Swinging to Romney

The Wall Street Journal ("Lie back and think of England") ^ | NOVEMBER 21, 2011 | ALLYSIA FINLEY

[Darren McCarty]

There won't be a successful third party. There's talk of it every election. The 3rd party always gets under 5% unless his name is Perot. The 3rd party always loses, just as he always has under the current 2 party system that started in 1856.

Even ex-presidents lose as 3rd party candidates. Teddy Roosevelt and Millard Fillmore were losers. So was established elected officials such as George Wallace, John Anderson, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, and Bob Barr.

If Romney is the nominee, the winner will be either Romney or Obama, and most people will vote for one or the other or stay home.

[GlockThe Vote]

I a, voting for Ron Paul in the primary and ABO in the general.

[sport]

That is the way I read it. Consider me one of the idiots.

[Nik Naym]

“I’m saying I will vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. Is that clear enough for you?”

Sure is.

You have made it clear that you are a Republican, not a Conservative.

[Darren McCarty]

If Romney gets the nomination, I'll be working to help re-elect Tim Walberg and to elect Debbie Stabenow's opponent. I'll probably skip the presidential race.

In the meantime, I'll be voting for someone besides Romney in the primary. Whether it be Cain or Newt or someone else, I haven't decided. I'll decide on election day and it will be whoever has the best chance to stop Mitt.

[af_vet_rr]

How would it be if we used that fear to get behind a candidate who is not Romney? Right now, the Perry supporters are attacking Cain, the Bachmann supporters are attacking Perry, and everyone who isn't for Gingrich is loaded for bear. Perhaps if we refused to accept the inevitability of Romney, we could come to terms with a candidate who maybe wasn't our first choice, but had the fact that he was definitely not Romney going for him/her. In my primary, I'm voting for the frontrunner to upset Romney. I prefer any of them to Mitt.

I think it's too early to be trying to unify between just one candidate - that's why it was ridiculous for the Perry supporters to push the idea that supporting anybody but Perry was supporting Romney - no Perry supporter could have predicted how far Perry would fall and how long he would remain there, and it's why it's ridiculous for some to push the idea that Newt will be the chosen candidate. I think it's way too early anybody to drop out, although more and more Bachmann's behavior is leaving me wondering why she doesn't get asked to leave.

Of course, I hate the way the early primaries are geared, because it's ridiculous the means the candidates have to go through to be involved, but that's another story.

To be honest, I'm not really worried about Romney. The people who would support him are already supporting him, and that's all that's ever going to support him. All it's going to take is just a few candidates to drop out and you'll see a candidate consistently pass up Romney.

[af_vet_rr]

I'd add that you bring up the problem of the two-party system. The two parties are interested in perpetuating their hold on our government. If we continue with the idea that we have to support somebody because of the letter next to their name regardless of how opposed we are to them, we are going to perpetuate the problems that both parties are creating. All we are doing at that point is passing the problems off to our grandchildren, and making things worse.

Every now and then we need to shake up our political system. We need to let them know that they will not automatically get our vote.

[dfwgator]

After McLame, I vowed, “Never Again!”

[Darren McCarty]

If Romney becomes the nominee of the Repub party, he might well be the “Winfield Scott” of the Repub party (e.g. the last repub presidential nominee).

More likely the Dick Nixon.

The whigs split over slavery. The only issue in our time on that level is abortion. The problem with the parties today isn't over the abortion issue, but one rich jagoff who wants to be president.

The GOP and Democrats will survive just as it has since 1856. It's our job to get off our butts and do more than complain on a message board until it's election year, and make sure we have good people and good organizations in the GOP. It's our only chance. We all need to run for precinct delegate/captain in your area and get involved. We all need to join our local tea parties.

The problem is that most people have no patience for long term fights, little knowledge of party apparatus and logistics, and little activity at the local level. I'm not necessarily pointing the finger at you. I said "we", not you.

On the same note, there's more elections than just president as well. Tim Walberg is a good guy. He's my congressman. Just because Romney sucks doesn't mean I should leave Walberg out to dry. That's what happened with McCain, and I got one term of Marky Mark Schauer. Schauer voted for Cap and Trade and Obamacare. Tim's back thanks to 2010 and will need my help again.

[LibLieSlayer]

I see that you are a party man... “win at all costs” kind of republican. You have that right... but it is you that are blind and an idiot. Read Reagan's words and learn the truth. When the lines blur and one can no longer discern the difference between the republican party and the dim party... Conservatives do not vote. Reagan explained that in his 1975 CPAC speech and warned people like you as to why the republican party lost so badly the year before.

I owe NO allegiance to the party... I am still a free American and if you republicans nominate romney, then you will have nominated a white version of obama... and there will be NO difference in the outcome for America.

I could hold my nose and vote for perry or newt or cain... but it would strictly be a vote against obama... ALL of these candidates are awful... but I will never vote for romney and that is the bottom line. There are enough of us that your party cannot win an election without us... and we have warned steadily since 2008. All of the venom in the world will not change that fact.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

Exactly.

LLS

[presidio9]

Look, I’m not advocating for Romney, but postulating, for the moment that we are stuck with the two party system, I will submit one possible benefit we may or may not gain from him. It is a common misconception on this website that we needed Carter to get Reagan. I submit that we also needed a wishy-washy moderate Republican in the White House like Ford to get the base fired up enough to nominate him. Remember, Reagan ran first against Ford and lost.

[RIghtwardHo]

AMEN!

[LibLieSlayer]

I appreciate your vote to ban the mitt!

LLS

[meatloaf]

I don’t think the power brokers understand the Tea Party or the vast numbers of Americans that are fed up with the direction of the country. Rather than vote for Romney, I’d rather see Obama get a second term and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is utterly useless.

As long as Democrats don’t control the house, Obama is still neutered. My only concern is if one of the somewhat conservative Supreme Court justices bail in the four years after 2012.

[ExpatCanuck]

I don’t like Romney. But I dislike 4-8 years of Romney (or any other Republican for that matter) much less than I dislike 4 more years of Obama.

Simple as that. You can be a purist, stand on principle and wait for the perfect candidate that reflects your views 100% (and you’ll be waiting for your the rest of your natural life), or you can put the country first, and do whatever is necessary to get rid of the Obama regime.

[Darren McCarty]

The big shakeups will begin in Iowa. Anything until then is conjecture or polls.

January 3 - Iowa
January 10 - New Hampshire
January 21 - South Carolina
January 31 - Florida
February 4-11 - Maine
Feb 7 - Colorado and Minnesota
Feb 28 - Arizona and Michigan
March 3 - Washington State
March 6 - Super Tuesday

[Darren McCarty]

“I can’t get behind GOP candidate X. because... That’s why I’m going with candidate Y.”

I can't vote for Romney because of Romneycare, abortion, gun grabs, tax increases, and most of all his pandering and unseaworthiness.

I'll vote for whoever is closest in the polls to Mitt. Cain or Newt most likely.

[presidio9]

I concur.

[Darren McCarty]

Right now, the Perry supporters are attacking Cain, the Bachmann supporters are attacking Perry, and everyone who isn't for Gingrich is loaded for bear. Perhaps if we refused to accept the inevitability of Romney, we could come to terms with a candidate who maybe wasn't our first choice, but had the fact that he was definitely not Romney going for him/her.

It started with the cult of Palin. I'm not referring to Palin herself, but her most rabid supporters who were tearing everybody down assuming that she was going to run. Pawlenty couldn't catch on. Bachmann won the straw poll, but was taking from Palin's base. Bam. Palin didn't run. Perry jumped in. Immigration killed him, along with gaffes. Now it's Cain or Newt.