Skip to comments.Team Romney: Not gonna play repudiation game (Finally!)
Posted on 05/30/2012 3:58:19 PM PDT by Sneakyuser
click here to read article
Just mailed in my CA absentee ballot. Newt's on it so I voted for him. He's still and always will be my #1.
Hey, b9! Congrats on your ballot. Newt is ready to get back into politics I expect, which explains why he’s joined the Romney team. I’m wondering what will come out of this for Newt. He is a party man to the core and can’t seem to cut ties, but what’s a guy to do at his age and in solid two party system.
I sure wanted to see him wreck the GOPE strangle hold on the party. Not gonna happen with Romney. And, I think I have learned once and for all that if you don’t have a campaign machine mounted years in advance of announcing a run for the nomination you’re in it only for the political exposure.
Our conservative candidates had nothing but their name to run on. Romney had all of the DC machine behind him and more than enough cash to buy the thing, with personal wealth to boot.
This makes me reconsider Palin. She wouldn’t put in the intellectual work required to run in ‘12 on her name, so she seems to be working the DC game now, like Romney did.
Supporting Hatch, even against a Utah Tea Party preference to boot him who want to get a conservative in there. She is gathering chits early inside the Beltway. Maybe she will run in ‘16 after all. She has Texas (Rick Perry) and she has Newt, who is headed for something bigger than retirement.
I'm advocating pre-emptive resistance. Whichever statist wins will be more vulnerable to resistance, weakened, and easier to fight, if he wins by a plurality and the majority of voters voted against him. Voting official, on-the-ballot third party (that way I don't run the risk of invalidating the entire ballot) is the best way I can think of to use my vote in the Presidential to RESIST: do what I can to send him into office as weak and politically vulnerable as possible.
And regardless of the hysteria regarding Obama, if he is re-elected by a plurality where well over 50% voted against him -- I'm praying for 60% or more to vote AGAINST both candidates -- he'll be politically vulnerable and the forces of conservatism, no matter which of the clowns wins, IF that clown wins on a slim plurality, the forces of conservatism will be stronger because the vote and the math prove that big government liberalism is a losing proposition.
What is most frustrating now, though, is that right now it's ALL and ONLY about Obama. If Romney wins, six months into 2013 Obama would be totally forgotten, and conservatives would find themselves responsible for having ELECTED as the key Republican "leader," a guy who would then tell them to sit down and shut up, and he'd have a huge, organized, well-funded force behind him that are ruthless and even devious in how they operate.
That Obama is gone would mean zero when we see the Republican president and Congress being BIPARTISAN in enacting government-run health care with on-demand abortion, the whole cap-and-trade eco-tyranny agenda, and pushing laws to punish people who peacefully resist open homosexuality in their everyday lives. And as icing, conservatives, with Obama totally forgotten, would squirm helplessly and shreik in impotent rage as their Republican president proceeded to nominate liberal activist judges and Republicans in Congress, going up against a guy who plays true political hardball, remaining strangely silent.
Yes, RESIST. And I think part of that is recognizing that Republicans need to stop obsessing on what they're voting against, and realize that in 2013, the ONLY thing that will matter will be what they voted for. That's why I'm voting FOR resistance against either one, using my vote in the one small way it can make him enter office as weak and embattled as possible.
I'm sorry, but whoopti-frickin'-doo. Just because a guy can run a business doesn't mean he's a conservative, principled, free market, or even fiscally conservative. What it means is that he knows how to use control over employees and production to achieve goals within market transactions. That is ALL it means. Deifying businessmen is as misgided as deifying lawyers.
And come on, "Mitt does not have a conservative record."
No, Mitt has steadily and solidly advanced five -- count 'em, five of the key agendas of liberalism. Not just one or two, but FIVE. He has a record of actively promoting and furthering them. No gray area here.
Now, Republicans can vote for that if they want, but that's NUTS.
Do they really think Obama is made of some magic stuff? He's a scarecrow, for crying out loud.
You're right -- how do you think he managed to, after the second time around (part 2 of the 2008 primary), get the nomination in a party where, truth be told, he has no business judging by his actual record?
Very very competitive and aggressive. He plays hardball -- witness the $$$$ attack ad campaing on Newt, and the primaries where some kind of deadline was missed and Romney and I think Paul (I've forgotten) were the only official guys on that state's primary ballot. That's hardball, like a good businessman with a good organization behind him.
If Romney wins, that is what conservatives in the Republican party would be going up against, that kind of aggessiveness and competitiveness.
Come summer of 2013, it won't matter what you voted against, only what you voted FOR.
Amen. Thank you, Rita. And he didn't get solidly BEHIND and PROMOTE five main liberal agenda issues, like one keystone Republican I can think of. They sneer at Gingrich (hey, I've done my share of it), but would they call me a "purist" for rejecting Mitt?
Gingrich clearly understood and articulated the principals of limited government that I as a conservative know will go a long way to helping steer this nation toward freedom, independence, and prosperity.
Now please tell me, are YOU suggesting that Mitt Romney, whose RECORD is very solidly established as advancing not one, not two, but FIVE of the primary things I've been voting Republican to oppose -- you're telling me that as desperately as people want Obama gone, they are so desperate they're willing to vote FOR their most powerful representative to BE a big government statist, under the Republican banner -- but that these same people would have certainly *harrrumph harrrumph* rejected Gingrich? So it's better we got Romney?
That's a depressing way to see your compatriots.
BUT, in office Newt Gingrich was hell on wheels and you surely know that as Speaker of the House, he was the intrument by which we took the House for the first time, after 40 years in the desert, when Democrats owned all three houses. Come on man.
And then they call folks "purists" for stiffing Romney. Romney is bad news for everybody.
“...the primaries where some kind of deadline was missed and Romney and I think Paul (I’ve forgotten) were the only official guys on that state’s primary ballot.”
I think that was Virginia.
I understand your frustration... but your plan is not “using your vote” it is wasting your vote. I am not happy how this has worked out either but throwing a tantrum and wasting my vote isn't going to make it any better.
As an adult we sometimes have to make difficult decisions and compromises. This time around we can either vote for a Marxist who hates this country and all it stands for and has already done irreparable damage or we can vote for someone who has a more liberal voting record than we would like but who still appears to believe in the American dream. No one else currently has a chance. Wasting your vote isn't going to make either of them any “weaker” or do anything other than make it more likely that Obama will get four more years.
Has David Gregory, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," repudiated his colleague Al Sharpton, the MSNBC host with a decades-long record of incendiary statements and actions