Posted on 04/16/2012 10:47:55 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Here are their positions on some major issues important to conservatives based on their actual records in government or past boasts.
| Issue | Obama | Romney | Newt |
| Advocated that abortion s/b safe & legal in America | y | y | n |
| Defended Roe v Wade as settled law | y | y | n |
| Advocated for abortion for underage girls without parental approval with judge's ok | y | y | n |
| Supported planned parenthood | y | y | n |
| Introduced $50 taxpayer funded abortion | y | y | n |
| Supports homosexual agenda | y | y | n |
| Better for homosexuals than Ted Kennedy | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in Scouts | y | y | n |
| Ok with homosexuals in military | y | y | n |
| Supported and still supports global warming hoax | y | y | n |
| Supports gun control (so-called "assault weapons" ban) | y | y | n |
| Supports amnesty for illegal aliens (by any other name it's still amnesty) | y | y | n |
| Is undeniable father of RomneyCare | n | y | n |
| Is undeniable grandfather of ObamaCare | n | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is great! | y | y | n |
| Still boasts that RomneyCare is a "conservative solution" | n | y | n |
| Still believes RomneyCare is constitutional | y | y | n |
| Still believes individual mandate ok at state level | y | y | n |
| Believes state forcing individuals to buy health insurance is a conservative idea | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance with mandates and penalties s/b imposed on all states at state level | n | y | n |
| Believes compulsory health insurance at state level is constitutional (states rights) | ? | y | n |
| Believes the state has constitutional power to force you into a private contract against your will for no other reason than you live there | y | y | n |
| Supports government "stimulus" spending claims more is necessary | y | y | n |
| Believes personal income tax should be cut drastically (15% flat tax) | n | n | y |
| Believes corp income tax should be cut drastically (12.5% corp rate) | n | n | y |
| Believes capital expenditures should be 100% expensed in first year | n | n | y |
| Believes capital gains tax should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes estate tax (death tax) should be eliminated | n | n | y |
| Believes federal government must be drastically cut per constitutional limits | n | n | y |
| Believes unconstitutional federal functions like education should be returned to the states and people per tenth amendment | n | n | y |
| Believes social security/medicare s/b phased out/privatized/returned to states and people | n | n | y |
| Believes everyone at EPA should be fired and start over as an agency to look for solutions/not hinder industry | n | n | y |
| Believes the constitution restricts the government from infringing on inalienable rights | n | n | y |
| Appoints/supports/cowers to liberal activist judges | y | y | n |
| Will challenge activist judiciary | n | n | y |
| Believes in founding principles and has best conservative record to back it up | n | n | y |
Id, vote for Romney with bells on over RonPaul. And I won’t EVER vote for Romney. Why? It’s really this simple.
He’s insane. Not Evil, INSANE. That freaking idiot is OK with an Iranian bomb. That freaking idiot wants to turn his back on the one and only ally we have in the mideast - Israel. Do we ‘owe” Israel? No. We don’t ‘owe’ them squat. We are SUPPOSED to be their friend and ally. THAT is why we cannot tyrn our back on them like Obama has.
There are 1000 religious arguments as well, but we don’t even need to go there. It’s my ‘opinion’ that anyone voting Romney is making a terrible mistake. That can be argued pro/con. What cannot be argued by anyone with a brain is that standing back and letting Muslim terrorists have nuclear weapons is in the best interests of the United States.
Anyone voting for RonPaul is as insane as he is.
The fact that Dick Cheney and Paul Ryan have endorsed Mitt. That alone has convinced me to hold my nose and vote for him rather than keep Obama in office...
So that's it? You're choosing to support Romney solely because some well known politicians are doing so? Their endorsement constitutes proof of Romney's conservative bona fides in your mind?
Last question... Does that ring in your nose ever hurt?
I don’t believe RP ever said he was ok with Iran having nukes. What he does day is that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries to the extent that we do. One of the Founders made this same point. We have lost sight of what the framers intended.
I don’t believe RP ever said he was ok with Iran having nukes. What he does day is that we shouldn’t involve ourselves in other countries to the extent that we do. One of the Founders made this same point. We have lost sight of what the framers intended.
Day = say. Sorry for the double post. Still getting used to my mobile device.
Yea, and those same guys were telling McCain NOT to have Romney for his VP when he was considering just that, if you remember. Funny now all their reasons for Not having Romney as McCains's VP don't matter and he's THE MAN for them now!
Then you should read more about his positions/statements.
As for the FF, We are entangled. The time to avoid the problem wholly is long passed. So now we have to deal with the results of mistakes that have been made. We are an ally of Israel, IMO, for many good reasons that have nothing to do with military or religious matters. The medical tech ALONE we co-develop is staggering. And there are a thousand more.
Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. It is not in the interest of this country to elect that type of person. He can dance and delude his supporters but one has to be willfully blind to the fact. Is he a Hitler/NAZI, no. But that’s no reason to elect him.
Back to the FF. The fact is, as I said, we are entangled. So let’s make the best of the situation. End all foreign aid completely. Put Israel spending under the DOD (for strategic purposes and to stop the libs from playing games), reinstitute ‘aid’ where needed ONLY to countries we have a strategic interest in and who in turn, support us politically, economically, technologically etc.
No more Aftica/Mid east terror/hell hole spending outside the DOD buying munitions to drop on them.
No more Eruo weenie crap they use as funding to work against us.
And NO UN PERIOD.
This message is sponsored by “The campaign to elect Norm Lenhart”. He approves this message ;)
I didn’t know that. I didn’t read much about McCain (Ptui!) until he picked Palin.
You should send that title and painting to Newt’s team...
“He faced a “Superior” Foe With Nothing But Farmers And Backwoodsmen....He Was Told He Couldn’t Win.”
I want to see Newt win!!!.... I want to see Newt play his card!!!
Go Newt Go!!!!!!!!
You should send that title and painting to Newt’s team...
.....”He faced a “Superior” Foe With Nothing But Farmers And Backwoodsmen....He Was Told He Couldn’t Win.”
I want to see Newt win!!!.... I want to see Newt play his card!!!
Go Newt Go!!!!!!!!
Go for It if you’d like. Just tell them it’s from FR.
That is the incorrect premise here. Perot could have done it, had he not turned out to be a whack job. He was in the lead in June, starting from scratch in March. Imagine a conservative Perot, someone with money, strong beliefs, charisma and character. He rides in on a wave of disgust with both parties' candidates. Yes, that person could win, and the way has been shown. Boy did that scare the hell out of the parties, too.
In Reagan's day, there were still some states that didn't have primaries, none of them were open, New Hampshire was conservative, Iowa was conservative, the Northeast states were not marxist, they were split between moderate Republicans and Democrats. The press was liberal but not yet part of the Democrat party. In 1972, Edmund Muskie had to drop out of the Democrat race because he cried. He lost his manhood rights that day. Today, Boehner, the Republican cries if he drops a hot dog. In 1980, there was genuine fear of the Soviet Union with a Carter in the White House. Now, we are the Soviet Union, and the commies are all capitalists.
In 1980, the press didn't mind Reagan because they thought Carter would beat him so easily. He was just so stupid. They know better now, so they made sure to kill off Palin before she could ever be in that position. Same kind of connection to the people.
Reagan had a seasoned group of the nation's best advisors around him. Michael Deaver, the guy who fixed CIA, Jean Kirkpatrick, William Clark, Weinberger, Ed Meese, many others. His kitchen cabinet from California days, people who would raise money and provide advice.
It would be exceedingly difficult to duplicate the help that Reagan had, and impossible to recreate the conditions that allowed him to break through to the nomination against the establishment.
FYI, I worked for a Republican Senator in the early 1980s and I got my sister a job at the RNC, where she worked for about 5 years. I know how it ran back then, and I have watched how it changed since then. The elites learned their lesson, and have not given any conservative a chance since.
If you keep accepting this need to reform from within, our next nominee will be Jeb. Then after that, it will be some other loser. I can't call them RINOs, because it turns out, THEY are the Republicans, not us. Then Christie in '20. Followed by that half-Mexican Bush in 2024. By 2028, we may as well be Mexico.
I support your ‘campaign’ :). I agree we need to cut our aid to other countries if for no other reason than we are beyond broke ourselves. Ron Paul is a flawed individual but I see him as the only anti-establishment candidate that would really make the really big and tough fiscal changes this country needs. I know he is anti-Semitic but his policies wold be move favorable to Israel than Obama’s are right now, at least that’s how I see it from my armchair.
Yes, I do think that's just where this nation is at...and has been for some years now........................ Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and... 'turn away from them'.... For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites;... and by their 'smooth and flattering speech' they 'deceive' the hearts of the unsuspecting. ....(NAS, Romans 16:17-18)
How ever easy you say it would be to do a third party, it would much much easier within the party. And a lot quicker.
Whatever you say about Perot and Reagan applies within the party. And if you have a ‘new’ party, you still have to continue to do it there. It’s a never-ending fight.
It’s the same fight, the same thing, the same people, the same work, staff, money, goals, the same electorate, etc. etc. The only difference is you don’t have to do all the stuff you have to do with a new party.
If you can’t do it within the party, you can’t do it with a third party. And there’s no good reason to. It just makes no logical sense.
thanks again...
Thanks Albion Wilde.
I’ll definately give you that (better than O for Israel). I actually like a lot of his domestic stuff, all BS aside. But his Foreign policy just turns my stomach.
Last night I sat back for a couple hours and reevaluated this whole mess and I decided that I’m more PO’d off at the RNC/GOP than I am at Romney/Paul et all. They are who and what they are.
And of course I’m far from the first to say it, but the more I think about the fools that got us here, the pore pathetic the whole charade really is. Gust as a general comment for all, spend a couple hours ‘out of the box’ so to speak. Most of us remember the Reagan years well enough. Do a direct comparison to the ideas, concepts, beliefs of the day, to what we deal with now. Sure it wasn’t romantic wine and roses - there were indeed problems - but the ‘how far we have fallen’ aspect.
W talk about it all the time, but when you REALLY think about it, what it really means (note that the GOP platform is followed by who exactly in the GOP?) it’s enough to make you crazy.
Whatever you say about Perot and Reagan applies within the party.
Not true at all. Perot could never in a million years have gotten the Republican nomination. And yet, had he been a conservative who ran against Bush and the two-party system because of disgust with Washington and the tax deals and the spending, etc., he could have won handily. Instead, he fell into a kooky populism and may have been simply a stalking horse for Clinton the whole time. We'll never know, but when he got out, he claimed that the Democrats had been revitalized and he was no longer needed in the race. WTH? Anyone who believed that the Dems of Bill Clinton were anything other than Fabian socialists lying to the American people was too stupid to leave the house, and I don't think Perot was that stupid.
In any event, Perot could have won, but not within the Republican party. The One We Have Been Waiting For could likewise not get the GOPe to abandon Romney, but by taking his case directly to the American people, he/she could win the race anyway.
You are so smart, all you have to do is prove me wrong by getting a conservative nominated in 2016. Check back with me when you do that. Meantime, all I have to do is find a billionaire and a brilliant candidate. I'm still looking, too. One of us is bound to be right. Or maybe we can share a cell in the gulag and argue about it there.
I don’t agree Perot could have won. And, again, if he could have, he could have won in the GOP primary. It’s the same boxing match, if he couldn’t beat Bush there, he couldn’t beat him in the big arena.
I’ll give you another example from the past of how things change. Lloyd Bentsen (D) beat George Bush (R) in Texas on the slogan “He’s (Bush) is too liberal for Texas.”
I know many places in Texas where a generation ago it was all democrats in local office, Repubs were too liberal. Today, after intelligent dedicated work, those places are very conservative and GOP. They’ve built a strong conservative GOP.
Now, your third party comes along and says: “Join our new party, leave the GOP!”
They say: “Why should we?”
“Because, the GOP is too liberal.”
“No we ain’t.”
“Well, they are in other places.”
“Then tell them to get their sh*t together and do what we did.”
Why should they jump to a new party? Why shouldn’t you do what they did instead?
Thank you for your wonderful chart! It is an eye-opening source of information for those who cannot understand true conservative’s lack of support for Romney and who perhaps do not have a full grasp of Gingrich’s platform. Will be utilizing it extensively.
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.