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

Skip to comments.

Romney to Tea Party movement: No third party bids!
CNN ^ | 03/9/2010 | By: CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

Posted on 06/07/2011 11:51:10 AM PDT by Jim Robinson

Washington (CNN) - Mitt Romney has a message to Tea Party candidates nationwide: If you lose your Republican primary bids, stay on the sidelines.

The former Massachusetts governor on Monday warned the grassroots movement not to mount third party efforts in general elections, which he said would siphon votes from Republican nominees.

"If there is a conservative candidate that runs in the general election, then obviously, divide and fail is the result," Romney said in an interview with the conservative Web site Newsmax. "Hopefully Tea Party candidates will run in respective primaries and they will either win or lose. And if they win, they will go into the general. If they lose, they won't, and they will get behind the more conservative of the two finalists."

Romney explained that "dividing our conservative effort in the general elections" would "basically hand the country to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and that would be very sad indeed."

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: backstabberromney; belligerantromney; benedictromney; bishopromney; bishopromney2decide; bishopromneypreaches; bishopromneyrules; bishopromneysedict; bowb4romney; bownow4romney; brutusromney; carpetbaggerromney; cowardromney; coweringromney; dncposerromney; elections; fieldmarshaldjobama; flipflopromney; followingromney; ineligibleromney; inman; kingromney2u; littleromney; microromney; nastyromney; norinos; pissantromney; poserromney; pussyromney; rhymeswithmitt; rino; rinoromney; romney; romney2decide4u; romney4911mosque; romney4clinton; romney4dnc; romney4gaymarriage; romney4iag; romney4illegals; romney4islam; romney4kerry; romney4mexicans; romney4murderers; romney4obamacare; romney4rangel; romney4rinos; romney4romney; romney4sharia; romney4soros; romney4tarp; romneybigdig; romneycare; romneycoverup; romneyfees; romneymarriage; romneyservesobama; romneyservessoros; romneythreatens; romneyvsamerica; romneyvsgop; romneyvsmass; romneyvsmaucks; romneyvsthepeople; saboteurromney; smallromney; smellslikemitt; socialist; stenchofromney; stinkslikemitt; tantrum; thirdparty; threatsbyromney; waaambulance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-353 next last
To: phi11yguy19

Wow, “strawman troll”....you must be really series.

“Everyone is someone else’s troll - even you”


301 posted on 06/09/2011 7:37:09 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Yup. Really series


302 posted on 06/09/2011 9:06:57 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Notice how these two failed to comprehend a fairly simple question?

Ok genius, why don't you have a go at answering the following 'fairly simple questions'. (Since they're your questions this should be 'fairly simple'.)

So what happens if/when the GOP chooses our candidate for us like they did in ‘08? Do you vote lockstep like a good Republican even if it means pulling the lever for romney? Do you renounce your allegiance and vote 3rd party? Or do you sit it out?

303 posted on 06/09/2011 9:25:20 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Say please.


304 posted on 06/09/2011 3:49:22 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Perfect troll response, punkrr.

lol!

((snicker))

;~)


305 posted on 06/10/2011 6:44:26 AM PDT by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway; All
As I posted on another thread, the threat of a third party candidate/party is a political strategy used to influence the party's platform at the convention.

This is how we managed to develop a pro-life, pro-family, pro-American, pro-Judeo/Christian values platform out of old Daddy Bush & pals. We knew he what he was no Texas cowboy, but an NE elitist.

The platform will be used by the media (think sound bites) to represent the party's values and direction. This hopefully will attract like minded voters.

The battle is "grass roots" beginning with your local precincts, to develop a strategy to inflect pure misery at the state and national conventions until your voice is heard. You fight it out for your platform here or forget it.

I voted for McCain this last election because of the Republican Party still upheld the conservative platform we fought for under Reagan and Daddy Bush. When Sarah was placed on the ticket I was very thankful we had such a strong honest voice to speak out for our principles.

Frankly I don't believe McCain would have chosen her had it not been for Conservatives already in position within the party.


306 posted on 06/10/2011 10:15:20 AM PDT by mstar (Immediate State Action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

Just feeling a bit “trollish” today and thought I would answer your question to rockrr /s...


307 posted on 06/10/2011 1:14:04 PM PDT by mstar (Immediate State Action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: mstar

well said. i had the same feeling about why mccain picked palin as they were such polar opposites...just shows that there’s still a pulse in the party.

also agree with with your “local” comments. my wife was frustrated because she knows come election time, she’ll likely vote R as will I, yet her sister and her husband will vote D and “cancel us out” (even though they don’t know a lick about politics), and thought the ideal candidate needs to tow the pc line to bring in the “independents”...

the fallacy is that no one “cancels out” your vote in the primaries, and the Ds and independents are both non-factors in that race. The real point is to get involved early which VERY few people do, and make sure the best candidate rises to the top who can handle his own when it comes national debate time...aka when the masses first start paying attention.

This did not happen in ‘08, but hopefully next year will be different. And all the media spin of front-runner, favorite, polling, etc. nonsense between now and a year from now is just noise.


308 posted on 06/11/2011 6:12:07 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Elsie posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2011 4:45:55 PM: “ATTENTION Conservatives!! If you EVER want to ‘win’ back the country; you’d better ‘win back’ the education system. (The media wouldn’t hurt; either!)”

Totally agreed. Not all of us in the media are left-wingers, just most... and I’m speaking with two and a half decades of reporting experience when I say that, and a mother who was trained as a reporter all the way back in the 1950s.

The news media were intended by the Founding Fathers to be the schools of politics for adults in the voting citizenry, with a wide variety of political positions being advocated.

The economics of printing and distribution made competing print newspapers non-viable in all but our largest cities after World War II. Hopefully the move of the media to the internet will restore the multiple voices in local news that have been standard for most of our American political history.


309 posted on 06/15/2011 12:17:15 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Jim Robinson; Retired Chemist; Conservativegreatgrandma; Psalm 144; Diogenesis; ...
First off, I want to specifically and by name thank Jim Robinson for posting the videos of Mitt Romney talking about abortion. Frankly, if it weren't for Free Republic I think a lot of people wouldn't realize his history on this issue. That, for me, is a no-compromise issue. I don't like his views on health care or global warming, but murdering babies is something on which I absolutely **CANNOT** compromise.

I should have known that about Romney based not only on his personal campaigns but also based on his family's political history in Michigan where I grew up as the son of a Republican official. However, I didn't know, and a lot of other people still don't. That message needs to get widely disseminated.

I don't think we're going to have to deal with a Romney nomination for that reason among others, but what if we do face that situation?

I'm reading a lot of third-party comments, but I think this one by Colofornian is probably the most insightful: “It could be the 19th century all over again. The GOP rising then on the ashes of the Whigs. The GOP could be the new Whigs of extinction.”

Also, as LittleRay pointed out, we have one and only one example in United States history of successful third-party politics, and that was when the Republicans destroyed the Whigs due in large part to the Whig refusal to take a stand on principle, and then the Republicans became one of the two main parties. If a third party is going to be created, the agenda has to be to replace the Republican Party, not to compete with it as a long-term third party. That is not a minor undertaking, and while it's not impossible, people need to count the cost before they start the project.

Keeping that fight over a third party off the table is perhaps one of the best reasons to convince moderate and less-conservative Republicans not to vote for Romney. Why can't we turn the argument on its head and tell moderate Republicans that it's the conservatives who do the hard work on the ground, and nominating a RINO is a good way to either split the party or lose the election because conservatives stay home — especially evangelical voters who unfortunately have a lousy record of voter turnout if they aren't strongly committed to their candidate?

Except for the Republicans in the 1850s, every other example of a third party in the history of American politics — every one — has either 1) been electorally irrelevant or 2) led to defeat of the major party closest in ideology to the third-party by siphoning off votes, or 3) became a temporarily independent force that eventually was absorbed by one of the two main parties, bringing with it an entire block of voters.

I don't think we're going to have to deal with a Romney candidacy unless the social conservatives fail to coalesce around a single candidate and Romney or somebody like him wins by default. If we do face that situation, we have a major, major problem. This discussion on Free Republic will be merely a precursor for the debates on our national stage if that happens, and I think the Republican leadership understands that nominating a RINO risks handing the election over to Obama because of a massive “Tea Party” defection.

What if Romney successfully uses his money and a divide-and-conquer strategy to win the Republican nomination by getting a plurality though not a majority of Republican support? The primary and caucus system makes it entirely possible to get a majority of convention delegates despite representing only one portion of the party, if the right candidates are knocked out of the race early and if others stay in long enough to divide up the opposition. That's probably what happened to get John McCain nominated, and it could get Romney nominated as well.

There could be advantages to using the model of the 1850s by abandoning the remnants of liberalism in the Republican Party with a massive shift of conservatives to a new party, much like how the strong and radically uncompromising ideological commitment of the early Republican Party against slavery and for a strong federal government destroyed the remnants of the Whig Party and led to the election of Abraham Lincoln. (Sorry, Southerners, but those are the facts of the Republican Party's history, and it's a big part of why so many conservative Southerners of several generations ago stayed Democrats for so long.)

But let's not kid ourselves. Unlike countries with multiparty democracies, third parties don't work here for a reason. In the United States, we have single-member winner-take-all districts in nearly all of our state legislatures. At the federal level, all of our congressional districts and senatorial races are winner-take-all single-member races. Without changes in state and federal laws, there is simply no way to maintain a viable European-style three-party system in the United States unless the third party is regionally based. Even the southern Dixiecrats, who had the best possible chance to do so in modern American history, didn't succeed in creating a third party and ended up migrating into the Republican Party under the leadership of men like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

We also need to remember that just as with the 1856 election, there is a very good chance that a new third party in 2012 would lose and cause a lot of damage.

Here, I think, are the minimum things we need to insist on in any third-party conservative presidential candidate:

1. They must have massive grassroots support so strong that the party not merely comes in second in a number of states, getting viewed as a “spoiler that lost the election,” but actually wins a number of key conservative states in the electoral college. That probably means not just smaller conservative states but at least a couple of major states, of which the most likely is probably Texas. A win in Texas and Florida by a third-party candidate would force the entire political system to take the third party seriously, and would likely lead to a number of members of Congress deciding to cast their lots with the third party.

2. Strong grassroots support isn't enough in an era where massive amounts of money are necessary even to get on the ballot in many of the biggest states, as well as to buy television advertising and do national campaigning with only about three to six months to get the message out before the November 2012 elections. The ability to raise massive amounts of money is crucial.

3. The use of the internet news media, as well as FOX News, gives non-mainstream candidates a fighting chance today if they're attacked or ignored by the mainstream media. Taking a page from the Democratic online playbook that gave birth to Howard Dean and Barack Obama could work. If the candidate doesn't fully understand the role of the internet, they need to have a campaign team that does, and can use it effectively and aggressively. The internet will be key to any successful insurgent campaign either within the two main parties or by a third party bid.

4. Being right on the issues isn't enough. The presidency is not an entry-level job, and a third-party candidate faces a tremendous credibility gap. Anyone nominated who doesn't have a solid record as a state governor with executive skills or a solid record in the Congress with legislative skills absolutely **MUST** have a vice-presidential nominee who does have those skills, as well as many people willing to serve in his/her cabinet and publicly declare themselves, knowing they are destroying their own political future in the Republican Party by aligning with a third party movement.

Let's not minimize how much of a risk it is for somebody qualified for a cabinet-level post to declare up front that they are supporting a third party. What happened to Joe Lieberman is nothing compared to what will happen to a Republican who bolts, since the Democrats have a long history of disarray but the Republicans have historically been much better at enforcing party discipline and punishing people who threaten the leadership. Even by posting this, I know I run the risk of it getting copied and quoted years from now, even though I hold no office in the Republican Party and have no intention of seeking elected office. Somebody in office or seeking office runs a much greater risk.

I hope it's crystal clear that I do not support a third party. What I support is a conservative takeover of the Republican Party. But I can't back baby-killers, and that is probably the only issue in current American politics that could get me to vote for a third-party presidential nominee.

If somebody is going to talk about third parties, count the costs. Know what you're getting into first, and have a plan to win, not just to compete.

310 posted on 06/15/2011 12:43:45 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
Absolutely superb post. This is logical and rational and not shooting from the hip.

This is all true and we are unrealistic when we believe we will ever achieve the heaven on earth we desire.

We are flawed human beings and even another political party (we already have at least 40) is not going to be made up of pure people and would be a guarantee of any kind of improvement and likely would only make matters worse.

The logical line of attack is to nominate the most conservative possible.

311 posted on 06/15/2011 12:54:25 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

Romney is a Yankee mAsshole. If he is nominated I will vote Libertarian or Conservative party. The R’s will have a majority in congress, hold the purse strings. I am not so sure Obama isn’t going to get a challenger. He is very weak.


312 posted on 06/15/2011 3:27:13 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina; Jim Robinson

Great post, Darrell!

Can either of you link to the Romney abortion vid post? (Sorry, I’m asleep at the wheel today.)

I noticed a couple weak responses on the baby killing question between the grunts in the NH debate, but I’d like to have some nice links to pass around as the primaries get more interesting.


313 posted on 06/15/2011 6:31:26 PM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

Ok, will run the videos on the threads for awhile or until we get tired of him.


314 posted on 06/15/2011 7:04:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

So, what do you think of cva’s #312?

Are you going to hector and harass him like you did Partisan Gunslinger? Will you sneeringly call him “effectively pro-Obama”? Will you cheerfully mock him proclaiming “thank(ing) you for Obama”? Or does he get a pass for his stated intent to do exactly the same as PG said because cva is a fellow Lost Cause Loser?


315 posted on 06/15/2011 8:24:35 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson


316 posted on 06/15/2011 9:19:19 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
"If there is a conservative candidate that runs in the general election, then obviously, divide and fail is the result," Romney said


317 posted on 06/15/2011 9:23:16 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
This is exactly what I get out of any Conservative/Republican when I mention the possibility of a third party.

“Oh NO, it will ensure another 4 years for Obama”, they cry.


318 posted on 06/15/2011 9:33:38 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: rockrr; central_va
So, what do you think of cva’s #312?

Darrell's 310 is exactly the reason Partisan is a lost cause. In our lifetimes, right up to this next election, the only viable solution is to work the party that has the best chance to support conservative principles. Going independent/other simply means you have ZERO involvement in helping that process...you just sit on the sidelines doing nothing while talking a big game in your weekly focus group about how you "can't change anything" like Partisan.

c_va can see my opinion on 3rd party voting if he wants, but to my understanding, he didn't vote 3rd party in '08 - effectively helping us all suffer the opposite of what we want while he gets to sleep well at night knowing he "voted on principles" (at least in the one worthless vote he placed since he couldn't help the cause in the primary votes).

But if 17 months from now I learn that c_va didn't vote in the primaries, didn't educate himself or others on how to make a real difference, held weekly meetings of hypocrites who (1) read and quote the King James Bible yet stay pro-choice, and (2) applaud and blindly defend Lincoln while voting for a Constitutional Party candidate who is vehemently appalled by the tyrant, and defend his actions because it helped HASTEN the destruction of the country (so we could "rebuild" - paraphrasing his words but you can find the exact quote)...

Well if that happens, then possibly c_va and I will have words. My understanding is we're not there yet, so no...nothing to say right now.

That answer your question?
319 posted on 06/15/2011 10:03:07 PM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

possibly (snicker)...


320 posted on 06/15/2011 10:18:23 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; phi11yguy19
phi11yguy19 posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:31:26 PM: “Great post, Darrell! Can either of you link to the Romney abortion vid post? (Sorry, I’m asleep at the wheel today.) I noticed a couple weak responses on the baby killing question between the grunts in the NH debate, but I’d like to have some nice links to pass around as the primaries get more interesting.”

Thanks, Philly...

Jim Robinson posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:04:30 PM: “Ok, will run the videos on the threads for awhile or until we get tired of him.”

Thank you, Sir!

I haven't yet checked which videos you've posted, but based on what I've seen over the last couple of years, the words out of Romney's own mouth defending a pro-choice stance, especially pointing out to his Democratic opponent in the governor's race that his position was the same held by his family back in Michigan when they ran for office, are devastating.

Romney has done a lot of work to backtrack from the position that, in all fairness, probably had to be taken to mount a credible challenge to Sen. Kennedy in Massachusetts and then to win the governor's race.

A lot of people have forgotten what he said years ago or excuse it based on the political realities of one of our most liberal states. He now publicly says that he's changed his views. Okay, fair enough; people do change. Even Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat.

But this issue isn't like changing one’s mind on something else that is important about national policy like free trade or immigration — this involves outright murder of millions of babies. Where is the repentance?

I don't want to hear Romney just say, “I was wrong.” At an absolute minimum, I want him to say, “I have blood on my hands, thousands of babies died in my state and I did nothing, and I will have to answer to God for my sinful dereliction of duty. If elected president I will do everything I can to put an end to the babykilling, and here's my plan of specific steps I will take to win back the trust of people I betrayed by my actions in Massachusetts...”

That's not too much to ask that Romney say in public, and if Romney were in my church I'd demand considerably more in private to make sure the repentance is sincere and not merely mouthing words. The fact is that repentance right now would be politically convenient for Romney, and anytime repentance leads to material benefits, private pastoral conversations are appropriate to evaluate the sincerity of the words.

Of course, we're evaluating Romney's qualifications to be president, not to be a communicant member of a church, so our questions need to be focused on public acts because we can't evaluate his spiritual condition at a distance (apart from the obvious factor that he's in a cult group). We don't live in John Knox's Scotland, John Calvin's Geneva, or even Jonathan Edwards’ Massachusetts; the federal Constitution was deliberately written to bar religious tests for federal office, and therefore we need to deal with Romney's public positions.

The key problem is this: How do we know that just as Romney was saying what he needed to say to get elected in an ultra-liberal Democratic state, he isn't now saying what he needs to say to get through a Republican Party national primary? I have heard no satisfactory answer to that question.

What makes that truly dangerous is that if Romney manages to get nominated, he'll be under tremendous pressure to “tack left” in the general election. If Romney is willing to say whatever he needs to say to get elected and isn't acting based on core values, based on his own family history we have every reason to fear he'll drop the abortion issue like a hot potato once he no longer needs to satisfy conservatives.

Unless someone can show me I'm wrong, I can't accept Romney as the Republican nominee since he'll be responsible for nominating the Supreme Court justices who will decide the fate of millions of babies.

As Christian and other “social issues” conservatives, we are not yet in the position of our brothers and sisters in Europe where they routinely have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We can still demand that the Republican Party nominate candidates who are solidly committed to certain core Judeo-Christian principles on which this nation was founded.

At this point, I frankly don't know what I'll do if Romney or someone like him becomes the Republican nominee, and I want to do whatever I can to make clear to the Republican leadership that nominating someone who is weak on “social issues” is a recipe for electoral disaster and reelection of President Obama. I'm hoping the Republican majority will agree in the upcoming primaries and caucuses so we don't get into a situation of a split party in November 2012.

321 posted on 06/15/2011 10:23:22 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

ok, it’s a nuance to some, but I need to correct one thing you said. The Dixiecrats did not “run to the Republican Party” They all immediately returned to the Democrat party & ONLY the 2 or maybe 3 u named ever came to the Republican party but that was later, and years after the 3rd party attempt. The Dixiecrats/Southern Democrats remained in the Democrat party til this day. (again, exception of helms thurmond & one other I think) I am from south MS and believe me southern democrats are everywhere STILL & they vote Democrat too..... the only reason they’ve slowly started coming to the conservative side is because they aren’t fans of communism. Sorry, but I try to slap down liberal propaganda when I see it, even if innocently repeated by a conservative..... ;0) ok, done w/ rant, travel on.


322 posted on 06/15/2011 10:38:16 PM PDT by DrewsMum (There is no other NAME whereby we may be saved....JESUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: DrewsMum
DrewsMum posted on Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:38:16 AM: “ok, it’s a nuance to some, but I need to correct one thing you said. The Dixiecrats did not “run to the Republican Party” They all immediately returned to the Democrat party & ONLY the 2 or maybe 3 u named ever came to the Republican party but that was later, and years after the 3rd party attempt. The Dixiecrats/Southern Democrats remained in the Democrat party til this day. (again, exception of helms thurmond & one other I think) I am from south MS and believe me southern democrats are everywhere STILL & they vote Democrat too..... the only reason they’ve slowly started coming to the conservative side is because they aren’t fans of communism. Sorry, but I try to slap down liberal propaganda when I see it, even if innocently repeated by a conservative..... ;0) ok, done w/ rant, travel on.”

We agree, and I appreciate the historical reminder. Accuracy is important, and while I knew the facts you're pointing out, I glossed over them and probably shouldn't have done that.

I debated several times whether to use the word “Dixiecrat” or “southern conservative Democrat.” I finally decided to use the Dixiecrat name since that term became shorthand not only for Strom Thurmond's political party but also for the whole conservative Southern Democratic movement, which included several different third parties as well as groups within the Democratic Party such as the Boll Weevils. I realize that while many of the original Dixiecrats were long since dead or out of politics by the time of the Reagan era, the movement, as a whole, ended up first voting Republican in national elections and then slowly working its way down to state and local races.

I'm also well aware that process isn't yet over, Arkansas being an obvious example at the state level. Even here in Missouri, I live in a county where it was virtually impossible for Republicans to get elected to county office well into the late 1990s. In less than a decade, the Republicans have gone from being virtually unelectable to now holding the state house seat, the state senate seat, and nearly all elected positions in the county courthouse apart from a few long-term Democrats in positions that are not viewed as especially political where the incumbents are personally well-liked and generally considered well-qualified by both parties.

Not all Democrats are the same. It'd be nice to tell these people to get out of the Democratic Party, but when I do, I get comments reminding me of my Michigan ancestry and politely suggesting that Yankees have no business telling Southerners how to vote. Fair enough; I'll leave that task to born-and-bred Southerners.

323 posted on 06/15/2011 11:27:55 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

hey, my mom’s a southern democrat, and I haven’t been able to pull her from those trenches either. I did hound her enough when I was a teenager in ‘92 & not old enough to vote myself, to not vote for Clinton...but I only got her as far as Perot....LOL...but I tried and hey, I was just a kid....20 years and a political science degree later & I still haven’t been able to pry her off the Democrat party roles...However, she didn’t vote for Obama b/c even she could see through that tripe.....


324 posted on 06/16/2011 12:29:54 AM PDT by DrewsMum (There is no other NAME whereby we may be saved....JESUS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19

I’ve voted for my last RINO. Educate yourself on that.


325 posted on 06/16/2011 2:41:54 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I agree that people can change, but they do need to convince us of how and why they did if we’re to trust them.

In the NH debates, I heard Romney say he was pro-life now, but it was a shallow, seemingly politically-expedient response. I didn’t have strong feelings myself on the issue until i took the time to educate myself more, but now i’m very outspoken to anyone who bring it up around me and think it really should be the most important subject that any politician talks about.

We’re approaching 4-5 times the high estimate of deaths during the holocaust, yet we’re equally as guilty as the german society of turning our backs and pretending it’s not there. The morality of the issue may be considered religious, but a purely medical and scientific look at it shows every abortion takes an innocent human life with a beating heart, brain waves, features, etc. - different than the Casey Anthony trial in the media circus only by in happening a couple years earlier.


326 posted on 06/16/2011 3:55:32 AM PDT by phi11yguy19
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; LucyT; Las Vegas Ron; manc

Vote for the Socialist Democrat agent Slick Willard ? I’d vote for Zero first, at least he isn’t pretending to be a Republican.
_______________________________________
Well, well, well, I guess we know why you have spent the last year bashing all the GOP candidates and I have yet to find you saying anything bad about O bama. I knew it, I knew I would find you saying that, I just had to look for it.

No, Obama isn’t pretending to be a Republican either, but he’s pretending to be a Democrat when in fact he is a hard core MARXIST. You go ahead and vote for him POS, you planned to and you will, yet you have the audacity to call others who will vote against him idiots? How ironic. You disgust me but o bama thanks you.


327 posted on 04/07/2012 4:58:01 PM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Thank you for having the courage to speak out. The primary process has pretty much played out and it is what it is. There is simply no equating a rino with a hard core marxist. How can anyone who calls themselves a conservative in good conscience allow obama another four (or God help us, more) years of free reign. I will not do that to my children and my grandchildren.


328 posted on 04/07/2012 5:11:59 PM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: jersey117; fieldmarshaldj

Thank you for having the courage to speak out. The primary process has pretty much played out and it is what it is. There is simply no equating a rino with a hard core marxist. How can anyone who calls themselves a conservative in good conscience allow obama another four (or God help us, more) years of free reign. I will not do that to my children and my grandchildren.

__________________________

Funny how the ones that are so self righteous often out themselves in their past posts:

I’d vote for Zero first, at least he isn’t pretending to be a Republican.

287 posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:53:55 PM by fieldmarshaldj
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2731246/posts?page=287#287


329 posted on 04/07/2012 5:19:35 PM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
He still thinks he is a conservative??

By the standards of present day Massachusetts, he is to the right of Atilla the Hun.

330 posted on 04/07/2012 5:28:39 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Just go away Mittens!!!


331 posted on 04/07/2012 5:34:54 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jersey117

There is simply no equating a rino with a hard core marxist.
_______________________________
I agree and I don’t think ANY conservative will be happy if Romney gets it, not here on FR anyway. I know some conservatives that do like him and I’ve argued with them until I’m blue in the face. It looks like he’s going to be the nominee, and the only other option is the Marxist, who is hell bent on destroying our country and making shady deals with people like Putin when he doesn’t have to worry about being elected again. He is DESPICABLE and I will do everything in my power to thwart his effort to destroy this country.

I’m going to mostly lurk, check my Freepmails, etc. until after November because these Freepers that say they will vote for Soetoro just aggravate me too much. I’m spending time elsewhere exposing o bama and trying to get out the ABO vote.


332 posted on 04/07/2012 5:35:03 PM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I’d vote for Zero first, at least he isn’t pretending to be a Republican.

287 posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:53:55 PM by fieldmarshaldj

I've noticed several posts like that here in the last few weeks.

I detest Romney but with him we might have a chance, with obama again it is finito....it's disgusting.

333 posted on 04/07/2012 5:40:50 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio - http://www.istandwithrush.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
I’m going to mostly lurk, check my Freepmails, etc. until after November because these Freepers that say they will vote for Soetoro just aggravate me too much.

I haven't seen anyone say they're voting for B.O. Just that they might do a write in, vote Constitution party, or whatever, at the same time as they vote Republican on their Congressional picks. It's a free country. I would be just as happy if the GOP saw guaranteed red states turn blue and lose them the election as I would be if Obama lost. That way they'll get the message and next time when Rick and Newt say moderates can't win, people will believe it and nominate a conservative.

334 posted on 04/07/2012 5:50:00 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron
I detest Romney but with him we might have a chance, with obama again it is finito....it's disgusting.

A chance at what? A chance to see the Congress turn Democratic in 2014, have Romney pass everything they ask because "it's what the people wanted" and then get voted out in 2016 for the most left-wing candidate the Dims can find? If you let the GOP move left, the Dims are only going to move further left, and the American public's going to go left. This is a war. Republicans voting for Romney concedes an enormous amount of ideological territory to the liberals, which will only embolden them and make them try to grab more and more.

335 posted on 04/07/2012 5:52:56 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

There won’t be a next time. If obama is relected there will be no turning back. We are at the crossroads.


336 posted on 04/07/2012 5:55:27 PM PDT by jersey117 (The Stepford Media should be sued for malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: JediJones
Oh gosh, you're correct.

The alternative is so much better.

337 posted on 04/07/2012 5:58:09 PM PDT by Las Vegas Ron (Rush Limbaugh = the Beethoven of talk radio - http://www.istandwithrush.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: JediJones

I haven’t seen anyone say they’re voting for B.O.
________________________
Yes, they have and I saved the posts, and the links. It’s getting larger. I’ll post it in a couple of months and will delete ones that have been zotted or changed their tune.


338 posted on 04/07/2012 5:59:34 PM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
"Well, well, well, I guess we know why you have spent the last year bashing all the GOP candidates and I have yet to find you saying anything bad about O bama. I knew it, I knew I would find you saying that, I just had to look for it."

Well, look who's lying again. Using the same time-honored tradition of all the infamous Slick Willardbots of yore. They can't defend their candidate, so they lie about those that expose him and his record.

"No, Obama isn’t pretending to be a Republican either, but he’s pretending to be a Democrat when in fact he is a hard core MARXIST."

Newsflash, dummy: The Democrat Party has been Marxist for a long time now. Are you just figuring that out ? How does that justify allowing/voting in a hard-left Socialist element into the GOP to make it a "Me, too !" party ? You're the one pimping a Socialist all because he pretends to be an "R." Guess what, Einstein. They're both execrable and unacceptable ? You got it ?

"You go ahead and vote for him POS, you planned to and you will,"

There you go again.

"yet you have the audacity to call others who will vote against him idiots? How ironic. You disgust me but o bama thanks you."

Your lies and your idiocy are on full display once again, Mo.

339 posted on 04/07/2012 7:54:18 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Funny how you chopped out the first part of the post. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of your narrative. You have the intellectual honesty of the fired NBC producer of the Trayvon Martin story.


340 posted on 04/07/2012 7:56:14 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: jersey117; mojitojoe; Las Vegas Ron

Ford lost in 1976 and that brought us Reagan. I think the long-term chances for the conservative movement are better if Obama wins than if Romney wins. The party and the sheeple voters would hopefully learn their lesson, with Rick, Sarah and Newt gaining credibility by having accurately predicted that Romney would be a bad nominee, and the voters would nominate a conservative next time.

Plus, if Obama loses, he will remain a force in the Democratic party and be able to come back and run again for a 2nd term at any time, especially if Romney fails to gain any sort of success or popularity in his first term. And if Romney governs as he did in Taxachusetts, he will be tremendously unpopular as he was there.

If Obama wins this time, he’s likely to remain gridlocked against a Republican House and maybe Senate. That will make for a weak Obama term, which would not be the case if he gets renominated and reelected in 2016 in a strong anti-Romney movement that would bring with it a liberal Congressional majority and single-payer health care. This will happen if Romney has a term like Bush, Sr.’s first or Bush Jr.’s second.

Yes there will probably be short-term pain if Obama is reelected on things like energy prices. But we might actually be able to get a veto-proof majority elected in Congress in 2014 in which case Obama would become the lamest of ducks. If Obamacare is overturned this year and Obama loses all that regulatory authority that comes with it, then there’s even less to worry about with a 2nd Obama term. Judicial appointments would be a problem, but even they aren’t permanent and don’t represent the end of the country. If Newt’s plan to counter the liberal courts was put into place later, it could even mitigate the damage judges could do.

I highly doubt Free Republic will start zotting people for planning a long-term strategy to help the conservative movement succeed, of which letting Romney lose would be a necessary part of it. Romney is not a conservative and cannot and will not help our movement, he can only hurt it. He can only move the Republican party to the left, which is a recipe for failure, and which also gives the Democrats cover to move even further to the left, making them even more dangerous.

I think now that Sarah Palin has gotten over her surge in reality TV and celebrity fame, she has been boning up better on policy. She is sounding a lot better in interviews this year than she ever has before. I think a Romney loss, just like Ford’s loss, could pave the way for our new Reagan in 2016. Palin/Gingrich is a fantastic possibility. Playing defense on Obama for 4 years in order to lead up to that is a LOT more appealing than either getting 4 years of Romney followed by Obama coming back to unseat him with a radically liberal Congressional majority on his coattails, or 8 years of Romney with a new permanently center-left Republican party that TOTALLY marginalizes the conservative movement.

What the ABO crowd is asking us to do now will NEVER stop if Romney wins. Everyone must understand you are not asking us to make just one exception in November. You will ask the same thing if Romney runs for a second term and you will ask the same thing if the candidate after him is Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Scott Brown, Joe Lieberman, or whichever liberal candidate the party decides to nominate. If you are willing to abandon your principles now, you’ll never stop doing it. The difference between the ABO crowd and the anti-Romney crowd is that we are actually looking a little bit into the future and can see where things are going. If Romney is elected, you will eventually arrive at our point-of-view. We just don’t need to actually wait and see what happens when the end result is obvious if you just stop and think 2 steps ahead.

And, yes, you can argue that Newt, Palin and everyone else is saying they will support the nominee, whoever it is. From their perspective, it’s probably better they not damage their position in the party, so they still have a chance to retake the reins of power at some point. But, in the back of their minds, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re hoping for a Romney loss so that they can work to get the party back in track for 2016, a lot sooner than it could happen if Romney wins.


341 posted on 04/07/2012 10:12:47 PM PDT by JediJones (The Divided States of Obama's Declaration of Dependence: Death, Taxes and the Pursuit of Crappiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Vote for the Socialist Democrat agent Slick Willard ? I’d vote for Zero first, at least he isn’t pretending to be a Republican.

287 posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2011 11:53:55 PM by fieldmarshaldj (~”This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Amber Lamps !”~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

____________________________
You are from this post forward, on my “Anyone who allows Obama another four years is, whistling past the graveyard of our country” ignorant idiots to ignore list.

Still waiting for you to find ONE post where I ever said a kind word about Romney or said I would ever vote for oba ma under any circumstances.

Have fun doing what you do best, giving o bama a free pass and bashing Perry, Newt, Romney and the rest of the GOP candidates. Who’s next on your list? Palin when she endorses Romney if he does win? Allen West if he does? Will there be a single one left for you to like?

Happy Easter.

He is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Matthew 28:6


342 posted on 04/08/2012 8:29:47 AM PDT by mojitojoe (American by birth. Southern by the grace of God. Conservative by reason and logic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
"You are from this post forward, on my “Anyone who allows Obama another four years is, whistling past the graveyard of our country” ignorant idiots to ignore list."

Aww, you truly touch me, Mo. Of course, for somebody who keeps on whining about ignoring because they offend your Willardbot densibilities, you have this nasty habit of coming back for more whoop-ass. Happy Easter, sugarplum.

343 posted on 04/08/2012 2:51:07 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: phi11yguy19
I won’t vote Romney, but I WILL be active in primaries to hopefully make sure he’s not the candidate.

OK, looks like Romney's the guy...are you voting for him?

Looks like you’re going to do it again next year. Congrats at failing at life.

Taking a serious look at Goode. I guess considering a possible conservative is failing at life?

344 posted on 04/23/2012 4:02:21 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Oops, I guess he was banned. I waited all these months to ask him too. lol


345 posted on 04/23/2012 4:06:21 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
There you go with more of your yankee lies. You stated on a previous thread that you voted for some wacko running on an obscure third party ticket instead of McCain/PALIN in 2008 and I stated that that was a de facto vote for 0bama and I stand by that, you POS. I've also stated that a conservative third party splits the vote and ensures that 0bama is re-elected.

How about you? Voting for Romney?

346 posted on 04/23/2012 4:08:32 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
Notice how these two failed to comprehend a fairly simple question? And then assumed an (alternate) universe of motives? And they call others "illiterate"?! (you know what they say about folks who assume?! LOL

They got awfully offended at such a simple question. lol

347 posted on 04/23/2012 4:10:34 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

Yea, well pokie split the sheets with FreeRepublic too. I guess it just doesn’t pay to threaten other FReepers LOL.


348 posted on 04/23/2012 6:32:00 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Pokie? Is that cowboyway?


349 posted on 04/23/2012 6:40:39 PM PDT by Partisan Gunslinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Partisan Gunslinger

;-)


350 posted on 04/23/2012 7:00:44 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-353 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