Posted on 04/14/2012 4:35:57 PM PDT by CutePuppy
I will not vote for Romney if he is the nominee. However, I will definitely vote for and support Newt if, albeit unlikely at this point, he is the nominee.
On the side, it would have been nice to have had a thread several weeks back titled “To Rick Santorum haters”. Would have been more appropriate.
I’m left trying to figure out why Sarah doesn’t realise that Milt Rominy was the author of the hate Palin campaign. I eamn, if she were to realise that and throw her support and maybe her veep hat in Newt’s ring, we might see a different outcome from what the GOP=e is planning for us!
OK Einstein, who ya gonna vote for in November? And please, don't use that lame statement "anybody but....."
So lets hear it dude!
“I am not so desperate that I will pretend that someone who everyone despised a couple years ago around here is now a staunch Constitutional conservative.”
Couple years ago? 1 year ago he was a rino to many of his current supporters. Truth be told, I hated Santorum for his Toomey back-stab but, like the Newt supporters, got behind the only option left to Romney.
Yes, we are the entire Puppy family...
I am currently tending to the YoungestPuppy and one of the OlderPuppy family members. Some of the friendly neighboring kittens come to visit from time to time and their helping paws are much appreciated.
This is really "don't waste your breath" time. The Santorum dead-enders are beyond redemption, only striking out in hatred with spinal cord-level knee jerk reflexes.
A year from now they will still be foaming at the mouth about his years-ago PSA with Nancy Pelosi.
Unfortunately, very true. Judging by some posts, they either didn't bother to read the post (let alone links / references) or it went right over their heads...
... Or, what's even worse, they are just so comfortable with "what they 'know' they know" that they are unwilling to open their eyes or their minds to anything that might prove uncomfortably different - it might turn out that they were wrong in their opinions or conclusions based on having the wrong information... and they would rather not have to deal with that.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know that just ain't so" - Mark Twain
"Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance" - George Bernard Shaw
That is about where I am at. I was never nuts for Santorum, but he at least is a good person and trustworthy.
I was a Bachmann fan first. She is a real conservative.
Oh well.
So are you voting for Mitt?
This and the "Who are working for?" and "How much are you getting paid by XYZ to post this? " type of questions are designed to obfuscate, ignore and avoid the substance and/or change the subject / reference from the substance or opinion on the issue to the poster, i.e., it goes into the same category of irrelevant arguments as:
As far as the old and tired meme of "excuses" and "whining" by Gingrich goes, if you ask for and are given an explanation of certain facts, you can always label anything you don't like an "excuse" or "whine" to ignore and avoid dealing with the substance of an explanation. That, in itself, is a poor, childish excuse for attempting to "win" the argument the substance of which you are unable to refute but unwilling to accept.
I didn't hear a "no".
You could learn a little about not judging people, forgiveness, and talking to others with respect.
Newt Gingrich’s political life is tragic, because he is very smart and he has a deep understanding of history and of how our government is supposed to function. He should have been an excellent candidate.
Unfortunately, cast in the best light, as a person who was a repeated victim of wicked ex-wives, Newt and his supporters shows him to be unsuitable.
Being sorry and truly repentant for whatever one has done in the past does not fix the flaws that made those past acts possible in the first place.
It is absolutely our place to look at someone’s record as an indicator of future performance. We’re supposed to use history to guide us, just as Newt himself has argued. History is a useful tool.
If nothing was ever his fault because he was too easily swayed by these evil, terrible women, then he lacks the necessary discernment to be president.
Newt’s supporters, saying everything in his history is “not his fault”, and painting him as an innocent, naive victim make the best argument for not voting for him.
Jesus H christ. If that doesn't say it all. No wonder we have a "conservative" website with jackboot political officers watching every word we write.
Jesus H christ. If that doesn't say it all. No wonder we have a "conservative" website with jackboot political officers watching every word we write.
Newt Gingrich has the best conservative record of any candidate running. “In the 1994 campaign season, in an effort to offer an alternative to Democratic policies and to unite distant wings of the Republican Party, Gingrich and several other Republicans came up with a Contract with America, which laid out ten policies that Republicans promised to bring to a vote on the House floor during the first hundred days of the new Congress, if they won the election.[41] The contract was signed by Gingrich and other Republican candidates for the House of Representatives. The contract ranged from issues such as welfare reform, term limits, tougher crime laws, and a balanced budget law, to more specialized legislation such as restrictions on American military participation in United Nations missions.
In the November 1994 elections, Republicans gained 54 seats and took control of the House for the first time since 1954. Long-time House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois had not run for re-election, giving Gingrich, the highest-ranking Republican returning to Congress, the inside track at becoming speaker. The midterm election that turned congressional power over to Republicans “changed the center of gravity” in the nation’s capital.[42] Time magazine named Gingrich its 1995 “Man of the Year” for his role in the election.[4]
Speaker of the House
Gingrich’s official portrait as Speaker
Main article: Contract with America
The House fulfilled Gingrich’s Contract promise to bring all ten of the Contract’s issues to a vote within the first 100 days of the session, even though most legislation was initially held up in the Senate. Over the objection of liberal/progressive interest groups[43] and President Clinton, who called it the “Contract on America”.[44]
Legislation proposed by the 104th United States Congress included term limits for Congressional Representatives, tax cuts, welfare reform, and a balanced budget amendment, as well as independent auditing of the finances of the House of Representatives and elimination of non-essential services such as the House barbershop and shoe-shine concessions. Following Gingrich’s first two years as House Speaker, the Republican majority was re-elected in the 1996 election, the first time Republicans had done so in 68 years, and the first time simultaneously with a Democratic president winning re-election
How do you know she doesn't? Maybe, unlike many demented freepers lately, she knows how to let it go and move on.
“PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THE GOP E AND THE EVANGELICALS CAN FORGIVE MITT ROMNEY FOR BEING PRO-CHOICE SUPPORTING BABY KILLERS BUT CAN’T FORGIVE NEWT HIS DIVORCES?”
Don’t include this evangelical in that query. Nor the ones I know.
yes....your choice would be....?
In November we will be given a choice, Obama or Romney....I'm not excited about either but our choices are pretty much etched in stone.....I think I'll go with Romney
Much goes right over the heads of a number of the folks who chimed in on this one....so so so much.
It needed to be said. Thank you.
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.