Why 80% Reject Paul and Romney

You have been told for the better part of year now who it is that you must choose. Beltway insiders have insisted upon thrusting establishment candidates upon you. Libertarian anarchists have swopped into your state shouting that you must support Ron Paul, while toking on the marijuana they soon believe President Paul will make legal.

You've been openly mocked by Governor John Huntsman from Utah--who ironically seeks your support.

Ann Coulter has defied every conservative principal she's ever espoused by trying to brainwash you into thinking that Mitt Romney is the best that you have to choose from.

You've endured what seems like 7,162 debates. Which have yielded roughly thirty seconds of actual substance to judge the candidates on.

Yet after all of it, nearly 80% of you do not care for the front runner who was the third place finisher in 2008. And even less of you seem enamored with the rebellion inciting candidacy of a country doctor--who clearly understands our monetary crisis, but would leave America vulnerable to horrors beyond that of 9.11--should he become the decision maker.

So what is about the 80% of GOP Caucus goers that has you siding with the other candidates?

Could it be that they clearly articulate, understand, and have demonstrated a track record on the really simple things like protecting innocent life?

This would be understandable given that Governor Romney insisted upon $50 abortions being made available through tax-payer dollars in his desire to force private citizens in Massachusetts into mandated universal health care.

Could it be that they clearly believe that this is a dangerous world and the issues of national security are not for the silly-minded?

This would also make sense given the fact that Congressman Paul chose to excoriate his opponents, accusing them of harboring desires of genocide against 1.4 billion Muslims, instead of answer the question put before him as to how his presidency would handle the growing Iranian instability. Specifically he avoided answering what he would choose to do in the event that Iran attempts to hi-jack international waterways. One of those other candidates is easily America's greatest authority on the Iranian matter, another one has seen the confidential national security documents that none of the others have, and another one has been busy catching terror suspects on his state's southern border.

Could it be that the other candidates have argued and demonstrated consistently that raising taxes and attaching fees to the basics in American life is burdensome to the economic health of the nation?

This would again be completely understandable given that Governor Romney raised taxes on education in state universities, for purchasing a home, to receive a certificate of blindness, on corporations, driver's licenses, marriage licenses, gun licenses, and even gasoline?

Could it be that the candidates drawing 80% of the GOP Caucus goers support in the polls don't believe legalizing heroin and marijuana are good ideas?

No one can argue with the logic that seems to elude Dr. Ron Paul on the simple concept of dangerous narcotics and making access easier for them.

Could it be that you don't know if you could trust Mitt Romney nor Ron Paul to protect the sacred institution of marriage?

Neither man has given you any reason to believe that they would seek to keep radical courts from imposing a government defined view of marriage upon voters in every state. Yet Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich helped you overturn activist judges in your own state, and Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry have been long supportive of your state's rights to decide for itself what the definition of marriage should be. And when you consider the particularly heinous manipulation that Governor Romney has applied to the issue -- pretending to support marriage, while overseeing, participating in, and enforcing the view of the activist courts -- support for him is particularly troublesome.

Could it be that you really just need to know that the most offensive over-reach of government in our lifetimes will be overturned?

This is completely fair. Obamacare--and further--the entire idea of government forcing you to purchase anything--just to exist--is outrageously unconstitutional. Governor Romney, however, just this week said that not only did he still support his original blueprint for Obamacare (the one he actually authored), but he went a step further to claim that the idea of forcing citizens to purchase health care--a mandate at the force of a gun--was a "conservative principle." Never mind that fact that this type of audacity carries with it incredible hubris, how does it incline you to believe that he will do anything to repeal Obamacare?

Could it be--actually above all else--that you are more concerned about finding, getting, and keeping a job than anything else?

If so you're not alone and while Ron Paul has no experience in economic development, and Mitt Romney will certainly be bloodied in the general election campaign with advertisement after advertisement talking to people his company sought to have fired from their private sector positions. One of the other candidates has seen to it that the regulatory, tax, and litigative atmosphere in the state which he serves as Governor is kept in check, and as a result his state has seen the growth of close to half of all jobs created in the last three years--while President Obama was busy growing government payrolls, and killing private sector jobs by more than two million.

In short Iowa Caucusers you have a lot of reasons to be 80% against the two men that you really can't seem to identify with. This week you have the serious job of deliberating, debating, and convincing your fellow caucusers of the truth. Feel free to take this column with you to the caucus.

But whatever you do, don't give up on your principles! Don't bankrupt our future, and don't vote out of fear.

Ronald Reagan always said that if he agreed with someone on 80% of the issues, he would count them a friend. By implication 80% disagreement would probably indicate that he couldn't work with that person.

Iowans share 80% disapproval of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. Therefore finding unity on what you do agree on and stopping those you disagree with should be of the utmost of importance. Consider that on Tuesday.

Kevin McCullough Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations. His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.

Good grief, obviously my comment was to the author of the lamentable tripe. Get a grip.

And pinging a freeper who is mentioned in a post doesn’t answer the question of why you felt you had to go running to said freeper for a pat on the head in the first place, just because I posted that the author’s analysis was, let’s cut to the chase here, stupid?

Your response proved my point very well about letting emotion frame one’s “analysis.”

Why did you post this thread anyway, if you did not want the author’s views to be debated?

No, I know that custom very well. But pinging someone has nothing to do with what I have asked you twice and what you have not answered, so let me try once more:

You would not have had to ping said freeper if you had not mentioned him in the post in the first place.

Right?

So, as I asked you twice before, my question is: WHY did you feel the need to mention said freeper in the post at all? WHY did you feel the need to use his opinion to back up your own, especially when you used his opinion on a matter of Romney supporters and my post, as I also said clearly in response to you, had NOTHING to do with ROMNEY or ROMNEY supporters!

To repeat, here's the post to which you responded:

This is the most condescending piece of tripe I’ve read on this matter yet. Does the author actually think that Iowans are not evaluating the candidates with their very own brain cells and reaching their very own conclusions?

I tell you, I am sick to death of any statement of support for a candidate, or any non-negative analysis of that candidate, being perceived emotionally as someone “telling you what to think.”

Good grief.

Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots? Thank you.

And for that you ran off yelling "DAAAADDDD, there's a freeper who doesn't think Romney supporters are mind-numbed robots!!"

What you said, specifically, in response to me saying "Can we move beyond the psychobabble and simply state the case for or against a candidate, without framing it as those who may disagree with your analysis are duped, mind-numbed robots?, was:

IMO, and that of the owner of FR, anyone who supports Romney and/or Paul IS a mind-numbed robot.

I think the author makes a lot of sense.

So, we disagree on that last point. My question to you was why you felt that my simplying disagreeing with the author's psychoemotional analytical framework, no matter WHICH candidate it was applied to, required you to bring another freeper into this matter in the first place.

You specifically said you agree with claiming that politically engaged people who don't see things your way are mind-numbed robots, rather than thinking people who reached a different conclusion.

I specifically said I reject that. Doesn't mean I agree with them. Just means that I respect that they have their reasons.

I don't think there's more to say on this subject.

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.