Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Will Vote for Romney-Ryan in November | 17 August 2012 | Mark Jessup (aka mkjessup)

Posted on 08/17/2012 3:40:53 PM PDT by mkjessup

I've been on FR since 2003. Hard to believe next March will be my 10th year here, assuming I don't get zotted for one reason or another, lol

To that handful of detractors who would LIKE to think this is my opus, guess again suckers - I would never give you the satisfaction of it. Now that we have that out of the way, why this vanity?

First of all, I'm posting this in News/Activism not because this is sourced from a network, newspaper, etc., but because I've noticed that nobody else worries about posting their vanities in the 'Personal/Blogger' section, so WTH should I?

Now for the purpose of my writing today: after a great deal of soul searching and I might add, a goodly amount of prayer, I have come to the conclusion that my vote in November must and will be cast for the GOP ticket of Romney and Ryan. I did not reach this decision easily. Even a casual review of my past posts will reveal that I have reviled, ridiculed, lambasted and sneered at Mitt Romney with the best of them. I've posted my own home brewed graphics to the laughs of my fellow FReepers, I have been steadfast in saying 'no damn way' would I ever even consider voting for that liberal Republican from Massachuetts, no way would I reward the GOP elites with my vote after they've pissed on conservatives from sea to shining sea. The Party of Reagan is no more, let no one deceive you. We as conservatives are more at home in the Tea Party, and yet what was for a short while the natural home for conservatives, i.e. the Republican Party is an unfamiliar neighborhood, a place that sometimes looks like the place we remember, but upon a second glance, we realize that everything is different now, everything has changed.

Now there are good and Godly conservatives who in a perfect world, WOULD be viable candidates for the Presidency, there is no need to list them all here, we all have our favorites and we all know who we would prefer to be voting for. Our own Tom Hoefling would be a better President than the miserable Kenyan sonuvabitch that is stinking up the White House right now, hell *I* would be a better President than that despicable usurper and liar, and so would most of you, my fellow FReepers.

Now I can recite (and in the past, I have) endless reasons as to why I could not and would not vote for Mitt Romney. In many ways it galls me no end to have reached the conclusion that my own Constitutional duty is to vote for a guy that I had sworn never to vote for. It really REALLY starches my shorts however I have had to question my own perspectives, my own views and ask myself the question, "can I honestly justify another four years of what one of my heroes Senator Joe McCarthy would certainly have labeled a 'Communist regime'?

I cannot do that. I do not like the presumptive GOP nominee, I do not agree with many of his past positions. However I cannot deny that one and only one of the two major party candidates for President is going to be sworn in next January. It will either be that treasonous little bastard 0bama, or it will be Mitt Romney. Anyone, and I mean ANYBODY, who thinks that Tom Hoefling, Virgil Goode, or any other non-'Rat/non-GOP candidate is going to be sworn in as our 45th President next year, I will personally bet $100,000 against that happening at any odds they wish, because that is how likely it is that NEITHER 0bama or Romney will end up being elected in November. I won't lose one dime on that sort of wager.

So how do I justify voting for the GOP and Romney this time around? Well, some things I do NOT believe about Romney is that he hates America, that he hates our capitalist system, that he wants to weaken our national defense, sell out our allies and reward our enemies. I don't agree with nor support his religious faith. But his belief in the tenets of Mormonism is quite frankly between him and God. Now while it is easy to find all sorts of things about the Mormon faith that fly in the face of basic traditional Christianity, if the choice is between a closet-crypto Muslim in the White House, and a church going, charitable, prayerful Mormon who doesn't cheat on his wife, doesn't smoke dope, doesn't even drink (is that true? I'm not sure but I think Mitt is a tee-totaler), I'm pulling the lever for that Mormon guy.

Picture all of America on a gigantic airliner, streaking through the sky, when word comes back from the cockpit that Captain 0bama has never even flown a plane of this size or any size, he's been reading the instruction manual from a hidden teleprompter on top of the instrument panel, we're headed for a bad patch of CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) and the illustrious fake pilot is going to try and fake his way through that turbulence, and it is a foregone conclusion that "we're all gonna die!" - but up in first class (of course, lol) Mitt Romney stands up and informs everyone that he IS a licensed pilot, and that he can get our airliner away from the turbulence, down to a safer altitude, get us back on the proper heading, and land safely at our destination. He offers to take the controls. SOME passengers question him "have you ever flown a plane like this?" and he answers honestly "no, not quite this size, but I AM a pilot, I HAVE flown in difficult circumstances before, and I've got more skills than that fake pilot up in the cockpit that we are about to crash with". Who the Hell is going to argue against that logic? No other pilots on board. No parachutes. And indeed, a fool and an oaf at the controls of the cockpit. WTF do we have to lose?

And another analogy that I've already posted recently, which is that conservatives need to do what the Western allies did in World War II, they did not particularly like Joe Stalin, in fact they knew him to be a rotten communist sonvuabitch but the "enemy of our enemy was our friend" (or at least a convenient ally) and the GREATER enemy was in Berlin, in the form of Hitler and we needed Stalin and his troops to attack the Nazis from the East, and that is why we sent them tons of lend-lease assistance to help them accomplish that. And what kind of fools would have urged a different course in that war? A course of telling Stalin and Soviet Russia that they were "on their own" and they would receive no assistance from us? Can you imagine for just a moment if Nazi Germany had prevailed on the Eurasian continent, the Swastika flying all the way from London to Vladivostok?

Now having painted that sort of grim picture of alternate history, I think we can agree that for all of Mitt Romney's faults, he is not a Joe Stalin, he may be a liberal but he is no Communist.

Can we say the same for 0bama and his crew of America-hating scumbags?

Now a powerful factor in my decision to support the GOP ticket was in fact, the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's VP running mate. Now Paul Ryan is nobody's fool. If there was anybody I wanted to have the ear of 'President Romney' it would be Vice President Paul Ryan. Everyone keeps saying "if Romney would just move to the right", well I believe Paul Ryan is the best person to accomplish that task. They seem to have a good chemistry and that bodes well for the success of their ticket. The polls show Romney-Ryan up, and 0bama and the 'Rats freaking and shrieking as their numbers decline.

Now I have myself made the argument in the past that the only difference between Romney and 0bama is that 0bama is driving us to the edge of the cliff at 100 mph, and Romney is going to reduce our speed to a thrifty 55 mph. And even IF that were to be proven true, I'm not in any hurry to reach the edge of that cliff.

Now in closing, I ask the following question: how many of us would clench our teeth and pull the lever for Gerald Ford, or Bob Dole, or any other establishment RINO if it meant the end of 0bama? To get that filthy Communist out of the White House, I would (to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill) 'consider writing in the name of the devil himself', and so for that reason my friends and FRiends, I will support and vote for the GOP ticket of Romney & Ryan in November, not because everything about it excites and pleases me, but because I cannot be a party to another 4 years of the Kenyan traitor staining and besmirching the Office once held by the greatest President of all history, Ronald Wilson Reagan. I submit that Reagan would vote for Romney. We can be assured that Sarah Palin is going to vote for Romney. So will Newt Gingrich. So will Rick Santorum. So IF I am making a mistake by casting my vote for the GOP this year, I will be in good company.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Mark Jessup

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: america; notnews; obama; rinoromney; romney; romney4rinos; ryan; sourcetitlenoturl; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-452 next last
To: MEG33

Support Free Republic..Donate Here

301 posted on 08/18/2012 6:05:49 PM PDT by MEG33 (O Lord, Guide Our Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
Mitt's been like cool hand Luke these past few months. Piling up money left and right (that he can't spend until after the convention). Choosing an excellent running mate who is not only conservative but ready for prime time. Bubblehead Katie Couric is probably afraid to interview him. Now I loved Sarah Palin but during the 2008 election, I cringed whenever I saw her going up against the mainstream media talking heads who were out to get her. She just wasn't ready for that. Paul Ryan - he will eat them for breakfast and they know it.

Your comments about the media reminded me of something I was thinking about earlier. I hope Romney & Ryan don't accept an invitation to appear on "Saturday Night Live" like McCain and Sarah did. No minds will be changed by using that program. I mean, people who love a blowhard jerk like Alec Baldwin and whatsherhoozie that did the Palin impersonation are not going to vote for Republicans.

Yeah, I know it's Tina Fey, but she's just whatsherhoozie to me.

302 posted on 08/18/2012 6:55:52 PM PDT by arasina (So there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: arasina
I hope Romney & Ryan don't accept an invitation to appear on "Saturday Night Live" like McCain and Sarah did. No minds will be changed by using that program.

I agree. Those shows are nothing but a bear trap for any conservative politicians. Nothing good can come out of appearing on them. Especially with Romney as he is in no way cool and trying to appear cool will make him look like the world's biggest dork (think Richard Nixon on Laugh-In).

I suspect that Romney and Ryan are not going to be doing any entertainment shows this election. I hope I am right for they have serious business to attend to - such as removing the clowns that currently occupy our federal government.

303 posted on 08/18/2012 7:29:11 PM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]


Romney = philosophical threat

Obama = existential threat

304 posted on 08/18/2012 7:42:49 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Here is where Human Events reports Romney’s ACU rating of 88.98 over 9.45 years of service (they do rate Presidential nominees - try Google before you try slander and libel).

Not as high as Paul Ryan’s 91.69, but better than Hussein’s 10%...

I have grown tired of you calling me a liar - it’s like having to deal with democrat.

Let me try again with small words and short sentences:
1.Reagan is good.

2.Even Reagan can seem bad, if you only talk about his bad points.

3. If you only look at bad points, and judge everything and anyhing by them, you will miss the good.

4. If you see only the bad points of someone, you can be so confused, as to think that Romney is as bad as Obama.

If you think clearly, and you care for this country, you will conclude that a better President is better than a worse President, and you would be able to see that Romney is better than Obama.

305 posted on 08/18/2012 8:32:12 PM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

You lying to smear Reagan is a lot different than someone giving the accurate and truthful history of candidate Romney, a history that you do not know, and seem determined to pretend doesn’t exist.

Quit trying to tell us that ACU rates Governors and that the failed Massachusetts Governor who left with 34% approval had an ACU rating, the man is a stone cold liberal and the ACU never rated him.

Your level of BS and dishonesty and distortion and anti-Reaganism, and anti-conservatism, is high.

306 posted on 08/18/2012 8:47:43 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

Quite honestly the fact that you need to write a long article to defend your decision to vote for Romney/Ryan against Obama/Biden, is mind boggling.

It’s not even a close call and never has been.

307 posted on 08/18/2012 8:56:44 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

Well said. Sadly those who are arguing against you seem to engage in exceptionally convoluted reasoning.

It’s sad because Romney is running a very conservative campaign against a very very leftist Obama.

But they just tell you that everything Romney says is a lie.

Seems to me that if a candidate has to become more conservative, that is a good thing. Conversion to pro life is a good thing. But no, nothing can be seen as good from the evil Romney.

308 posted on 08/18/2012 9:08:25 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: Williams; BlackElk

Well, except for the fact that he has never “converted to pro-life.” His own “pro-life” position to this day intrinsically destroys all the fundamental, essential principles upon which the pro-life position completely depends. Notwithstanding a paper-thin layer of lies he has put around the judicial supremacist, pro-choice democrat, pro-choice for states package.

309 posted on 08/18/2012 9:29:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

“For all his faults, Mitt Romney is Winston freaking Churchill compared to Barack Obama and the America-hating scum that surround him. We must remove Barack Obama this November.”

What he said.

310 posted on 08/18/2012 9:43:42 PM PDT by rbmillerjr (Conservative Economic and National Security Commentary:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo

Who thought up this brilliant strategy? The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly?

311 posted on 08/18/2012 9:48:49 PM PDT by Tramonto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: livius

Nicely written.

312 posted on 08/18/2012 10:23:09 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tramonto

You got it, I want that bumper sticker.

You left out the third Romney argument though,”yeah! but at least he isn’t Muslim”.

313 posted on 08/18/2012 10:33:01 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

If Mitt Romney screws up as president, then what will conservative voters DO in 2016? Will there be a final candidate for the GOP POTUS in 2016 that, really, is a decent conservative, too, or will there, only, be Mitt Romney running for a second term?

314 posted on 08/18/2012 10:49:59 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
I'm in.


315 posted on 08/18/2012 10:50:53 PM PDT by 1035rep (Obama: "I killed Bin Laden" didn't do that. Somebody else made that happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

316 posted on 08/18/2012 10:55:32 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of America starts the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Conservatism loses, if there aren’t enough conservatives in the House AND Senate to make conservative legislation law. Help to make the next House and the next Senate conservative enough to overrule and override anything and everything “leftist” that “a President Mitt Romney” attempts to do, during Mitt Romney’s entire duration as POTUS. Ditto, if Barack Obama is re-elected.

317 posted on 08/18/2012 11:08:25 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
You are either lying in calling me a liar, or you are not bright enough to follow. Here are the points I made about Reagan:

1. He regretted signing pro-abortion legislation as Govenor - you admit this.

2. He was divorced from Jane Wyman - fact. Back then, there was moral stigma associated with divorce, which is pretty well gone now. In its day, it was considered scandalous and offensive to social conservatives.

3. He was a once registerd Democrat - fact.

4. He was once a Union member - in fact he was a Union boss.

None of that is a lie. You saying those are lies, is a lie or an error. Liar, or just inattentive and biased enough to jump to the wrong conclusion?

My point is not to discount people in their entirety, if they fall short in one category or another, or fail one litmus test or another.

Did you check the Human Events link I provided for Romney's ACU rating? I guess they are just lying also, and everybody is lying, and everybody is lacking any redeeming quality, except for you.

No one who is a straight (no pun intended) uncompromising conservative on every issue could get elected in Massachusetts. If you want anyone to get in there and contest one party Democrat control of everything, they will HAVE to compromise some conservative positions. To insist on all or nothing in Massachusetts will reliably result in nothing - a decision that is either weak on logic emotionally immature.

My central point, is my opinion about Romney's motivation - I think a good bit of "why" he has adopted liberal social positions is simply a professional politician pandering to a liberal Massachusetts electorate to get elected. You seem to attribute it with utter certainty to an essential characteristic of his being, which is totally devoid of any truth or shame, etc., etc. Granted, if he were firmly committed against those positions he would not compromise on them, but to me, he seems more like he was carefully tap dancing around hot button social issues trying to please who he needed to please. I believe that his priority is fiscal conservatism, rather than social conservatism, and I believe that fiscal conservatism is something that we need urgently in Washington.

It is easy to be pure while sitting in one's PJ's at home, but to get out there every day for 12 or 15 hours with your shoes shined and shirt pressed dealing with everything under the sun to get elected as a Republican in Massachusetts with three registered Democratsis for every Republican is quite a feat, and demands quite a bit of juggling and finessing and smooth talking. As TR put it:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds

Romney was not my first, second or third pick in the primary, But I can appreciate what a high wire act he had to perform as a Republican in Massachusetts, with the press recording every word to bash him as a right-wing extermist with the liberal majority of voters there.

I did not post in favor of Romney until the primary fight was done, and then I followed Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment: "Thou shall speak no ill of a fellow Republican." That commandment is based on practical politcal wisdom - You need to build a coalition of 50% plus 1 to win (52% or 53% if you are Republican, for the voter fraud margin).

Now that the primary is over, I am out knocking on doors and making phone calls and doing what I can to uphold the oath that I carried through 25 years of service and three wars - to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That does not leave me the luxury of nuturing any petty fits of pique.

Obama Must Be Defeated!

318 posted on 08/18/2012 11:26:32 PM PDT by BeauBo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: BeauBo

You are still lying.

You said Reagan “”did evolve to be solidly pro-life.””

“”Despite his (then) scandalously liberal personal life as a divorcee””

“”Thank goodness that conservatives supported him despite his Libertarian social leanings “”

I posted this * Reagan was always pro-life, he didn’t “evolve” into it, and yes that bill he hesitantly signed in his first six months in office in 1967, he regretted greatly, as it was abused. I have never heard that Reagan was famous for scandals. None of this has anything to do with the anti-Reagan Romney.

Reagan was a famously anti-communist Union head, and 1948 was the last time that Reagan voted for a democrat president, after that he always campaigned for the republican. Reagan was a social conservative, a famous hero of the religious right and social conservatives.

Conservatives did not support him “in spite of” he was THE LEADER OF CONSERVATISM, conservatives were his base, Reagan led them to victory over the Romney wing of the party.

Are you going to go to that Human Events link and actually read it? Or keep not reading it, like you do my posts?


I have posted a great amount of history to you on Mitt Romney, and you simply ignore it and lie about him as though he was merely pretending to be a moderate republican in Massachusetts, a state that he did not have to run in ( he could have run in Utah), and besides, he was the FOURTH REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IN A ROW there, it is a state that prefers republican governors.

You just blow off insights like this.

Mitt Romney- “One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”

319 posted on 08/18/2012 11:48:32 PM PDT by ansel12 (Massachusetts Governors, where the GOP goes for it's "conservative" Presidential candidates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; BeauBo; All

320 posted on 08/19/2012 12:34:30 AM PDT by mkjessup (To paraphrase Sir Winston: "if 0bama invaded Hell, I would put in a good word for the Devil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340 ... 441-452 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson