Whoever The GOP Nominee, Obama Must Be Defeated

IBD Editorials ^ | January 19, 2012 | Editorial Staff

[Kaslin]

Election '12: As Mitt Romney's loss in Iowa to Rick Santorum shatters the "historic" mantra, Rick Perry withdraws to endorse the former House speaker. The fat lady has not yet sung.

What a difference 24 hours can make in the political arena. One minute Romney looks to be sailing toward the GOP nomination with a third straight win in South Carolina's primary. Now it may only be one of three.

We may never really know who won the Iowa caucuses, but we do know that Romney's "historic" wins in both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary deserve an asterisk next to them.

His eight-vote election-night win over Rick Santorum in the Hawkeye state has now been certified as a 34-vote loss. Results from eight precincts are missing — any of which could hold an advantage for Romney — and may never be recovered and certified.

Nor was the withdrawal of Perry from the race, coupled with an enthusiastic endorsement of Newt Gingrich, good news for the presumptive front-runner, wary of the "not Romney" vote coalescing into a majority.

Politics ain't beanbag, it's been said, and all the candidates have taken body blows — some fair, some not — from their opponents and a media establishment that, in addition to President Obama's billion-dollar war chest, will be hard for the GOP nominee to overcome.

Perry had his Gardasil and illegal tuition attacks from Michele Bachmann. Gingrich lost his lead when 45% of the ads run in Iowa attacked him on issues such as a consulting gig for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

[TribalPrincess2U]

Yeah, let’s Neuter The basta***.

[okie01]

OK. Wondered where you were coming from. Now I know.

The WOT was launched because we failed to defend the USA on 9-11.

Curious. How exactly did we "fail to defend" the USA on 9/11?

[Charles Henrickson]

that mission is to select the best candidate to defeat Obama, rally around him and target the disastrous and failed incumbent. With that, we heartily agree. Enough with the circular firing squad.

I agree. The target is Obama. I'm ABO. Gingrich, Romney, Santorum--each one has strengths, each one has weaknesses. Any of them would be vastly superior to Obama.

(Paul is the only one I could not bring myself to vote for, because of his dangerous foreign policy views. Fortunately, he has no chance of being the nominee.)

[Vendome]

Bad Girl!

[RedMDer]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.


Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor

A generous Freeper donates $10!!

Please sign up now!

[Clintonfatigued]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYzOQFpGPYE

[Clintonfatigued]

“Romney may suck, but Obama is the suckiest, suck suck of a President. ever. And he’s dangerous.”

Very well-put. I hope it’s not Romney, but we’ll survive him I don’t know if we can survive another four years of Obama.

[MacMattico]

Romney is my absolute last choice of the 4 left (close tie with Paul), but why do you say there is no fighting Romney if he wins? If he gets in there I intend to do whatever I can to hold his feet to the fire and make him tow the Conservative line if he wants reelection or any support whatsoever. I can't do that with Obama— he doesn't care and has his own socialist agenda and listens to no one. What if we get Obama and a Democratic Senate and House? Antonin Scalia God forbid passes away. What do we end up with Bill Ayers, SC justice??!! Think of every piece of crap thing Obama has ever spouted out of his pie hole and watch it become law.

Reverend Wright, Bernadine Dorn, Louis Farrakan, that radical Muslim guy from Chicago that he supported, Van Jones, George Soros, etc will all be in your face, publicly, because Obama has nothing to lose, no reelection, everything will be crammed down our throats and we'll watch
as the country crumbles.

[raisetheroof]

If we're stuck with Romney, then I'd rather have Obama take credit for all the bad Democrat policies that will be flowing from the Whitehouse. People might eventually learn that Democrats make bad politicians.
...
Basically, no way am I voting for Romney. No way.

I've heard that same strategy time and time again for years, and I think it's foolish. I have no desire to live under a scorched earth just to point fingers at Democrats and say, "See? We told you this would happen."

So I will vote for whomever the Republican candidate is: Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, ...

[raisetheroof]

I agree 100%.

It's been predicted that the next president will probably appoint two Supreme Court Justices. The idea that Obama being the one to do that sends shivers down my spine.

Romney may not be the perfect candidate, but we cannot allow perfection to be the enemy of the good. And from where I sit, compared to Obama, he's good enough.

[AlanGreenSpam]

Don’t they realize a “stay-at-home non-vote” IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA????

I’m not for a RINO (my fav candidate was Herman Cain), but the logic that I’ve heard spewed about is that a RINO will somehow be worse than another 4 years of President Narcissus Obeyme is ludicrous.

Somehow the argument presented is that if there is a RINO in office that the Conservative image will somehow be irreparably tarnished.

It has to be ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.

Check out these great Newt debate clips. I just love how he shreds the liberal debate moderators time after time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1Yf_005EqDM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEstNy9Efik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLfd2NgBQzo&feature=related

And here’s the so-called Reviled RINO, on Capitalism at tonight’s debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k_qbUrzIjw

Keep in mind that you’d NEVER hear Obama expressing such a pro-capitalism view as Romney continues to do. Even if Romney turns out to be partially a traditional Repub-Crony-Capitalism and people think he’s a RINO and they do ad-homs about his perfect hair, the pro-capitalism message is what the morons in this country need to have aired on the newswires.

The costs to our society of having another 4 years of the COMMUNIST USURPER OF POWER FAR outweighs the drawbacks of having a RINO instead of him.

So, folks, if we don’t get the “perfect conservative candidate” of your choice, we have to rally behind ANYONE that is NOT Obama!

Please don’t be stubborn about this and don’t stay at home from the polls in November!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

If you live in a red state, or mildly blue state that might go red this elections cycle, then go ahead and vote Republican.

I have the "luxury" of living in a solidly blue state. I am voting for the Green Party candidate, and I urge all Republicans and fellow conservatives in similar states to do likewise.

I see no downside to breathing life into the Green Party. Thanks to lax immigration enforcement and voter fraud the Democrats are eking out a voting majority over the Republicans. Splintering off some of that vote to an invigorated Green Party is a good short-term strategy for keeping a Republican edge in Congress and the Whitehouse.

Everybody at FR being harangued into voting for the lesser of two evils (i.e. McCain) or deluding themselves into believing they were voting for Palin didn't do us much good last time, did it?

I can just see what happens if Romney is the Republican candidate and he picks Ryan or Cantor as his running mate and the desperate eyes of the dispirited conservatives light up in unison to proclaim:

We're not voting for Romney, we're voting for {insert true conservative name here}!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Don’t they realize a “stay-at-home non-vote” IS A VOTE FOR OBAMA????"

No it is not. That's just bad math and faulty reasoning.

They realize correctly that not voting is much different than voting for Obama.

A voter could decide that they cannot in good conscience support either Obama or the Republican and choose to vote or stay home accordingly.

Or they can decide to do as I do and vote strategically for the Green Party as there is no way that the Republican candidate, whoever it is, wins California.

Or they can vote for the American Independent candidate or they can do whatever the heck free Americans choose to do in this currently quasi-free country.

The country that has been made less free over the years by both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Maybe some people would rather America get tossed directly into the boiling water in hopes that we will finally wake up and revolt. This slow boil into socialism hasn't been working that well for us either.

[apoliticalone]

“Curious. How exactly did we “fail to defend” the USA on 9/11?”

I think the point I was trying to make was we need to be concerned about actually defending the USA, and not the rest of the world. If we are defending others then they should be paying so that the effort and budget to defend the USA itself is not cut.

Had we defended ourselves and had 9-11 been squelched before it began, we wouldn’t be facing a lot of the problems and costs that the WOT has caused, and it would have saved us trillions. Would we have had a WOT or wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Defending is about preventing, like defending the borders so we don’t end up with 20 million illegals sucking up billions; like keeping the Pearl Harbors from happening so we don’t end up in WWs. That’s the way I look at it.

[TribalPrincess2U]

:>))))))

[okie01]

Defending is about preventing, like defending the borders so we don’t end up with 20 million illegals sucking up billions;

I agree. But that statement is in conflict with an earlier assertion -- which is the one I have a problem with.

The 11 year (now going on in-perpetuity) “War on Terror” has turned into a war against the rights and liberties of Americans.

How, pray tell, are we to "defend the USA" against illegals without some mechanism by which to identify them?

Arguing that the War on Terror has turned into "a war against the rights and liberties of Americans" is a lazy, Paulistic way of arguing against legitimate steps to defend ourselves -- not only against terrorists, but the invasion of illegals, as well.

I don't want terrorists using the international telephone network to arrange a plot to take down an airliner. In fact, as yet, I'm not aware of any aspect of the Patriot Act (e.g.) that has impinged on my, or anybody else's, personal freedom. Nor do I want illegals taking American jobs or collecting welfare checks.

I assume you don't either.

It boils down to how do we do this without any form of positive identification system?

[raptor22]

Defeat Obama ping

[glock rocks]

Damn. Your posting key is stuck on stupid.

[glock rocks]

Obama Must Be Defeated

Word!

Take the house. Take the senate. Take the presidency. Replace, albeit slowly, the court.

Good Lord people, even Reagan wasn't 100%. Take what you can.

This isn't even worth the argument. Pull your heads out and defeat marxism!


Is that not clear enough? Do you have a conscience? Are you conscious?

[PjhCPA]

Hate to be blunt but thar kind of thinking is just plain bullshit. Just think about the Supreme Court you f-ing dumb ass.

There’s no way Romney would appoint as leftist a justice as Obama will.

I’m not asking for forgiveness of the bad language...that’s just how pissed I am at that line of thinking