Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kiss Frontman Gene Simmons Voices Support For Mitt Romney, Regrets Voting For Obama In 08
mediaite ^ | 4/3/2012 | by Noah Rothman

Posted on 04/04/2012 3:27:21 AM PDT by tobyhill

Kiss frontman Gene Simmons appeared on Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends to discuss the 2012 race and President Obama, as well as promote his new chain of restaurants “Rock & Brews.” On the program, Simmons offered his support for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his bid to replace President Obama in the White House.

“The reason sometimes Republicans get in — including the Senate, House and presidency — is because Americans, smartly, and I applaud them for doing so, vote on the issues and not the party,” said Simmons. “I’m an American. I want both parties to appeal to me, and then I’ll make my educated decision. Sometimes you’re right, sometimes I’m wrong.”

(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2012endorsements; buyersremorse; endorsements; music; romney2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: driftdiver; Jim Robinson; All

I reiterate: you haven’t thought this all the way through at all. Eight years of socialism ‘lite’ under Romney or four more years of hard core socialism under 0bama.

You don’t get it do you? It isn’t about 0bama being a ‘better choice’, it’s about avoiding a WORSE choice over a longer period of time in which the same old big statist, big government advocates are destroying our Constitution and our Country.

Let’s bring JimRob in on this and see what he has to say.

Jim? If Romney is the nominee, do you think conservatives should vote for him?


41 posted on 04/04/2012 9:03:14 AM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Romney is the Republican nominee against Obama I will vote for Romney.

Yes me too I don’t understand how anyone would not. We have to stop Obama and save our country.


42 posted on 04/04/2012 9:13:23 AM PDT by angcat (PLEASE GOD SAVE OUR COUNTRY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: angcat

It is not a save. It is the difference between fast death (Obama and slow death (Romney). I guess due to the GOP women vote it will be slow death.


43 posted on 04/04/2012 9:16:39 AM PDT by bmwcyle (I am ready to serve Jesus on Earth because the GOP failed again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
It is the difference between fast death (Obama) and slow death (Romney). I guess due to the GOP women vote it will be slow death.

"Welcome to McRINO's, may I take your order?"

"uhh, yes, I'd like the Quarter Pound Conservative Burger"

"I'm sorry, that item is not currently available, how about a Filet O'Mitt Happy Meal?"

"No, you can't tell what it's made of, it smells bad, it might look pretty in that fancy box, but it tastes like crap!"

"Awww, that's too bad, lots of people are placing their orders now for the Filet O' Mitt to avoid the rush later!"

"Well those people are idiots because whether they know it or not, the Filet O' Mitt is basically the same garbage they're serving across the street at 0'Bama's Halal-A-Burger! How about a NewtWrap Constitution Meal with a side of Santorum?"

"Oh I'm very sorry, those items are being dropped from the menu by popular demand for the Filet O' Mitt, why not try it?"

"READ MY LIPS young lady, NO Filet O' Mitt!!"

"Awww, that's too bad, doesn't look like there's anything on our menu that you would enjoy, try us again in 4 years!"

"New menu coming out?"

"Nooo, just new packaging!"

44 posted on 04/04/2012 9:43:27 AM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Slowing gives you time to make changes to prevent his agenda. Conservatives have power and need to exercise it by keeping him from doing what he did in Mass.

He’s a sleazeball and he can be bought, that much has been proven.


45 posted on 04/04/2012 10:27:37 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

I won’t vote for him. Said that up front.


46 posted on 04/04/2012 11:39:09 AM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is not just brewing, rebellion is here!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
That's not Kiss, it's Procol Harum.

≤}B^)

47 posted on 04/04/2012 3:58:17 PM PDT by Erasmus (BHO: New supreme leader of the homey rollin' empire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Hey, snark. I guess you were against Ronald Reagan challenging Ford in 1976.


48 posted on 04/04/2012 6:23:48 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

No dumb ass, I wasn’t. I worked in Reagan’s campaign in ‘76 AND in ‘80, and ‘84.

I was pointing out the difficulty of overcoming the advantage of incumbency.

Give your head a shake.


49 posted on 04/04/2012 7:32:18 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; All
I won’t vote for him [Romney]. Said that up front.

I know that Jim, however it seems that some posters need a wake up call around here, there is no way in Hell that I'm going to vote for Mitt-Witt, and the reasons should be obvious to anyone with a couple of neurons to spark together.

Romney is NOT a conservative, and any individual who supports and/or votes for Romney is likewise, NOT a conservative, and voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for EVIL.

That ain't happenin' with me, and I stand with you.

Thanks.
50 posted on 04/04/2012 7:37:10 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Gene is just confused but its understandable.

Ha!

That graphic is the gift that keeps on giving!
51 posted on 04/04/2012 9:22:02 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

You’re right on the money, o-s. I agree with every word - do I like Romney? No. Would I vote for any Repub opposing BHO? A no-brainer for those of us who realize that with a Repub (any of them) we gain time to save our country.

With a totally unrestrained, unmasked BHO, we don’t have a future. Period. His second term wouldn’t necessarily be his last one (if he can’t finish us off during that period, though I believe he absolutely can), and it would be even more horrific than most imagine.

We canNOT afford grudge-holding, spite or sitting it out to “teach them a lesson”. That’s what crowned the foreign, America-hating, radical, dictatorial traitor and his equally hateful consort soiling our WH.

This election (if the Wan allows it to happen) is about our very survival - as a country and as individuals.


52 posted on 04/04/2012 9:34:24 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: babyfreep

yep, thats the never ending response from the libs

“we just need more time, (and money)”


53 posted on 04/05/2012 5:46:07 AM PDT by tm61 (somewhere in chicago, a ward is missing it's crook)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Hey, knuckledragger; it is evident you would oppose any primary challenge to a failing Romney presidency, thus assuring the 2016 election of another Carter or even the return of The Obamateur himself. If Romney wins in 2012 and turns out to be a good president, I would oppose any primary challenge; if, on the other hand he is elected in 2012 and turns out to be a disaster then I will vigorously support a 2016 primary challenge. You can do what you want, and continue along your own special way.


54 posted on 04/08/2012 7:31:46 AM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ought-six; All
You absolute idjit.

As usual you are looking through the wrong end of the kaleidoscope and wondering where all the pretty colors are.

I'm not saying that I would oppose a primary challenge to a hypothetical President Romney, hell no! I'm saying that you and your fellow double-digit IQ amateur analysts don't understand that an incumbent President has the political power and the resources to assure his renomination for a second term. You mention the Buffoon from Georgia Jimmy Carter, were you old enough to remember the primary challenge that was mounted by the late Senator Fat Teddy Kennedy? Do you recall how everyone laughed when Carter said that he would "whip Kennedy's ass"? (and amazingly, Carter managed to prevail in the primaries and secure renomination in '80).

IF Romney ends up the nominee and somehow, someway manages to win the White House, you really believe he's going to be a 'good President'? Hey, be a generous soul and pass out some of whatever-it-is you're smokin', because you can bet the rent money that Romney will turn left minutes after saying "So help me Smith" on Inauguration Day and the expansion of federal power will continue unabated, the Bill of Rights will be fed into the shredder marginally slower than they are right now, and you and your ilk will be eating crow until 2020, because Mitt Witt WILL be renominated in 2016, because he will have the same advantages of incumbency that every two-term President has always had, and it will take a bloody miracle to prevent that.

Now just for sh*ts and giggles, name the last sitting President to be denied renomination for a second term by his party.



(Because I'm such a swell guy, I'll save you having to Google it up, it was President Chester A. Arthur, 1884)

Now you run along and play, and don't eat too many chocolate Easter Eggs and end up with a sore tum-tum, ok?
55 posted on 04/08/2012 1:09:36 PM PDT by mkjessup (0bama squats to pee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Well, Gene, maybe you’ll finally get it right in ‘12. If we live that long.


56 posted on 04/08/2012 1:12:09 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (There will be no vote for Myth Romney in my house. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

57 posted on 04/08/2012 1:19:05 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (You can be a Romney Republican or you can be a conservative. You can't be both. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

“Now just for sh*ts and giggles, name the last sitting President to be denied renomination for a second term by his party.”

LBJ. His own party’s kingpins told him not to seek re-election. So, although he was not “primaried” in the true sense of the word, he got the message and voluntarily withdrew.

And, oh; what is your problem with the name calling? Typical bully. You remind me of the overweight lard-asses in my grade school in the 1950s, literally throwing their weight around until some skinny ass kid with an attitude kicked your sorry asses, and you ran crying home to your mothers.

If you want to have a rational adult conversation, then let’s have it. However, if you want to remain in grade school you’ll be there alone.


58 posted on 04/08/2012 1:43:10 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
And, oh; what is your problem with the name calling? Typical bully. You remind me of the overweight lard-asses in my grade school in the 1950s, literally throwing their weight around until some skinny ass kid with an attitude kicked your sorry asses, and you ran crying home to your mothers.

We'll dispense with this first:

Post 17 - mkjessup to ought-six

"Give your head a shake pal"

Oh I can see where that might have hurt your delicate sensitivities.

Post 48 - ought-six to mkjessup

"Hey, snark. I guess you were against Ronald Reagan challenging Ford in 1976."

'Snark', looks like you began that abominable 'name calling' first.

And I responded in kind:

Post 49 - mkjessup to ought-six

"No dumb ass, I wasn’t. I worked in Reagan’s campaign in ‘76 AND in ‘80, and ‘84.
I was pointing out the difficulty of overcoming the advantage of incumbency.
Give your head a shake.


Post 54 - ought-six to mkjessup

"Hey, knuckledragger..."

Just like Pogo, 'you has met the enemy and he is you'.
Guess you'll have to run home crying to your mother now.

Moving right along...

“Now just for sh*ts and giggles, name the last sitting President to be denied renomination for a second term by his party.”
LBJ. His own party’s kingpins told him not to seek re-election.


Name your source. What 'kingpins'?

So, although he was not “primaried” in the true sense of the word, he got the message and voluntarily withdrew.

So, you are citing an event that isn't even applicable. Had Johnson chosen to run for another term, there is little doubt that the Democratic Party would have renominated him, and you know that. 'Clean Gene' didn't have a prayer and even Gene knew it.

If you want to have a rational adult conversation, then let’s have it. However, if you want to remain in grade school you’ll be there alone.

Physician heal thyself.
59 posted on 04/08/2012 7:15:21 PM PDT by mkjessup (Finley Peter Dunne - "Politics ain't beanbag" (so either grow a hide, or get-TF outside))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

‘Clean Gene?’ Eugene McCarthy was not a real threat to LBJ in 1968 (though he did scare him in New Hampshire); hell, even Muskie toyed with the idea of challenging LBJ (though he never committed). But RFK was the real threat.

McCarthy did challenge LBJ in the primaries (well, I think the NH primary was the only one before LBH announced he wasn’t going to seek re-election), and though LBJ “won,” McCarthy was right on his heels.

Four days after the March 12, 1968 NH primary, RFK announced his candidacy. LBJ’s internal polls showed he would not win the next primary (Wisconsin). So on March 31, 1968 LBJ announced to the nation that he would not seek re-election. Immediately LBJ’s VP, Hubert Humphrey announced his candidacy, and George Wallace ran under a third-party ticket.

Just as Republican insiders went to Nixon in 1974 and told him he needed to step down or face impeachment, so Democrat insiders went to LBJ in 1968 and told him he needed to bow out. LBJ was EXTREMELY unpopular in 1968.

But there was no way LBJ would have beat RFK for the nomination.


60 posted on 04/09/2012 5:47:58 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson