Skip to comments.Are you an ABO like me PO'd at JR for getting called a RINO? Truce declared! Please DONATE!
Posted on 05/06/2012 8:09:35 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
Attention "Anyone But Obama" (ABO) FReepers! If you go to the thread at the link you will will see that JimRob has "declared a truce" and hundreds of ABO FReepers are now vigorously defending their belief, which I share, that the ineligible Marxist Manchurian MUST BE DEFEATED to preserve the Republic...without fear of "the ZOT"! Please consider a DONATION not just to fund renewal of expression and amplification of your ABO views, but let's over-achieve this FReepathon to get JR his new equipment!
IMO, Free Republic and FReepers could be vital in swing states in rallying just enough conservatives to tip the election and prevent our troops from having to salute for even one day longer than necessary an ineligible Marxist committed to destroying the USA !
Thank you very much, My hearts in London - Everett!!
Thank you very much, cherry!! Much appreciated!!
Thank you very much, republicangel!!
Thank you to ohioWfan, wagglebee, Graewoulf, Godzilla, and Seizethecarp for your comments. I'm responding to each below, in a lot of cases overlapping.
First, for Godzilla and Seizethecarp — yes, I did read the thread from beginning to end. In fact, I read every single one of the 1100-plus posts on this thread last night, waited overnight to calm down before sending my note this morning, and have now read the additional posts this morning. I realize the thread topic has been changed significantly.
Seizethecarp, I am very sorry to hear of your medical issues. I'm not going to pry; it's none of my business. What counts is that if this thread had stayed on topic I would not have responded.
I do not have a problem with “Anybody but Romney” people — they include the vast majority of my Republican friends in my county who supported Rick Santorum. On the contrary, I do have a major concern about a resurgence of the attacks on social conservatives that we saw earlier in the primary. I've got zero problems with someone thinking Santorum wasn't the best candidate for president — I had my own reservations, became a Santorum supporter very late in the process, basically after Iowa, and then kept my word to back Gingrich if Santorum dropped out. I could have been happy with Gingrich as the nominee and defended him repeatedly in public and in private. The problem is that too many comments against Santorum weren't so much attacks on Santorum but rather attacks on the social conservative wing of the Republican Party and/or the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.
That is a much bigger issue to me.
However, let's say I wasn't firmly committed to being a politically active evangelical. Let's say my goal was pure pragmatism, namely, assembling enough of a coalition to win 50 percent of the vote for the Republican nominee by any means possible.
The Democratic Party has to be rejoicing watching social conservatives, economic conservatives and national defense conservatives fight each other when we have far more in common with each other than any of us have with Barack Obama. Mitt Romney used divisions in the conservative wing of the Republican Party to get nominated, and unfortunately, he's given Obama proof that a divide-and-conquer strategy can work against Republican conservatives because many of us care deeply about principles and we now have a nominee who, to put it mildly, has not been known for standing on principles.
On a related point, thanks to Wagglebee for his comments about Roman Catholics rejecting both John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani, and Catholic FReepers going after Giuliani during the last presidential election cycle. Mormons need to do some serious housecleaning when this election is over; 2012 could do a great deal of damage to their well-honed efforts over the years to present themselves to the public as a religion of discipline and family values. Of course as an evangelical I'm not unhappy with people seeing the dark side of the LDS, but I would think a faithful LDS member would be very upset by the prospect of Romney repeating the Catholic Kennedy experience.
Also to Graewoulf: I appreciate your post as well. You make some important comments I need to analyze and I'm too exhausted to do it now beyond what I'm writing below regarding Romney and the dangers of a focus primarily on economic conservative views in the election.
Just as focusing primarily on social issues can antagonize some swing voters, focusing primarily on economic issues can antagonize some swing voters as well. But your post raises issues I need to look at more closely and I'm just responding to you and to ohioWfan in broad brushstrokes.
For OhioWFan... there are dynamics to the 2008 and 2012 elections that are significantly different from modern electoral history. Some of the old rules about turnout and about campaign financing no longer apply, and I do not count Romney out entirely.
I don't think it's impossible for Romney to win, but I do believe he has many factors stacked against him that would not have been the case with most of the other major Republican candidates, and on the other hand, his major advantage in money won't be as much of a factor in the general election.
(In fairness to Romney, however, he does have access to major funding sources that might have been hard for Santorum or Gingrich to get. Being part of the elite East Coast establishment has undeniable advantages. Rather than being a David and Goliath fight between an underfunded Republican candidate relying on lots of small donors and a well-funded Democratic candidate, the 2012 presidential campaign will be a very wealthy Republican and his friends versus a Democrat from a poor background who has very wealthy friends.)
Here are some details on why I'm seriously concerned that we are facing a disaster this November.
First, the Democrats believe demographics are on their side long-term, and they've got a good case if something isn't done within a generation to get Hispanics to vote Republican. Certain key large states are today reliably Republican, but as their Hispanic population grows, Republicans will be forced to divert resources to keeping those states in the Republican column by getting lots of white rural Southern conservatives to the polls. Even now, in a close election such as what we face this year, that means Republicans will be on the defensive keeping red states from turning purple when we need to be on the offensive turning purple states into red states and making Democrats spend their money keeping blue states in their column. That could become a cascade of problems leading to a disastrous electoral blowout.
Both Santorum and Gingrich could have made a credible appeal to Mass-going Roman Catholic Hispanics that will be very hard for Romney to make, especially because of the Massachusetts health care history. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see Romney having any sort of solid history of demonstrated appeal to Roman Catholics.
Secondly, and more seriously in the short-term, during the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats said — in my opinion, correctly — that if they could get the same electorate to the polls that voted in 2008, they would win by a large margin. Instead, they lost due to a number of different factors, one of the most important being the energy of the Tea Party movement.
We simply cannot ignore the fact that Obama energizes his own base voters and our base will not be energized in 2012 — or at least won't be to the extent they were in 2008.
Key components of the Republican base — evangelical Christians, rural white voters, blue collar “Reagan Democrats,” and others — either have a long history of low voter turnout or are willing to vote for Democrats under the right circumstances. On the other side of the spectrum, Republicans are kidding ourselves if we don't understand the appeal that Obama has to black Democratic voters. I don't blame Obama for that; it's the same sort of appeal that Kennedy had to Roman Catholics in 1960. That wasn't a factor in 2010, but it will be in 2012 with Obama at the top of the ticket.
The other side of the aisle is going to paint Romney as a spoiled rich son of a career corporate executive who became a company president, and then to make things even worse, became a robber baron corporate raider destroying companies rather than repairing them.
What is our response going to be? “Yes, Romney really does like to fire people, and lots of Washington bureaucrats need to be fired?”
There are a lot of reasons for Republicans to vote against Obama, but as far as I can tell, the only actual positive thing Romney brings to the table other than being “anyone but Obama” is Romney's expertise in the corporate world. If we focus on that, I believe we risk losing by massive margins in key industrial states that we must have to win the general election. I'm all for capitalism, but “Vote for Romney's Corporate Raiders” is not a winning campaign slogan in the industrial heartland states.
I hope I'm wrong. I really wish I could see a good path to a Republican victory this fall, because I fully understand how much damage Barack Obama can do.
I just don't see it.
The truth is I know everything I need to know, and they are not threatening anyone's way of life
You dismiss someone's first hand account on Mormonism then claim Mormonism doesn't threaten anyone's way of life?
Warren Jeffs and Josh Powell never threaten anyone's way of life either... According to your way of thinking.
Tom H. is Tom Hoefling, which is me.
Thank you for your post, it makes clear you know nothing about momronism.
That post says it all folks! Fabulous post!
Takes the edges off the question of what “truce” is... and it does not null and void the owners PRO-Stance on the issues of what this site is about.
Thank you for stating this so well....I agree!
Do you have any hope of securing a national party ticket, implementing a campaign that can compete against Obama and Romney, and, more importantly, beat them?
Another Great Post!
BTW I ran the numbers before, to determine how many hours in my hourly work week are working to pay for government and those who do not work...for my right to work...etc.
So every Monday I know how far thru the week I must go... week...before the money I make is going into my pocket.
Of course that doesn’t include the consumer tax’s which also take another chunk...so you estimate that figure as well.
It really does make a difference when you realize how much of your work week is for “others”...
Good post....and food for thought!
I’m already the nominee of a national party. And yes.
My name is being placed on general election ballots in the several states right now.
I’m a twelve year FReeper, and stand for everything Jim Robinson says this site stands for on the homepage, and that most FReepers say they want. And I have a political track record to prove that this is not just empty campaign rhetoric.
And a n00b. But at least you've started writing like an adult.
Please stop it!
Can you not read? I CLEARLY said: Ya know "ABO" = just a euphemism for Romney voters & Romney supporters & Rombots.
I clearly "ramped up" Romney's level of support as I described those 3 groups...If I would have ONLY meant Rombots, I wouldn't have broken it down into 3 groups: Romney voters & Romney supporters & Rombots... Doncha know those ampersands are there as marks of distinction?
A lot of your so-called "ABO" are (potential) Romney "voters"...
There's another group (or two) of FREEPERs here who go beyond that...they subtlely use FR to campaign for Romney...those are the "supporters & Rombots." (The supporters tend to be more subtle)
They go beyond personally voting for Romney & become his public advocates. As Jim as said, citizen-voters like that can do what they want...they just don't "have to" (or "get to") use FR as one venue of that.
I just lost all bodily functions.
I think that's the intention...perhaps a “perk” for how they are destroying our right to vote for whom we will.
It's mind-boggling how some can push for an ABO vote when like it or not there has been conservatives all along in these weeks to opt for....but instead they hurriedly jumped on the media band wagon...and Romneys claim to fame...without looking where they were going.
What would they say for those voting for Ron Paul now, because some are convinced a fruitcake conservative is better than the Socialist agendas being pushed by Romney and Obama?
It's fast becoming clear many here are truly Romney supporters far more than ABO voters.
It does however certainly reflect a divided country...and how deeply Commi, Socialists, and all the others have infiltrated.....not to mention a President with outside influences helping the destruction of this economy.
I believe the same is happening on Jim's site...and the same tactics being used...there is an effort to destroy this site.
My gosh some even sought how they could get Drudge to take FR off his links..
Post #1233, in case you ever wonder where people are going, or why people who haven’t been here for 10 years don’t donate.
Hope this guy is really good at whatever he does for you, because as a poster child for this website, he kinda sucks.
Yes, Santorum or Gingrich would have energized the base far more than Romney does, but I remain convinced that the conservative base loves this country so much that they/we will do everything possible to defeat Obama in November, lack of exhuberance notwithstanding.
On the other side of the spectrum, Obama's demographic base - the young, blacks, Hispanics, single women - have been hit hardest (actually the truth this time! :) by the Obamaconomy's failure. In 2008, blacks came out in droves, as did the 18-25 demographic to vote for an idea, a hologram, an American Idol, and many of them now realize he doesn't exist. He's a failure. Those groups may still vote for him, but it was the sheer number of voters in those categories that put him over the top.
The Hispanic factor could be mitigated by the choice of Rubio, but Hispanics, as all other population groups, are suffering in this lousy economy. I can't verify it, but I've heard (maybe from Rush?) that even illegals are going back home to Mexico because the US economy stinks so bad.
As for Romney's wealth - one thing that he doesn't seem to be afraid to do is fight back, and bringing up the fact that Obama and his family have been living high on the hog at the taxpayer's expense while they are suffering can be exploited by the campaign. The 80+ rounds of golf won't help Obama either....
The Romney campaign can continue to point out that he EARNED his wealth, and that Obama got his by being a grifter.
I tend to be a hopeless optimist, however, and sometimes that doesn't pan out, but in this case, I think my optimism is well grounded.
I believe we need to shake off the disappointment that Romney won the nomination, and do what we can to do whatever is humanly possible to get this vile Marxist punk out of the White House.
That.......and PRAY for God's mercy on America. HIS will be done.
Virgil is a former VA rep...Constitution Party
Tom H. = Tom Hoefling, a FREEPER [Eternal Vigilance] Tom Hoefling for President
What are their chances of winning?
#1 You know, "chances" is a horseracing term...where they pay not only the winners, but to place as a runner-up (& if 8 or more horses, to "show" as well)...Unfortunately, for POTUS, there is no partial salvation in finishing as "runner-up." The 2nd-place finisher's vote counted for no more than the 3rd or 4th-place finisher.
While the race is certainly "wide open" now...(For example, Seek and Find posted this thread this a.m.: Rasmussen: Three-Way Race: Romney 44%, Obama 39%, Ron Paul 13%)...
...a Ron Paul third-party entry...
...coupled with more voters abandoning the GoP for other waters (Goode/Hoefling)
...coupled with the MSM expose' of Romney & Mormonism for 6 months straight...
...= a "formula" where I believe Romney will be WAY down in the polls come late October [unless the economy tanks even more significantly!]
Therefore, the Q isn't "What is a third party chance of winning?" as of May, 2012...
...Rather, it's "What are Romney's chances of winning?" as of late October/early Nov???
If his chances THEN are slim, all the more reason to vote third-party even for among the Romney voters and Romney supporters (converts).
#2 If you total ALL the FREEPER votes in states like NY, NJ, CA, OR, WA, IL, & other liberal states, even if 100% of FREEPERS voted for Romney in those states, Romney wouldn't win...
Think about that FREEPERS...Don't vote for Romney if you're NOT in a swing state!
We should start a movement that sweeps the nation whereby we advocate that as many as possible GoP voters in liberal states abandon Romney! [To send a message to the GoP-e]
Also, if FREEPERS exist in states in which Romney will win easily, their vote is unnecessary as well. (It won't make a difference)
Is it really a revelation to you that, as of now, ABO = Romney? Thats pretty sad.
Well, thank you for reinforcing my point. I clearly told Seize the Carp that "ABO" is a euphemism for Romney voters AND Romney supporters AND Rombots...and he didn't seem to agree that Romney voters and Romney supporters and Rombots would all (as 3 separate groups) seek to find FR "safe haven" under the umbrella of "ABO." [Note his response: Your ad hominem attack on my choice of words and your insinuation that I am a Romney supporter or Rombot..."]
So there ya go, FSE...there's at least a partial denial even NOW from STC that it's a euphemism for (some of?) those 3 groups!