We'll have none of this negativity!
Posted on 03/06/2012 6:00:39 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
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.
I don’t think you did that. I believe that Clinton would have defeated GHWB face to face without “their ross.” Bob Dole acted like a defeated candidate the moment he was nominated: even dissed his own party platform. Then Jack French Kemp committed debate hari kari.
Conservatives screwed themselves from the start. Romney, with advice from GHWB and Dole, knew that the path to the nomination could easily be obtained by hopeless splits in conservative ranks. Republicans in states like PA, OH, IN, IL, and MI for years have been nominating “moderate” House candidates because of such splits among multiple conservative contenders, and of course only some eight southern states have runoffs to prevent minority nominations.
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.
We'll have none of this negativity!
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.
EXACTLY! That the GOP-e has had to carefully orchestrate the GOP Primary process and are having to work so hard ($$$$$$$) to drag Mitt up to the White House (he can't break 33% most days despite all the help from the MSM, Fox News and Drudge) SHOWS us conservatives are the majority. WE WILL prevail.
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.
Americans must get up off their butts and care enough to vote.
That 80-90% of eligible voters don’t show up every time they have the opportunity to have a say is appalling.
Newt gets their attention and he took a lot of Romney incoming. He’s still standing and the voters can get out there and vote for liberty or sit home and lose it.
Yes!
Newt will hold them accountable. He connects with the people. Capital Hill can't bs the public with Newt on the Bully Pulpit.
Bump!
Translation: anti-Romney = Bitter Clinger
Sorry. Gingrich consistently looks, acts and speaks the most presidential of any candidate I've seen in years.
That is what Reagan did.
You need a conservative, you need a leader, you need a connector to the grass roots.
You need answers and the ability to explain the source of problems and their corrective measures.
Newt has all of this.
Remember Reagan saying the government can’t fix the problem because the government IS the problem.
This next one is even more on point, if possible, than that one:
The most feared words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
Two comments about that...
Again, what some people BELIEVE about Mitt, ain’t necessarily so.
And, in the minds of many, appearing “presidential” equates to the best looking candidate.
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.