Skip to comments.With Brown out, GOP mulls Romney energy
Posted on 02/02/2013 4:59:15 AM PST by Diogenesis
With Brown out, GOP mulls Romney energy
(He's back; Mr. RomneyCARE and family for MA Senate))
"Massachusetts Republicans are desperately scrambling to find
a strong Senate candidate to replace Scott Brown,
with some even trying to persuade Mitt Romneys wife or son
to jump into the race to avert another electoral disaster.
... Other GOP leaders also raised the prospect of Mitts eldest son, Tagg,
launching a surprise Senate campaign.
Tagg Romney was a close campaign adviser
and surrogate for his father and is a successful businessman living in Belmont."
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...
You need some new material. Debunking the same talking points for the millionth time is a waste of JimRob’s bandwith.
You are totally correct. Trying to talk logic to this bunch is a waste of time. You all believe it more noble to elect Democrats than a RINO and I disagree.
It's worse. Because you have them enacting the Democrat agenda and getting the rest of the Republican party blamed for bad policy (all the while the Dems clean up at the ballot box). The apologists on FR pimping for liberal RINO trojan horses are trolls beneath contempt.
Thanks /johnny. Interesting perspectives abound.
There are 28 good solid Conservatives (revised from my previous post), 9 marginally good conservatives, and the potential in certain states (states that have already 1 solid or marginal) of 8 more. That’s a 45 conservative Senator ceiling.
The other seats in states such as CA, CO, DE, etc are so liberal I don’t even think a marginally conservative candidate could win.
The question would be, if we could could 45 fairly conservative types in, could they convince 6 moderates to vote their way?
MA is never going to elect a Rand Paul type...it’s a William Weld kind of state.
Have a great weekend !
Post #183 is for you. Either elect Conservatives or forget it. Stick your fake and phony liberal turds where the sun don’t shine, Granny.
No actually I’m a pretty avid reader and up on a lot of history. Thing is reaching back a couple of hundred years to make a point is something liberals love to do and a sign that someone is losing the debate.
Every time someone critisises Islam out comes”Well the Catholics conducted the inquisition”
Or anything that has to do with the collapse of black culture out comes the slavery card.
You keep pushing your liberal republican appeasment theme, but don't expect conservatives to vote for your liberal. The liberal GOP has failed, and is a failure.
In a general election against a leftist like Warren? Quite possible although it will take money and national support. Just keep in mind the establishment media will portray them the same way they portray any R candidate so no difference there. The D establishment will throw the same amount of money at the race as well. The problem is winning the primary against the likes of yourself: liberal RINO appeasers.
“I WOULD SUPPORT A CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT over any lying, liberal, backstabbing, RINO.”
And where are you going to find that “conservative Democrat” who can get his/her party’s nomination?
Many, if not most of the people claiming to be conservative and espousing of conservatives are at best, moderates.
We cannot move in a positive direction when one group (of conservatives) backs politicians like Rubio who want amnesty/DREAM acts, Another is ready to accept a moderate stance on homosexuals (as in allowing their sexual desires to form legislative policy). another group is ready to throw conservative pols with 90%+ records to the dogs over ONE stupid statement, Another group wants concessions to the Abortion lobby in order to secure winning votes for the GOP, ANOTHER group compares Romney to Reagan and condemns any who would put principle over party and yet ANOTHER that thinks economic concerns and feasibility trump the need for a border fence rather than a smart fence.
In my post history alone, you will see countless battles fought over the above issues with freepers who swear up and down that they are rock ribbed conservatives and how dare I question their conservatism indignation.
How? I think its self-evident how.
Now if these are the abject idiots we have as an army to go to war with, I put to you that we should instead box up the wife and kids and head for the hills to avoid the slaughter.
I spent years fighting the landuse wars against the BLM and Sierra. We lost that war exactly because of the same enemies within. People who wore their politics on their sleeves and rolled them up when it interfered with their personal little problems.
So, In light of the fact that every single point I made above is easily and multiply proven (for none of these things are isolated incidents, rather current standard behavior for conservatives), we have exactly one logical and rational choice to move ahead in a positive and useful direction.
Purge the ranks, take the hit and stop wasting time, money and resource fighting the fairweather flock.
But a mere handful of us are willing to do it. The moderates run wild, trash actual conservatives (Palin being the most obvious example) and no one with any voice in the movement does s..t to stop it.
We need fewer Coulters/insert moderate freeper or pundit here, and more honest voices. And until the above happens, I honestly think everything else is a waste of my and everyone else time.
And again, before the moderates out there return to calling me names and bitching, they need to disprove a single point I made. Which, to date, not one has. Lots of bitching, ducking and ignoring, but no disproving.
Unfortunately, that is todays reality.
These are the very same arguments with the very same person since before and during the election....with the same results. We discussed and discussed this for months. Most of this forum, and the owner disagrees with backing moderates but the poster ignores that.
Frankly, Im much more suspicious of the posters who are spewing insults than I am of people who are raising points with which most of us may not agree.
Frankly, I'm sick of the poster pushing moderate candidates ahead of conservative candidates. I'm more suspiscious of that.
if you think Sarah Palin could have won against BO in 2012 you are delusional. The MSM would have had an even bigger field day with Sarah as the GOP 2012 presidential nominee than they did with her as the GOP’s VP candidate in 2008? Also Sarah [nor any other GOP sacrificial lamb] will stand a chance against the MSM’s next offering to the electorate in 2016: Hillary.
One of the things I have come to accept in my time since 98 reading and later posting on FR is that people like you who scream ‘don’t you dare question my conservatism!!!” the loudest are the ones whose posts tie in the closest with the OPPOSITE of FR’s existential statement and purpose.
Since all we have to go by here are the words of the posters (since most of us are just nicnames and unsearchable/knowable as actual people.
I happen to use my real name as a handle and encourage people to look me up as I have held my positions a hell of a long time, though some longer than others. You and Johnny use nicks, which is fine. But here’s the difference...
Johnny’s posts are almost if not lockstep with the ideals of Free Republic, it’s founder and the ideals of conservatism.
Yours encourage compromise of principle to elect moderates for the sole purpose of ‘winning’. So tell me this. In order to ‘win’ are you willing to elect pro choice candidates and thus sacrifice the very lives of children to ‘win’?
Yes or no.
Are you willing to willing to elect anti-gun moderates and thus sacrifice the 2nd Ammendment to ‘win’?
Yes or no.
Are you willing to elect mocerates who will reach across the asile and ‘compromise the principles of Free Republic and America to ‘win’?
Yes or no/
Before you post another rationalization for continued GOP BS, we need to know EXACTLY where YOU stand. Because simple logic says you cannot have these things both ways.
Lastly, if you are willing to state ‘Yes’ on ANY of these positions, much less all of them, you are flat out lying by calling yourself a conservative. Because conservatives do NOT accept the sacrifice, nor are they willing to trade the lives and souls of children, the right of self defense/liberty granted to us by God, nor the principles we guide our very existence by for so fleeting a thing as a ‘win’.
Gov. Palin and McCain were AHEAD,
which is why Team Romney took out their knives
against the conservative woman
(Romney’s favorite target).
The only one delusional is YOU for defending
the attacks on a true conservative by the RINO Romney.
Oh...forgot the most basic one of all...
Does principle matter and do you feel that principle is situational...as with situational ethics? Yes or no.
If yes, then no more need be said as your position on the rest is clear. If not, please explain in detail why not.
I, and I suspect MANY of us want to see your answers. In fact, as always when I ask this question (which the compromise wing has yet to do anything other than duck) I’ll open it up to any of the compromise wing of ‘conservatism’ to address.
You stated it pretty well. Don't support killing babies. Don't try to restrict arms. Shrink government (really shrink it, not the shell game). Don't compromise with evil.
They conveniently. as do most like them on FR, claim that. But it’s a mathematical certainty that if they actually all voted for one, there would be a winning conservative.
That being an absolute fact, the blame for losing moderates falls squarely on their shoulders. We told them we will not vote for mod/liberals. They have no excuse. It never was and never will be ‘our’ fault since we made it clear from the beginning they would NOT get our support.
I got all that by reading YOU ALRIGHT!?!?! (insert 80s drug war TV commercial refrence here ;)
My overriding principle is to defeat Democrats at every opportunity. I know the difference between you and me. You want to create a pure Republican party before you set your sights on the Democrats and I view Democrats as the enemy and I'll defeat one of them any way I can.
Now, I fully expect to be flamed and called names for this but it's all true.
There is no virtue in deliberately losing.
Let me tell you a story to accurately portray my position. For many years I worked in the Iowa House of Representatives for the Chairman of the Human Resources Committee. He was very conservative and highly respected. We worked in a partnership, we both had the same goals--we despise liberalism and the very thought of killing an unborn child in disgusting and appalling.
One time shortly before an election, I was at a function and talking to one of the high profile conservative activists in Iowa. He told me he didn't think he could bring himself to vote for the Republican woman who was the rep for his district. I looked him right in the eye and told him that if he wanted to keep my boss (I knew the respect he had for him) in his position as Chairman of the Human Resources Committee, he HAD to go in the voting booth and vote for the RINO. He knew I was right. Sometimes you just have to do things you'd rather not but this is the way the game is played. Now, are you going to say I have no principles?
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.