I was a “Notional”. I voted for Ross Perot TWICE and put Bill Clinton in the White House. Shame on me.
If I have the resources I'd be looking to sell everything and book a one-way fare to Australia, New Zealand or somewhere else.
Not giving up quite yet, but I fear we will end up with Mittens (another McPain) who will NOT-NEVER take the fight to (or say anything "untoward") against out Fascist, Neo-Commie, Dear Leader and that bodes ill toward a shoo-in for Barry Hussein's re-election.
Rational and notional....Garrett is spinning.
The choice is liberal versus conservative.
Many “republicans” don’t mind voting for a liberal as long as he has an “R” next to his name.
The intelligent ones, however, are conservatives, and they don’t mind voting for a conservative no matter what letter is beside his name.
Ohio and Tennessee will be interesting as their outcome based upon polling data for the last couple of days indicates no clear cut favorite.
OH has seven polls all ending on Mar. 4 that are essentially within the margin of error between Romney/Santorum. TN has three polls ending Mar. 3/4 that show it basically a three way coin flip.
Tonight will be interesting.....
There’s nothing “rational” about a conservative accepting Romney, who is not conservative in any way, shape or form.
The problem is that many Republicans are not conservative, either; they’re as much in love with big government and the welfare state as any Dem.
All of the conservatives together would easily overwhelm Romney’s numbers. Even Ron Paul’s followers are pretty conservative in some ways, and if they didn’t have the libertarian option (why was Paul even allowed to run in the GOP?) they’d probably get behind one of the other candidates. Santorum is unfortunately also a nanny-stater, but because he wants the nanny-state to enforce “family values,” this appeals to social conservatives.
And Gingrich probably has the most conservative and practical ideas, but we are now being told that this contest is not about a vision for the future (that would be the notional voter, I guess) but instead finding a way to adapt ourselves to our new totalitarian welfare-state, perhaps simply by putting a new face in charge.
As for Romney’s experience, “business experience,” especially in the financial services industry, has never been considered a qualification for being president. Executive or governing experience, yes; but Romney doesn’t want to mention his years as Governor of MA because he knows that his record reveals him to be exactly what people claim he is, a Mormon Obama.
Would Romney be where he his without overwhelming financial resources, organization, Republican establishment support, and Fox on his side? When most of those advantages are offset in the general, we’ll see how rational the choice was.
There are two republican voters - the insiders and those in thrall to the insiders and there are the voters the insiders hate and trash, insult and lecture at every chance.
What people who plan to vote Mitt, BELIEVE to be true about him, ain’t necessarily so.
This article places everyone and everything into neat piles...unfortunately, no pile has the correct sign on it.
There needs to be a reality check pile.
The Dems/Media look at Romney as a dream GOP candidate.
Santorum as well, but for different reasons.
Newt scares the livin’ daylights out of ‘em.
Translation: anti-Romney = Bitter Clinger
What an embarrassing piece. Et tu, Major Garrett?
Here:
Mitt Romney: The Unconvincing Convert
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2855252/posts
And don’t heed the Santorum siren call, the diversion, for that’s just what it is.
Newt is the best we have.
Vote NEWT!
“Let Them Go Their Way
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)
Conservative Political Action Conference
Washington, DC
March 1, 1975
Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
snip
We did not seek world leadership; it was thrust upon us. It has been our destiny almost from the first moment this land was settled. If we fail to keep our rendezvous with destiny or, as John Winthrop said in 1630, “Deal falsely with our God,” we shall be made “a story and byword throughout the world.”
Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.
I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.
It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?
Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?
Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.
Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.
Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.
And let it provide indexing—adjusting the brackets to the cost of living—so that an increase in salary merely to keep pace with inflation does not move the taxpayer into a surtax bracket. Failure to provide this means an increase in government’s share and would make the worker worse off than he was before he got the raise.
Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.
Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.
Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our industrial machine.
Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding those who commit misdeeds personally accountable.
And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”
We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.
A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
LLS
With romney we get Obama-lite. That's just not good enough. If he gets the nomination, then that will be the best we can get. But until then, go for broke, to win or lose it all.