Cruz: Tea party ‘overwhelmingly’ behind Romney

The Washington Times ^ | August 5, 2012 | Sean Lengell

[2ndDivisionVet]

Ted Cruz, who rode a tea party wave to win the Texas Republican Senate nomination last week, said Sunday the movement will “overwhelmingly” support Mitt Romney in the November presidential election.

Mr. Cruz said tea party activists will rally in defense of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee because they’re “energized” to defeat President Obama.

“I have spoken with literally thousands and thousands of tea party activists, and I have yet to met a single tea party leader that is not going to vote for Mitt Romney and work hard for him,” Mr. Cruz said on Fox News Sunday.

“Our country is in crisis, and we’ve got to stop this Obama agenda if we’re going to preserve opportunity for our kids and grandkids.”(continued)

[Nickname]

So how do we stop it from happening again?

We knew Mitt was going to run again, but otherwise we didn’t really know who was tossing their hat into the ring until the primaries were practically on top of us. Then it was conservatives in chaos.

We can be certain that the RINOs are already thinking about whose turn it is next.

[okie01]

So whats the magical plan ???

Obviously, you wouldn't understand...

[Nickname]

Agreed.

Obama’s proven he has no reservations about legislating via executive order, or making appointments as he pleases. And the GOP’s not going to impeach him.

Obama and the democrats know it.

[Finny]

Dave, this is not about rejecting Romney merely because he's off on a few issues. If you're going to vote, you owe it to America to understand that truth.

Please make an honest and candid study of Romney's actual record. If all this was about was "don't have a need to agree with every single position of a candidate," then you'd have a good point. The the acutal reality is that Romney's documented and demonstrated ACTIONS are of a politician who has promoted and advanced every single major liberal agenda over the course of his political career.

There's a really good reason about 300 FReepers reject Romney, and it isn't because they're being purists. It's because they're aware that Romney is a liberal Democrat and has always been a liberal Democrat, and he is registered in the Republican party. When you ask me to vote for Romney, I am informed enough to know that you are asking me to vote for a liberal Democrat. This is not about merely disagreeing with Romney on a few issues. This is about a candidate who is opposed nearly 100 percent to conservatism and has a record to PROVE it.

I'm voting for a plurality.

[Tennessee Nana]

So whats the magical plan ???

Obviously, you wouldn't understand

[TexanByBirth]

Those same people, like TexbBirth, whine self-righteously that they're being "attacked."

Have I once in any of my posts on this thread mentioned my position concerning Mitt Romney? Let me save you the effort of looking, no I haven't. My posts have been about the general manner which people on FR attack those whose opinions they don't like. So you made an assumption and chose to attack me personally as "whiny and self-righteous." You obviously had no clue what I was talking about to the first individual I was posting to.

We get the fact you don't like Mitt Romney. You have made that point over and over again in all your posts. We get it! Please, give it a rest.

This is my last response to you because I'm choosing to move on. So if you want to continue flaming at me and others go ahead. You have already pulled your pants down and showed a whole lot of us your butt. Please post some more pithy comments and prove me right a second time.

Shalom

[Ron H.]

I didn't say that. Why do you claim that I did?

What I did say is that an Obama re-election, coupled to a GOP Congress, dooms the economy to another four years of stagnation and will make it more difficult to eventually revive.

Well, let's see. If, as a social conservative I was to vote for a person that I believe (in this case I know) to be bad for me and for my country then I'd have to surrender my morally principled stand against that candidate thus abandoning my principles and personal beliefs for the sake of political expediency and that is exactly what you would have us do therefore making us no different than you and your kind. No thank you.

And that a Romney presidency plus a GOP Congress would result in an immediate economic pulse and a quick recovery.

I must disagree with that flawed reasoning. I said that gridlock may be far better than having Mittens in charge of both Houses of Congress. As I recall when we had divided government under Clinton and under previous Administrations Americans fared much better than when either party controlled both institutions in the past, say 100 years or so.

Oh, and if your reasoning was accurate then please pray tell just what is this magical plan for doing just what you claim?! Where can we read it for ourselves or is it just more wishful thinking your part once again?! Yeah, that's just what I thought!

Do you deny this? And would you prefer the country undergo another four years of economic hardship in order to fulfill your fantasy?

Won't be if enough conservatives, and not just RINO Republicans are elected to the Congress. Gee, that isn't really all that hard to figure out.

Good Lord...

I don't want Obama for another four years but with a Obama-lite President like Romney and a Congress filled with boot licking Romney RINO Republicans I feel they would do us all more harm in the long run. This country traditionally has fared better under divided government than with any one party in charge of the whole ball of wax. And I believe that is the way our forefathers envisioned it from the get-go.

So you may as well give up trying to convert me to your way of flawed thinking and reasoning as I'm not the least bit interested in doing things your way. I can think for myself thank you. OBTW, thanks for playing.

[RC one]

actually, our chances of taking the senate are probably better than taking the whitehouse which is to say, they are quite good. The Obama train comes to a screeching halt if it happens. As far as impeachment goes, the only thing that has prevented it thus far is Harry Reid. There is no doubt that with a GOP HOR and Senate, investigations into Obama wrong doings will become a priority.

[jimsin]

'Ann Coulter went over to the gay-agenda-pushers long ago. She’s been pushing Mitt because he’ll push the gay agenda too. Coulter is NOT worshiped on FR.'

BLA BLA BLA.... COME back when you've graduated Michigan State Law School on the Law Review and written 8 best sellers...

someone once said:

'ANN COULTER USES WIT AND HYPERBOLE TO MAKE DEVASTATING POINTS WITH WHICH SHT SKEWERS LIBERALS ALONG WITH THEIR LOONY TUNE NOTIONS. ...A WORD TO THE NOT SO WISE....DON'T BLAME ANN WHEN YOU DISCOVER YOU'VE BEEN SLICED AND DICED BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO DIMWITTED TO UNDERSTAND HER POINTS; AND CANT FIGURE WHY YOU END UP ...... LOOKIN LIKE A STOOGE IN CRIMSON WHEN AND IF YOU FINALLY DO FIGURE HER OUT. I HEREBY WISH ALL STOOGES, A VERY GOOD DAY. HEH HEH HEH. ANNIE GET YOUR GUN...AND KEEP ON BLASTN'

[presently no screen name]

True. No the GOP prefers a bottom of the barrel LIBERAL.

[Ron H.]

Ann Coulter lost all credibility with me. She is a left leaning Republican toad as for as I'm concerned. I wouldn't feel comfortable being in the same room with her! Oh, and Politicalmom is quite right about Coulter and FR. She is no where as welcome as she once was. FR can easily do without her and her queer friends.

[presently no screen name]

The GOP deliberately chose someone not of their platform - do you know why?

Or is same sex marriage their platform but the deceivers won’t print it. Same like romney’s page - THE LIAR makes himself out to be the saintly one. We know, he’s a godless POS.

So what they ‘claim’ to stand for and ‘truly do’ stand for a miles apart. The GreatOmissionParty. Would you join knowing they prefer liberals over Patriots. They are frauds and guilty of false advertising. Con artists/Rove, et al.

[Kudsman]

I said: When some political party has as it's nominee a pro life and marriage candidate, (redundant IMO), we will be joyful.

You highlighted it and replied:You will never see that, again. The left already bowed to evil, now evil has the right! It's over

I have questions. What will I never see again, joy? A pro life nominee from a political party? Why not? Because you say so? It is what I work toward and contribute to. Are telling me those are wasted efforts? I am a 4th degree Knight of Columbus. Explain to me please why I should have no hope. The Our Father is a good prayer to remind us of our humility. His will be done. Not no name's.

I believe you would be a hoot on a Yahoo board. What do you say sport, you ever leave the polite, safe confines of FR? You got the courage to match your convictions? I will pray you don't get banned if you think it will help. When you sign up you should use the name spoon.

[precisionshootist]

"Try reading some of the thinking on these threads as to "And do what?" AND TAKE A RISK, that's what. Take a risk that a plurality win for either one would be a GOOD THING in terms of helping conservatives oppose his liberal agenda, whether it was Obama or Romney. "

Lets just say we disagree, completely. I'm not sure how you think Obama winning with a "plurality" is going to even enter into his mind as he plants more commies on the SCOTUS and undermines the constitution at every step. Hell he may even sell out our nuke contingency. The Obama admin is a bunch of lawless commie thugs. Four more years is NOT going to end with a more conservative limited government and that is a 100% certainty.

[AlanGreenSpam]

-——”There’s no such thing as voting “against.” It’s pretend. It’s talk. The ACTION and the REALITY is that any and every vote can ONLY be for something, whether it’s for a candidate, for a proposition, or for nixing a proposition. The only way you can vote “against” something is to vote FOR something to replace it. “
_______________________________

OK, dude, make up your mind:

1. You say there is “no such thing as voting against”

2. Then you say you CAN vote against something if you vote FOR something.

With logic like that, you sound like a liberal.

——”And you are advocating replacing a liberal Democrat with another liberal Democrat.”

That you even think they’re equivalent, is astonishing.

What about Romney’s business experience vs. Obama’s? Obama is a devout evil communist. At least Romney understands capitalism and turned the Olympics from a money pit into a profitable venture by cost-cutting. You should read about that.

OK, go ahead and cite Romney’s STATE-level healthcare plan in a State that has a majority of Democrats/socialists. He will not implement Obamacare or Romneycare at the Federal Level.

________________

——”You’re DAMNED RIGHT I really think Romney is as anti-American as Obama. You should too. “

Granted, Romney’s values are not ideal, but for you to say so shows complete oversight of his business acumen.

For me, business and free enterprise is THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT issue for this country at this point.

What Homos do is secondary. I have little interest in those issues because if we don’t have a functioning economy, we will descend into entitlement chaos and the breakdown of society as we know it.

Wake up! Can’t you see this??

It is IMPERATIVE that we oust Obama’s gang of Marxist thugs.

If you think Romney is equally Marxist and Thuggish as Obama, you’ve been living under a rock.

[Graewoulf]

Romney is an expert at campaigning NOT to win.

Here is an idea that might move him off dead center: I think that Romney should SEAL his Federal and State Tax Records when he announces who his Veep will be.

That would give The Media a double surprise.

[no-to-illegals]

The GreatOmissionParty. Would you join knowing they prefer liberals over Patriots.
Switched to unaffiliated after the Bush, no new taxes, pledge. Remained unaffiliated.

do you know why?
The above is perhaps a who, what, and why?

[lonestar]

Stupidity is in the eye of the beholder, stupid!