that for Romney, that number that will not vote for him under any circumstance is 47%.
The bottom line is that I believe wholeheartedly that Romney as Prez would govern from and get his power from the conservative base
Now he needs to prove that.
If he's on the ballot in the general, he'll get my vote.
Amen
Mittens is doing more damage to the LDS faith than Mark Hofman, Fawn Brodie and polygamy combined!
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.