Ensuring Romney's Defeat

Vanity | 11-14-11 | Antoninus

[Joann37]

I will support the Republican nominee, whomever it is.

[tiger-one]

YES

[rogue yam]

None of the above are able to function as CiC- none have military or foreign policy experience... To loft a candidate with no experience in this area is not just poor judgement, it is downright dangerous.

The problem with your analysis is that it is nonsense.

Nobody has actual foreign policy experience except for an incumbent President seeking re-election. Being a Senator provides experience largely in pretense (e.g. Obama, Biden, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Gore, etc.) Governors typically have little experience dealing with foreign affairs, and these days few people in politics were ever in the military.

You posit a must-have qualification that almost no one actually has.

[stephenjohnbanker]

BUMP

[Logic n' Reason]

I will support the Republican nominee, whomever it is.

I fully and completely support your views....I just state it a bit differently.

Next November, I will... proudly and with head held high, back straight, with forceful tread and determined purpose....willfully and with intent....cast my vote AGAINST the stain and his regime!

It's that simple.

[Joann37]

Yes, that’s a good way of putting it.

[Antoninus]

I will support the Republican nominee, whomever it is.

Me too. As long as it's not Mitt Romney. As has been explained numerous times on FR, a Republican liberal is actually worse for the country than a Democrat socialist.

[Antoninus]

if any activity is targeted at GOP voters in Florida ... it will be a big help. if you can do that on facebook, excellent! state specific activity is best.

You make a really, really good point. I'll have to have a look on Facebook to see if there are Florida Republican groups that attract a lot of interest (or Iowa, NH, or SC ones, for that matter). I follow NJ Conservatives on FB--there must be similar groups in other states.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread.

[Earthdweller]

Bookmark

[thesearethetimes...]

Sign me up......sighs.

But Lord, I do hate Facebook so, and the past 2 months have been absolute bliss since I closed it out....

Is there any other way I can help without opening up that account?

Dear Lord, give Mr. Cain the strength he surely will need.
Tatt

[Balata]

bttt

[WFTR]

3.) Post comments that say that you WILL NOT vote for Romney if he is the GOP nominee. This is very important because the Republican establishment is counting on the herd falling into line after they force Romney through the primaries. If many vocal conservatives say they will not vote for Liberal Mitt under any circumstances, the front-running sheeple will start to lose that sense that Romney can actually win. We know that he can't win, but THEY are still operating under the media-led belief that he can. That notion must be exploded.

I will never support this kind of short-sighted, immature approach to political discourse. Personally, I like Mitt Romney. The accusations that you and others have made are silly in most cases. In other cases, your alternative candidates have lost so much credibility that continued support for them shows that you aren't serious about winning next year. Even so, I will support the GOP nominee.

From my perspective, the unelectable, toxic candidate is Ron Paul. His stance on foreign policy is dangerous. His premises are simply wrong. On domestic policy, he has some good ideas, but the idea that the Fed is the root of our problems is also wrong. If the country were made of responsible citizens who worked for their own needs and raised their own children well, the Fed would be a small problem if at all. Eliminating the Fed will accomplish nothing if too many citizens continue to be irresponsible in their personal lives. Even so, if Ron Paul is the nominee, I will vote for him over Obama.

People who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney over Obama in the general election are not patriots. They are blowhards putting their own vanity over the good of the country. Their threatening to vote third party is putting childish ranting ahead of intelligent discourse.

Besides Ron Paul, there are other GOP candidates that I could never support actively in the general election. I will not make phone calls for them. I will not knock on doors for them. I will not give money to them. However, I will not threaten to vote against them in the general election. If one of them is nominated, I will focus my volunteer efforts on candidates for lower office.

Those of you who hate Mr. Romney so much that you can never support him need to show that you put your country ahead of your overinflated egos. Instead of ranting about how you'll never vote for Mr. Romney, simply say that you'll give him a vote but concentrate all of your activism on Republican candidates for other offices. Regardless of the nominee, we need strong campaigns for offices at every level. No conservative president can be truly effective in Congress is largely liberal or Democrat.

Of course, many of you who rant about how you'll never support Mr. Romney are people who have never done anything beyond sitting behind a keyboard and posturing. You've never done the hard work of knocking on doors to be opened by people who resent you disturbing them about our country's future. You've never made the phone calls. You've never served as poll watchers. Some of you have probably never given money. You can sit behind your keyboard and rant all day long, but you've never actually done a thing to get Republicans elected. Your real worth to any campaign is as trivial as your egos are gigantic.

[Antoninus]

Those of you who hate Mr. Romney so much that you can never support him need to show that you put your country ahead of your overinflated egos. Instead of ranting about how you'll never vote for Mr. Romney, simply say that you'll give him a vote but concentrate all of your activism on Republican candidates for other offices.

You'll probably want to keep that sort of rhetoric away from the guy running this site.

Of course, many of you who rant about how you'll never support Mr. Romney are people who have never done anything beyond sitting behind a keyboard and posturing. You've never done the hard work of knocking on doors to be opened by people who resent you disturbing them about our country's future. You've never made the phone calls. You've never served as poll watchers. Some of you have probably never given money. You can sit behind your keyboard and rant all day long, but you've never actually done a thing to get Republicans elected. Your real worth to any campaign is as trivial as your egos are gigantic.

That's the second time one of you guys has accused me of this. Yet, you have no idea who I am or what I've done.

I don't look down my nose at politically active conservatives, no matter how they deign to spend their valuable time. If you prefer to reach 100 people per day knocking on doors (which I have done), more power to you. If you prefer to send direct mail to 100,000 people which I have also done, again, good for you. If you prefer to use social media which has the potential to reach millions of people at once, which I am now working on, God bless you.

Not everyone who's a keyboard commando lives in their mother's basement, you know. And I maintain that social media activists CAN have a major impact on this race with the right strategy.

[Graewoulf]

Thank you for posting this thread.

I find it to be fascinating because it might be a microcosm of the 2012 WH Campaign.

If the winner of the White House is a true believer in expansion of the ENTITLEMENT PLANTATION, otherwise known as the US Federal Welfare System, then he will be blocked by riled-RINOs-in-the-House, and hopefully the Senate also.

In other words, the Obamanation Recession will continue for another 4 years.

You can vote for tweedle-dumb or tweedle-dumber, as it will make little difference.

In Romney’s defense, I think that he would make an excellent ATTNY. Gen. to Cain or Newt. Romney is squeaky-clean, religious, intelligent, and eager to do good in America.

There is no defense for Coward-in-Chief Obama, as EVERYTHING that he has touched bears the imprint of his Federal Fecal Finger.

It would be useful for the supporters of Romney to list things that Romney has conserved, accomplished or managed that has reduced the tax burden on the TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY taxpayers. If the list is long enough he might be good as the Secretary of Statements, you know, Hilly’s present job.

[Antoninus]

If the winner of the White House is a true believer in expansion of the ENTITLEMENT PLANTATION, otherwise known as the US Federal Welfare System, then he will be blocked by riled-RINOs-in-the-House, and hopefully the Senate also.

It's much worse than that. If you think Republican controlled Congress is going to block a newly elected Republican president, you're dreaming. They'll go merrily along passing bill after bill that expands the welfare state, though at a slightly slower rate than Romney did. That's what they did for G. W. Bush (Remember his education and drug benefit bills? Who blocked those?)

And Mitt Romney is 50x worse than G. W. Bush.

[Antoninus]

If the winner of the White House is a true believer in expansion of the ENTITLEMENT PLANTATION, otherwise known as the US Federal Welfare System, then he will be blocked by riled-RINOs-in-the-House, and hopefully the Senate also.

It's much worse than that. If you think Republican controlled Congress is going to block a newly elected Republican president, you're dreaming. They'll go merrily along passing bill after bill that expands the welfare state, though at a slightly slower rate than Obama and the Democrats did. That's what they did for G. W. Bush (Remember his education and drug benefit bills? Who blocked those?)

And Mitt Romney is 50x worse than G. W. Bush.

[David Isaac]

You may certainly sign me up, sir. Sorry I got to this so late.

[WFTR]

If Mr. Robinson chooses to ban me for my opinions, that's his choice. If I'm going to bother to come here, I'm going to express my opinions. I'll try to be as respectful as I can, but I'll also be honest. I can remember a time when the average Freeper relished the opportunity to engage in intelligent dialogue with those who disagreed. Now, every time I say something that doesn't match what even you admit is the echo chamber mentality of Free Republic, people rush to ping Mr. Robinson or a moderator. That kind of cowardice is sad to see in a once great website.

If someone truly cannot vote for Mr. Romney based on real convictions, I accept that choice. On the other hand, the comments that come from so many Romney haters make clear that they are not motivated by convictions but instead by vanity. Their egos will be hurt if the rest of the party doesn't go along with their hatred, and they would rather put their egos ahead of their country. If that shoe doesn't fit you, don't wear it. If that shoe fits you, you should wear it with shame.

Advocating the use of that kind of threat as a tactic is likewise childish and cowardly. No one is happy to see his nominee defeated, but the "I'll hold my breath, stomp my feet, take my ball, and go home if I don't get my way" argument only makes you look immature. The Founding Fathers created a government for mature, patriotic citizens. Without those kinds of citizens, this country doesn't work no matter who is elected. Your words suggest that you aren't up to the task of being that kind of citizen.

Many of Mr. Romney's supporters are as passionately dedicated to him as his haters are passionately dedicated against him. If you and those like you "on principle" sabotage his campaign to deny him the nomination, many of them may likewise sit out this election "on principle." For you, the "principle" is that Mr. Romney was once liberal on too many positions and you refuse to believe that he changed. You worry that his nomination and election would take the party in the wrong direction. For them, one "principle" will be that choosing any nominee just to spite another candidate causes as much long-term harm for the party and conservative movement as choosing someone who doesn't seem pure enough on conservative issues. The other "principle" will be that denying someone the nomination based on religious bigotry will also do more long-term harm to the party than allowing Obama to win a second term. You will insist that your interpretation of Mr. Romney is the only right one and that religious bigotry has nothing to do with the issue. They will point out different interpretations of Mr. Romney's record and cite the hundreds of anti-Mormon threads on Free Republic and other places over the past four years. Your use of this kind of "poison pill" politics may end up being just another way of ensuring that Obama gets four more years.

I agree that social media could have a powerful impact on an election. However, that impact depends on someone using that media to broadcast ideas that are different and intelligent. Your "if we don't get our way, we'll pitch a fit and stay home" message is neither new nor different nor intelligent. You can use social media within your own little echo chamber to think that this idea has merit, but outside your own little circle of keyboard warriors, this message just makes you one more keyboard warrior posturing within his echo chamber.

Only so many viable candidates can be groomed for any election cycle. Three candidates with a social conservative resume better than that of Mr. Romney looked good about eight years ago. Mark Sanford had the right experience in private enterprise and as a governor. If he hadn't thrown away his public image with an affair, he'd have been a perfect choice for the 2012 nomination. George Allen didn't have as good a resume outside of government, but he had a solid record as a governor and a senator. If he hadn't used an ethnic slur in the 2006 campaign and lost to Jim Webb, he'd have been a strong contender this year. (He likely would have won the nomination in 2008 except for that incident.) Tim Pawlenty had as good a pro-life record as governor as any politician in this country. He didn't have the style that many conservatives want, but he had the right record. Social conservatives rejected him over his style. Any of those candidates could have united the party and done well enough among independents to win. Two of them eliminated themselves with their own actions and one was eliminated by shallowness among the GOP primary voters. You need to stop blaming the rest of us because you don't have a legitimate candidate to win the nomination. The rest of the candidates being considered simply don't have the right stuff at this time. That's no excuse for playing "poison pill" politics.

I'm not here to advocate that you vote for Mr. Romney in the primary. I know that you will never support him. I suspect that only a few percent of active Freepers will vote for him in the primaries. If Free Republic and those with similar perspective can rally around another candidate and win the nomination through intelligent advocacy of some other candidate, I'm happy that the system is working properly. I'll be happy to vote for that candidate. If the candidate is any good, I may even give money or time to that candidate. Otherwise, I'll work for good candidates at other levels.

I will advocate that people put the country above their egos. As I said in my first post, I see Ron Paul as the toxic candidate because his views on national security are so bad. I'd still vote for him over Obama. I see Rick Perry as a clod. He's been dishonest about Gardasil and liberal about immigration. He'll be a disaster, but I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination. If we have to have a nominee who cheated on his wife, I'd rather go back and nominate Mark Sanford instead of Newt Gingrich. At least Mark Sanford has successful executive experience. Even so, I'd vote for Newt Gingrich. We all like Herman Cain, but he's not prepared to be president. I'll vote for him if he's nominated because I still like the guy. Michele Bachmann has no executive experience, is gaffe prone, and has high negatives outside the echo chamber. I'd still vote for her if she won the nomination. She just can't win the general election. Rick Santorum is a serious, knowledgeable statesman. He also comes across as a religious authoritarian, and Americans don't want a religious authoritarian in our highest office. He can't win, but I might as well vote for him if he's nominated. Many of us will vote for these candidates, but allowing people to sabotage a candidate like Mitt Romney by poison pill politics will harm the party and the country. I'm saddened to see Free Republic become a headquarters for that kind of thinking.

[Mr. K]

That was the STUPIDETS post I have seen in a long time

You advocate ALL the dumbest of the dumb ideas to vote FOR Romney that have come downthe pike.

Why? Who wants Romeny? over 70% WANT SOMEONE ELSE so why go to all this effort to promote someone tha MAJORITY are against.

SO we can have the same crapy candidate that we had in McLame? The next chance we get we want THE LOSER who lost the THE LOSER who lost to Obama?

FORGET IT

I WILL DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE “MITT” FOR BRAINS IS NOT OUR CANDIDATE

[goat granny]

I love the fact that since Cain got a good lawyer, the liars and lib lawyers have gone back under the rock they came from...If they don’t have solid proof, they will get a law suit that will leave their jaws dropping (I hope)