Skip to comments.Voting for Romney (D-Mass.): The Worst Mistake a Conservative Could Make
Posted on 05/16/2012 2:51:31 PM PDT by xzins
and control both the House and Senate (60 votes),
I wouldnt count on those 60 votes...
No matter who wins the WH ...
if the GOP take back the Senate several of the R senators are RINOs who wont be leaving for another 2, 4 years...
They wont be holding anyones feet to any fire either...
And one last thing...I believe Obama is pure evil...one of the most vile creatures to have ever walked the earth...and will do anything to retain power. WE can’t help him...
That’s why my position is what it is...I wish you and Jim would join me...even though I know your issues with Romeny.
Great post! Thanks.
I will remember that you said that.
Gruber says in the one face-to-face meeting he had with Romney, it was clear Romney had made the final call. Gruber tells me: He was the champion of the plan. He really was the consummate management consultant. And, Gruber says, the plan that passed and is now operating is not fundamentally different from the individual mandate plan that Romney championed.He also asserts during the interview " ... the notion that the plan was hijacked by the Democratic-controlled legislature is simply not so ...".
I guess you missed this article. Mitt doesn't intend to choose a VP who will have the guts to try and influence him.
"A difference of opinion shouldn't cause so much anger between allies and friends." Deb
The Cat’s In The Kettle At The Peking Moon (google it, i’m too lazy to link)
That particular comment was completely uncalled for and you have been on this site long enough to know that.
Agree totally with you -even to giving money to Newt & Cain. But that’s not how things turned out so will now vote ABO.
Agree totally with you -even to giving money to Newt & Cain. But that’s not how things turned out so will now vote ABO.
Among the electric cars Jay owns is the vintage Baker Electric -
The Baker Electric is his wifes favorite car.
In my view, from a pro-life perspective, Libertarians are joined at the level of the corrupted heart with the Democrat Party, on the cruel belief that the innocent and defenseless child in the womb deserves No shield of compassion and mercy to protect it from the abortionist's knife. What an intense level of moral blindness they harbor, which allows them to reject out of hand, the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is really a point of Atheism, where they deny that God is the Creator of that Life, and thus deny any responsibility for protecting it.
Make no mistake. To support the outright murder of the innocent in this life, will guarentee that when you are given an opportunity to re-embody, that you will suffer the terror of abortion yourself, as this alone is the only thing that can stamp upon your soul the truth, that abortion is the most unjust act in the universe. You will certainly believe that to the depth of your soul then when you have suffered it yourself. Don't tell anybody you were not warned.
Therefore, being joined at the level of the corrupted heart with the Democrat Party, the author of this article cannot be writing from wisdom, but from self-interest, and especially party interest only. It is a good thing that he has left the Republican Party, now if he would just take these other pro-abortionists with him, I would not complain.
At any rate, his wiewpoint is really cynical. Really Machiavellian, nearly every thought a streamer of disdain and mistrust, and yes, I read the whole article. So, I am not sure what I can take from it.
Is there anything in that article that is of any use to us? My rule of thumb, is that you can safely ignore anything an Atheist says, and as Libertarians appear to be integrated into that deep cavern of moral darkness, I think it might be safe to say that we would not err by simply ignoring the whole thing, even if he is making a case of the folly of voting for Romney.
Republicans don't need a Libertarian to tell them that Romney is ripping the very heart of the Republican Conscience, right out of the body of the Republican party.
Who has seen "The Matrix" movie series? Romney and his (pro-abortion) RomneyZombies are like the "Agent Smiths" who grab at Neo's heart to try to convert him into one of them. You would have to see it to get the connection.
Here, I found a You Tube Clip. This is a great action clip. The heart sequence is about 2:10 into the clip. See how Neo resists the taking over of his heart, yet he still has a battle to fight. Of course it is all allegory. The circle he draws around himself in the end, is an allegory for God. The moral of the story, is that while you must fight, you cannot win without the Power of God which you cannot access without obedience to His Laws. And yes, to surrender your purpose to the darkside, the purpose that God has placed in your heart, is to die.
The fact that the Republican Party is in this "Agent Smith" stampede to nominate a pro-abortionist itself, as committed as Obama to the slaughter of the unborn, that is enough for any principled person to refuse to vote for Willard M. Romney.
It's good enough because Romney, not being Obama,he is better than Obama, the worst president in our history whose removal is imperative to the nation's survival.
Accusing those who do not like Romney of being part of the Obama campaign (remember those trueblue gluesniffers?) is insidious.
I don't accuse anyone of being part of the Obama campaign because they don't like Romney. I don't like Romney. I just dislike Obama much more.I'm simply saying that withholding a vote for Romney helps Obama. That should be beyond dispute.
I have said that 85% of freepers will probably end up voting for Romney. Why is that not good enough for you? Why do you insist that a socialist leftist get the suicidal imprimature of this conservative website?
Not insisting on anything, just stating the obvious: if Romney is not elected it's 4 more years of destruction by Obama and the "Progressives." I think Romney would be better than Obama so I'm suggesting that conservatives vote for him as the lesser of two evils (if that characterization makes anyone feel better).
You can vote how you like, none of us on this side are telling you how to vote, so why does your side feel that need?,p>
You can also vote as you like. What is "your side" going to do? Sit it out (helps Obama), vote for a write-in (helps Obama), vote for a third party (helps Obama), or vote for the Usurper himself?
Sitting out does not help Obama.
Votes not cast are not counted for any candidate.
You haven't thought this through.
Imagine there is a town with 11 voters and two candidates: R and D. According to polls, R is expected to win by 6-5. But when the vote is taken D wins by 5-4. Why? 2 of the Rs failed to vote. They sat it out.
Sitting out this one if you are a conservative helps Obama.Anyone agree?
I think he was using that idea as a ploy to get people to consider Johnson. The author is a libertarian, and he clearly says at the outset of the article that he considers Obama a disaster.
It’s like me saying, “You have only 2 choices: Obama or Goode because Romney is so bad!”
What am I really saying there?
The republican party is a wasteland, Deb. Think about it. They use us and don’t pay anything.
I got tired of being their flunky. I guarantee you that they intend Romney to give them a middle of the road Scotus.
I’d be honored to have you on our side, BuckeyeTexan. Keep praying about when and how to jump into the rebellion with both feet.
One thing I would recommend, though, is that if you decide to support Romney that you let no one know it, especially him and the GOP-e.
I imagine you want to keep him to the right in conservative territory. If he gets a hint that you think he’s your only option, then there’s nothing to keep him from moving left.
I think his natural inclination is left, so you have to hold his feet to the fire to keep him on the right. You can’t do that if he believes he has you over a barrel.
Make the GOP-e think that you’ll stay home or go 3rd party if he starts drifting.
No you don’t: he was always pro-gun, pro-life, anti-abortion, and anti-gay agenda.
He simply supported the idea of blacks and women being included equally in political and public life.
Sarah Palin and Alan West are both present and proving that he was right about that part.
However, Romney NOW approves of gay adoption and gay couples, but Goode does not. Which one do you think is right?
Hi Golden. Excellent comment above and excellent post. I'm not well-versed in the matrix, so I've got some watching to do.
In any case, I like the information about how the GOP operates that's near the beginning of this article. Unfortunately, it and its intro is larger than the 300 word "excerpt" size we're allowed to post, so I just posted the entire article.
There is an article on the site...I think by the same author...about Gary Johnsone being "limited pro-choice". As I understood it, that boiled down to RILOM Pro-life (rape, incest, life of mother).
I don't believe in any abortion and think any emergency should require an attempt at an emergency delivery. An abortion is always an attempt to kill the baby, and a delivery is always an attempt to preserve the baby. My position is "pro-delivery".
As we used to say in the Army, Jaydee, Hoooo-ahhhhh! Great response.
Rebellion is brewing!
In other words, two homosexuals can’t be married, but they CAN be parents.
There’s some logic for you.
Ditto. The US cannot afford another four years of the Marxist Islamist Obama and his socialist friends. No matter what Romney’s faults, he is far better than Obama. If we have the Executive Branch and Congress, we can start to make reforms and turn back Obama’s socialism.
All Conservatives: grow up and follow Buckley’s advice. Vote for the most Conservative candidate available.
That could very well be the case, but I would take two more like Justice Kennedy instead of two more like Sotomayor or Kagan. If we lose our conservative edge on the SCOTUS, it'll take decades to get it back because Obama will appoint justices in their 50's or 60's.
Forget about the state of the Republican party for a minute. Forget about their history of betraying of conservatives. Forget about the fact that Romney is as liberal as Obama. Let's even forget about Obamacare for a minute. And let us also assume for the sake of discussion that we take control of both houses of Congress and are able to clean out the RINOs or establish a conservative party from the ground up during Obama's second term.
Think about the potential damage a hard-left SCOTUS could inflict on our constitutional rights over the next decade or two. Gun control advocates will start putting cases before such a court as fast as they can. A hard-left court will reinterpret the 2nd amendment. We already know they believe that the right to keep and bear arms either does not apply to individuals or that the state has the right to put severe restrictions on where we keep them and when/how we bear them.
That's how the left works. They push their agenda through the courts. We will not have the majority we need to force legislation down Obama's throat, amend the Constitution, or impeach Obama's appointments.
And it won't be just the 2A that gets reinterpreted. They'll go after every decision that hasn't gone their way for the last few decades.
A conservative Congress will not be able to pass laws quickly enough to stop Obama from using his executive agencies to reinterpret existing laws. Then we'll be fighting two fronts instead of one: SCOTUS and The Executive reinterpreting our laws.
Consider what we stand to lose if the hard-left takes control of the SCOTUS instead of the moderates. Voting your conscience should include considering more than just Romney's record. Consider the long-term effects of a liberal agenda pushed by a hard-left SCOTUS for the next two decades. Sure you say no to Romney, but are you really saying yes to everything the left wants for the next decade or two?
Give it some thought. I will be.
We all justify what we have to in whatever candidates we feel compelled, or forced, to support.
The whole cognitive assonance ideas which I do agree with agree with what you’ve said.
However, you are not in your marrow a Romney supporter.
You make the assumption that someone is entitled to my vote.
They are not.
Willie Mitty sure does have some scary stuff in them there brain cells...
The article you posted motivated me to check out Gary Johnson's campaign website, and to check on his stand on the abortion issue. It says he supports legal abortion up to the point of fetus viability. To me that is just a position cleverly crafted to attract votes from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides.
Pro-choicers can say, O, he supports a woman's right to murder the child in the womb up to a certain point, and that makes me feel good.
Pro-lifers can say, O, he supports the intercession of the state to guard the life of the most innocent defenseless of our citizens, after a certain point, and that makes me feel good.
It is not a principled stand. The sentiments you voiced on the abortion issue, that is a principled stand.
About the author's views on the operation of the GOP, these are just too cynical and one-dimensional, believing that the behind the scenes leadership is a seamlessly corrupt cabal interested only in wealth, power, and control. If that were true, that would leave us with no hope. And I believe that any point of view that leaves us with no hope, is a thrust of the darkside itself to manipulate people into retreat, and into abandoning their position on the battlements.
In the Republican Party alone is the hope that the abortion holocaust can be turned around.
We certainly have a fight on our hands now to hold that ground within the Republican Party itself, and that is one of the most important reasons to oppose the nomination of Willard M. Romney to be our standard bearer.
Excellent juxtaposition of Romney's contradictory stands.
Of course this points to the truth. Romney's stand against same-sex marriage is just another lie fed to gullible minds.
By promoting homosexual adoption, Romney is pressing forward the very principle that demands the logiccal result, that the "parents" should be "married" as the stability normally associated with a married relationship is in the "best" interests of the child.
The Dark Side logic is both subtle and clever.
That is not the viewpoint of a conservative. "justice" Kennedy, which forces us to utter an oxymoron every time we refer to him, holds the balance for the continuation of the slaughter of the unborn.
What could be more central to the definition of being conservative, than the desire, and commitment to CONSERVE the life of the innocent and defenseless?
God Creates the Life, places it in our hands to CONSERVE it and nurture it, not to murder it.
If you walk away from that commitment, your tether to the definition of conservatism has been severed completely, and with no anchor, you are pulled by currents this way and that way, with no control over your own destiny.
The Master Jesus Christ gave us a reference point for this principle in the foundation building parable:
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
Only those who are standing on the rock, are standing their groud.
Yes, it is. No conservative would prefer Sotomayor and Kagan to Kennedy.
See, I can make worthless blanket statements also.
If you walk away from that commitment,
Non-sequitur. I'm not walking away from a commitment to life by preferring Kennedy to Sotomayor/Kagan.
“’Anybody But Obama’ The Most Dangerous Three Words in America Today”
I have zero use for Libertarians. However, I fully agree with the writer on this statement.
Hi, GE. I’m more cynical about the Repub party. I believe that they actively oppose conservatism and want to impose 3rd way social corporatism.
I’ve been around a long time now, and the tea leaves say that Mitt Romney is the nominee and won’t be prevented from that.
That’s why the GOP is hopeless...will be for decades now.
We can only hope that Scotus strikes it down in its entirety.
Otherwise, the quote you posted, and I agree with you, is gonna be really close to how it will go.
It is quite clear that if Scotus doesn’t strike it down or strikes down only the mandate, that there will not be enough republicans in the senate to override a dem filibuster.
Therefore, it will stay on the books.
You posted it, you own it.
I will not cut off my nose to spite my face!
Amen to that!