Skip to comments.Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney
Posted on 01/01/2012 10:59:11 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Dear Iowa Caucus participants,
You have been told for the better part of year now who it is that you must choose. Beltway insiders have insisted upon thrusting establishment candidates upon you. Libertarian anarchists have swopped into your state shouting that you must support Ron Paul, while toking on the marijuana they soon believe President Paul will make legal.
You've been openly mocked by Governor John Huntsman from Utah--who ironically seeks your support.
Ann Coulter has defied every conservative principal she's ever espoused by trying to brainwash you into thinking that Mitt Romney is the best that you have to choose from.
You've endured what seems like 7,162 debates. Which have yielded roughly thirty seconds of actual substance to judge the candidates on.
Yet after all of it, nearly 80% of you do not care for the front runner who was the third place finisher in 2008. And even less of you seem enamored with the rebellion inciting candidacy of a country doctor--who clearly understands our monetary crisis, but would leave America vulnerable to horrors beyond that of 9.11--should he become the decision maker.
So what is about the 80% of GOP Caucus goers that has you siding with the other candidates?
Could it be that they clearly articulate, understand, and have demonstrated a track record on the really simple things like protecting innocent life?
This would be understandable given that Governor Romney insisted upon $50 abortions being made available through tax-payer dollars in his desire to force private citizens in Massachusetts into mandated universal health care.
Could it be that they clearly believe that this is a dangerous world and the issues of national security are not for the silly-minded?
This would also make sense given the fact that Congressman Paul chose to excoriate his opponents, accusing them of harboring desires of genocide against 1.4 billion Muslims, instead of answer the question put before him as to how his presidency would handle the growing Iranian instability. Specifically he avoided answering what he would choose to do in the event that Iran attempts to hi-jack international waterways. One of those other candidates is easily America's greatest authority on the Iranian matter, another one has seen the confidential national security documents that none of the others have, and another one has been busy catching terror suspects on his state's southern border.
Could it be that the other candidates have argued and demonstrated consistently that raising taxes and attaching fees to the basics in American life is burdensome to the economic health of the nation?
This would again be completely understandable given that Governor Romney raised taxes on education in state universities, for purchasing a home, to receive a certificate of blindness, on corporations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, gun licenses, and even gasoline?
Could it be that the candidates drawing 80% of the GOP Caucus goers support in the polls don't believe legalizing heroin and marijuana are good ideas?
No one can argue with the logic that seems to elude Dr. Ron Paul on the simple concept of dangerous narcotics and making access easier for them.
Could it be that you don't know if you could trust Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul to protect the sacred institution of marriage?
Neither man has given you any reason to believe that they would seek to keep radical courts from imposing a government defined view of marriage upon voters in every state. Yet Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich helped you overturn activist judges in your own state, and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have been long supportive of your state's rights to decide for itself what the definition of marriage should be. And when you consider the particularly heinous manipulation that Governor Romney has applied to the issue -- pretending to support marriage, while overseeing, participating in, and enforcing the view of the activist courts -- support for him is particularly troublesome.
Could it be that you really just need to know that the most offensive over-reach of government in our lifetimes will be overturned?
This is completely fair. Obamacare--and further--the entire idea of government forcing you to purchase anything--just to exist--is outrageously unconstitutional. Governor Romney, however, just this week said that not only did he still support his original blueprint for Obamacare (the one he actually authored), but he went a step further to claim that the idea of forcing citizens to purchase health care--a mandate at the force of a gun--was a "conservative principle." Never mind that fact that this type of audacity carries with it incredible hubris, how does it incline you to believe that he will do anything to repeal Obamacare?
Could it be--actually above all else--that you are more concerned about finding, getting, and keeping a job than anything else?
If so you're not alone and while Ron Paul has no experience in economic development, and Mitt Romney will certainly be bloodied in the general election campaign with advertisement after advertisement talking to people his company sought to have fired from their private sector positions. One of the other candidates has seen to it that the regulatory, tax, and litigative atmosphere in the state which he serves as Governor is kept in check, and as a result his state has seen the growth of close to half of all jobs created in the last three years--while President Obama was busy growing government payrolls, and killing private sector jobs by more than two million.
In short Iowa Caucusers you have a lot of reasons to be 80% against the two men that you really can't seem to identify with. This week you have the serious job of deliberating, debating, and convincing your fellow caucusers of the truth. Feel free to take this column with you to the caucus.
But whatever you do, don't give up on your principles! Don't bankrupt our future, and don't vote out of fear.
Ronald Reagan always said that if he agreed with someone on 80% of the issues, he would count them a friend. By implication 80% disagreement would probably indicate that he couldn't work with that person.
Iowans share 80% disapproval of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Therefore finding unity on what you do agree on and stopping those you disagree with should be of the utmost of importance. Consider that on Tuesday.
America will be the better for it.
Kevin McCullough Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations. His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.
Because they are each wacky and weird nutjobs invading the Republican primaries and caucuses.
Math seems off here. If Romney and Paul are polling 22% each, how can 80% disapprove of both of them?
The undecided’s and independents will go with Santorum or Perry in the end. The GOP thinks they fixed SC with the Gov. Romney endorsement.here is a reason Romney has been campaigning for five years,he can never surge,it is not nor will it ever be his turn.He should defect and turn democrat.
Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesn’t agree with you one hundred per cent, but it’s better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.
80% rejection of Romney the liberal and Paul the delusional - yea!! There is hope for the GOP after all.
Sometimes you have to go with someone who doesnt agree with you one hundred per cent, but its better than staying home and watching Obama steal another election.
- - - - -
It doesn’t mean you have to back someone who agrees with you nearly ZERO percent (Romney) and who is a proven liar. I don’t agree with Newt, or Perry, or anyone else 100% but I may hold my nose and vote for them because they would be better than Obama. Romney? NO WAY. He is in a few ways worse than Obama because he pretends to be on our side when he isn’t at all.
Romney is NOT better than Obama, he is just paler.
I would love Romney to switch parties, he can be the Dems problem, not ours.
UGH that man is just so evil!
I thought this looked familiar:
The dhimmis don't want him either lol
Is it silly to see the American hostile elite as the greatest danger to the American people?
The biggest trick of all: the Obama Axelrod machine is pulling off; slicker than the devil.Is... the notion that Romney can beat Obama.Obama will eat Obama up and chew him again and have him for dinner in the bowels of hell in numerous facets.One being that Romney is as full of BS as Obama so he knows how to bring him down. As well as he will harp ObamneyCare and before it is over Romney will have been sleeping with seven hookers from the mormon church and prove he eats dead babies nightly and sleeps with children.Whatever it takes...Obama will not let up until Romney is toast and or resigns like Cain.Obama cannot wait for Romney.
Also The axelrod machine truly enjoys sitting back while they do nothing and use the MSM to print news that infuriate Perry,Bachmann,Palin,Santorum supporters keeping them all divided.They created a schism.They know the GOP is McCain loving PC wussies afraid very afraid of a conservative right candidate.This plus Paul is a sure re election for Obama.BUT the tea party will rise to the occasion and unite behind ONE just in time.
If Romney (pro-gay, pro-abort record) and Paul (where to begin!) are the two front runners in Iowa —
there’s something wrong with Iowa.
“Math seems off here. If Romney and Paul are polling 22% each, how can 80% disapprove of both of them?”
New conservative math.
LOL I typed Obama will eat Obama up and I meant Obama will eat ROMNEY up and spit him out.Same thing as they are twins.One has thicker eyebrows and no dumbo ears is all.
Because one is a screeching lunatic and the other is a liberal. That’s why.
You could disapprove of Paul, for instance, and yet still name him as your choice on the grounds that he is the least bad choice able to stop Romney. You might actually prefer Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, or Gingrich, yet believe supporting any of them would split the vote, giving victory to Romney.
I ran a search before I posted.