Posted on 05/15/2012 4:56:08 PM PDT by xzins
http://www.c-span.org/mobile/video.aspx?id=10737430669&vid=3
Video of Virgil Goode Appearance on Washington Journal
"Where was I on the bailouts? I voted against them. McCain...voted for; Obama...voted for. Where was I? One of 65 who opposed..."
(Excerpt) Read more at c-span.org ...
“Goode is a former democRAT congressman.
If you like democRATS, Obama is your man.
Goode will only be in the ballot in a couple of states.”
Reagan was a former democrat. Was he not conservative in your view?
The enemy is socialism and socialists, regardless of the party they infest. So that means that Obama, Romney and the “progressive” jack asses in the GOP ARE the enemy.
I agreed to no truce with socialists or their supporters.
I’ve seen the “hate mittens/mormons” thing, and I agree that it isn’t true.
It is true, however, that those who declare early their support for someone, enable that someone to quit worrying about them. Especially if he thinks he has them over a barrel.
The Romney “got no choicers” are enabling Romney to move to the left....that’s why he was able to signal to the gay community that he’s in favor of BOTH “gay adoption” AND “gay couples”.
He’s safe with them because they’ve already told him that they “got no choice”.
I cant F’ing stand Obama or romney for the same reason.
THEY ARE BOTH SOCIALISTS...
“He’s safe with them because they’ve already told him that they “got no choice”.”
Basically conservatives are the Republican Party what blacks are to the Democrat Party.
Thought folks might want to see this: Virgil Goode’s voting record. I'll let you draw your own conclusion on it.
I would rather have paul for the reasosn you mentioned, even though paul is a moonbat, he would at least somewhat respect the constitution more than Romney and definately more than Obama.....
That being said a vote for paul is a vote for stuipid.
But, they aren’t holding his feet to the fire. When he came out supporting gay adoption, their first words were about (1) if you injure Romney then you’re electing obama. or (2) it’s about the economy stupid, quit diverting the discussion.
Exactly right. And the reason they aren't holding Romney's feet to the fire is because they CAN'T. Not only because of the "got no option" argument, but also because of the fact that, because of the way the primaries played out and the way conservatives stupidly split up among 7 different other candidates, each condemning all the others as abject RINOs for disagreeing on two or three points, conservatives now have no sway on the GOP nominee.
Let's face it - Romney has ZERO reason to listen to a blithering thing that the conservative base may say or want. He's proven that he can win without the conservative base because of a combination of open primaries and the base's own stupidity/truculance/disorganization. All these people who think that they're going to "keep Romney honest" during a hypothetical Romney administration are fooling themselves. Romney can nominate all the liberal judges he wants, veto all the conservative legislation he wants, push for all the new spending programs he wants - and there's not a blessed thing conservatives can or will do about it because in 2016, we'll just have to vote "for the lesser of two evils" all over again against whoever the Dems nominate.
It's a game - and most conservatives don't have the courage to stop playing it.
All of what you say is right on the money, and I support it.
Nonetheless, the “got no choicers” should at least try to live up to their promise.
They should try to sidestep, obfuscate, ignore, special plead, demonize, whatever, when Romney says or does something from his natural left side.
They should be jumping on his with both feet.
Instead, they are bending over.
“Cino Milquetoast at your service.” should be their byline.
All of what you say is right on the money, and I support it.
Nonetheless, the “got no choicers” should at least try to live up to their promise.
They should try to sidestep, obfuscate, ignore, special plead, demonize, whatever, when Romney says or does something from his natural left side.
They should be jumping on him with both feet.
Instead, they are bending over.
“Cino Milquetoast at your service.” should be their byline.
I choose to remain “uninformed” and will not watch the video.
However, these “got no choicers” also say that they are the conservative base, that they’ll raise holy hell when romney gets out of line, etc, etc.
But, they aren't’t holding his feet to the fire. When he came out supporting gay adoption, their first words were about (1) if you injure Romney then you’re electing obama. or (2) it’s about the economy stupid, quit diverting the discussion.
As you can see, CSM, either answer gives Romney a pass and allows him to move one more step to the left. And this from people who swore they’d hold his feet to the fire.
Bah humbug. The only thing they’ve held to the fire so far is a marshmallow.
They are quickly becoming leftist enablers. In fact, the simple acknowledgement that you have no choice enables Romney to move to the left
You see this problem in the objects folks post to threads critical of Romney. Many of the ‘no choicers’ ask, “why are you bringing this up it can only hurt Romney and in affect supports Obama.?” - Putting aside that statement for now, I ask “How can we hold Romney's feet to the fire if we can't criticize his moderate views?”
Personally, I see no way to reconcile the two. I agree with those saying that being critical hurts Romney, however if we all just fall in line and pull for ‘our’ boy we lose the ability to back up any attempts to hold him to the fire.
To those that say “we need to be behind him now, but hold him to the fire after the election.” I'm afraid this may thinking may be indulging in a false hope. The need to provide a unified party does not stop at the inauguration. Indeed to the media the reelection is just beginning. And so the same argument's used during the campaign will apply during Romney's first term. I can find no historic example of a moderate president having his feet held to the fire. Traditionally the president sets the agenda, Bush gives an illustrative example. He was more conservative than Romney,yet the Republican in the congress and the senate still were unable to hold him to Conservatives and many issues.
I have given up on the election as being between Socialist R and Socalist D. You are free to disagree, but that's not the point. I do not expect Virgil Goode to win, however, I see no other way to send a message to the Republican party. Given that supporting Romney, but holding his feet to the fire is impractical, I won't try. Instead I'll support a man who more closely fits my principals and hope the Republicans take notice that they are losing the base they continually abuse. In the end my hope is that either the Republicans learn to stick to their principals, or find themselves supplanted as conservative support fades. If the current path of more and more moderate Rebulicans continues our nation is doomed. The time has come to make a change.
who are you? why are you here?
Only cheaper. We don't have to be bribed with endless social programs etc.
Great Post, IC!
Let me add, though, that when we support Goode we cause the “no choicers” to react and at least continue to claim they are conservatives instead of CINOs.
That might cause them to try harder to “look like” a conservative, and that might cause Romney’s research team to tell him that the “winds” say he should believe “this or that” more conservative view because that’s what the polls are saying about their own people.
And that might cause the GOP-e platform to be a little less liberal.
What kind of "GAURANTEE" are you giving? I'd love some of that action.
Agreed. Further, even if we do get a great, slam-bang, uber-conservative Congress, it still isn't going to do much good with Romney in office, because the newbies will just fall into line and "go Washington" in a short period of time, since "nobody wants to embarrass our own Part's President!!!"
Unless we get a GOP Congress that IS willing to embarrass a President Romney, it will be just as all over for the country as if Obama had won re-election. A GOP Congress must be willing to assert itself and override Romney's vetos, refuse to advance his legislation, and vote down or filibuster his judges, unless what he is proposing is somehow miraculously inline with conservative, constitutionalist principles.
Yeah, I don't hold high hopes for that happening, either, especially after seeing how a GOP Congress worked hand-in-glove with Dubya to increase the size and scope of government to its greatest extent (at that time) ever.
They don't call them the Resluglicans for nothing, y'know.
LOL!
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.