Skip to comments.Rick Perry Endorses Mitt Romney
Posted on 04/25/2012 6:01:44 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Texas Gov. Rick Perry originally endorsed Newt Gingrich as the top candidate after dropping out of the Republican presidential race.
But with Gingrich set to quit the campaign trail, Perry on Wednesday evening gave his support to the probable nominee, Mitt Romney.
"Mitt Romney has earned the Republican presidential nomination through hard work, a strong organization, and [a] disciplined message of restoring America after nearly four years of failed job-killing policies from President [Barack] Obama and his administration," Perry said in a statement provided to FOX News Channel.
"So today I join the many conservative Republicans across the nation in endorsing Mitt Romney for president and pledge to him, my constituents and the Republican Party that I will continue to work hard to help defeat President Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfoxla.com ...
The goal of political party in our 2 party system is to win. That is the cold, hard truth. It will always be more about winning than advancing any particular cause. There will ALWAYS be an establishment steering the party, and it's goal will ALWAYS be to win at almost all costs. No matter which way the culture moves - left or right, political party's will tend to follow. They will tend to hug the center to get 50% + 1 voters and win. Far more things influence society than just politicians. Unfortunately, some of the biggest influences on our culture right now are coming from the left - entertainment, education, etc.
Our mission within the political party that at least pretends to be conservative, the GOP, is push it to the right and try to nominate the most conservative candidate that can actually win - hopefully one with an actual vision that includes moving the country politically in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are many people under the umbrella of the same party that do not want to push the party to the right. We have to compete with them. Unified in the primaries, conservatives do have an advantage over "moderates" and should win much/most of the time. Unfortunately, we are rarely unified - and weren't yet again this year.
Silly behavior is the question you asked in the context it was asked. And you asked it of someone else.
So let me ask you; are you going to sit the presidential election out, or write someone in? While these two options might make you feel better, they will accomplish nothing.
“They did not choose a benevolent monarchy”
According to Jefferson and Madison, Adams and Hamilton were all for a benevolent monarchy. Some anti-Federalists, pre-ratification, argued the office of President was an elected monarch.
It means: Waah Waah, my guy isnt winning so there must be some conspiracy, because otherwise I would have to accept that my view is not that popular and I am not the base.
I absolutely refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and will not. Primarily because with Romney as the head of the GOP ticket, we will likely end up with the evil of the two evils. I'd rather work for, vote for, and support those candidates that support my values, my beliefs, and our freedoms who are running for US Congress and US Senate, and state offices.
Reminds me of hockey fans, I’m one by the way, who cannot understand why sports call in shows rarely talk about the sport. They do not understand that because they like hockey, nobody else does. It takes real self confidence to understand that your own likes and dislikes may not be the same as everybody else’s, and be cool about it.
We are, indeed, sliding into socialism. and I’ve often thought that the only way now to halt it is CWII, or a second American Revolution, the violent kind, because there are no consequences for the corrupt on either side of the political fence. Until the traitors and the corrupt are held responsible we will get no meaningful change in our government. Romney is the last one standing and I know, too, that his record is no good,but, again, he isn’t the muslim communist that Zero is
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
*was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
*contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
*believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
*felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").
How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?
They did not choose what they had just fought to defeat. And at a very dear cost.
Romney vs Obama = socialist vs socialist.
Well there ya go.
The base? You think there's a groundswell for Romney?
I voted yesterday. At 5 pm I was voter 46. Last night there were other posters telling the same tale. Voter turnout was very low. There is no enthusiasm.
We have a second party. It’s called the Democrats and I invite you to come to Chicago, Cook County, IL and see what they’ve done. Of course you’re from California and it’s a paradise.
If we have a third party it should be a green party that gets on every Congressional ballot along with the Presidential ballot. That way we can hold majorities for decades which is what we need to get America back.
Their records are the same. The rest is just window dressing.
We needed another revolution long before this. The problem is that government schools have so dumbed down people that they can't reason and don't see what's happening.
Pro-Life - Romney will have no effect one way or the other, just like Reagan, and both Bushes. Like the other three before, he will talk a good game, but no bill on the issue will ever bear his signature. The true hero of the Pro-life movement was not any activists or politician, but the sonogram. The sonogram is what has changed a majority pro-choice nation to pro-life.
Gay marriage - we are doomed there. The good news is it will be widespread when most of us are dead. Talk to the under-30 crowd, its popular. The indoctrination worked, they are just waiting for us older folk to take our dirt naps. No one was going to stop this one, and I hate it, but its reality.
Nationalized health care- I take him at his word, he will repeal it. But we got to help by winning the Senate also.
2nd Amendment - We won this one on a Federal level. game over, pour the champagne. Obama is scared s***less on this one. He even signed a bill to let people carry heaters in national parks and on trains. The battleground is in the few anti-gun states. Including mine, dammit. If Obama will not touch this with a ten foot pole, then Romney's pole will be 30 feet long. Nothing to worry about.
He is different than Obama, Romney isn't.
Up to you, but the very fact that we are constituency within a political party means we don't and won't have to compromise on EVERY issue of importance. Willard is not a conservative and a poor nominee in my opinion, but people are exaggerating to the extreme when they claim he'd govern like Obama. He simply can't. Romney couldn't be the same liberal as President as he was in Massachusetts even if he wanted to be. He answers to a different constituency now - nationally, a much more conservative constituency.
I absolutely refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils and will not. Primarily because with Romney as the head of the GOP ticket, we will likely end up with the evil of the two evils.
I don't really care what you do. You may feel it necessary to sit out this cycle, just like some felt the same about McCain. In the end it makes very little difference. In a 2 party system the vast majority of the voters are going turn out for one of the 2 party's. If our nominee were an actual conservative, you'd have some of the mushy moderate types insisting they will sit out or vote 3rd party. We get this every election cycle and it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. You can stamp your feet, howl at the moon, send angry letters the RNC, it really won't matter. If conservatives stay active and UNIFIED, we can make a difference and perhaps nominate a good candidate next time around. If we are divided, even the proportionally higher conservative turnout in primaries is diluted between multiple candidates which allows the establishment's choice a nice clean path to the nomination. I mean, this just happened 2 election cycles in a row. It should be obvious to all conservatives that it is really important to UNIFY and find a consensus conservative candidate in the primaries early on - but I doubt we will succeed again in 2016 or 2020.
Also screaming and wailing about the system doesn't really help. If you angrily announce to the GOP that you won't vote for their nominee, then you become essentially useless to them and they simply pay less attention to you than before. They know most will come crawling back anyway, because in our system there simply isn't anywhere else to go if you really want to at least make some difference.
I'm in So. CA and you're telling me what they've done to Illinois?
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.