Posted on 02/29/2012 7:28:17 AM PST by Mustang Driver
It’s crunch time. I am not going to sugarcoat the news for conservatives. Hate me all you want, but Republicans have just about picked their nominee. Forget these headlines such as Paul Belaga’s “Romney Wins Michigan and Arizona, but Political Tourette’s Is Costing Him” or CNN‘s “Romney survives Michigan as all eyes turn to Super Tuesday” or the New York Daily News‘s “Mitt Romney avoids Michigan disaster, but has ‘blood on him’ heading into Super Tuesday: experts.” God does not roll dice with the universe, and neither does the Republican Party.
I am looking at the plurality wins in Arizona and Michigan and thinking Rick Santorum bit the dust, and it is his own fault.
The conventional wisdom is that Tuesday resolved nothing. From the Associated Press:
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney is trying to capitalize on twin victories in Arizona and Michigan as the GOP nomination race expands to the 10 states that vote on Super Tuesday.
Rival Rick Santorum, who narrowly lost in Michigan, faces splitting the conservative vote with Newt Gingrich as the former House speaker counts on Southern primaries to revive his campaign.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul remains a factor as he attempts to mine delegates in caucus states like North Dakota, where his campaign team says the process plays to his strengths. Super Tuesday is March 6, just three days after Saturday’s Washington state caucuses.
Romney’s slim victory — 41 percent to Santorum’s 38 percent — in his native Michigan raised questions about whether he would change his strategy. He acknowledged Tuesday that he had made personal mistakes in recent weeks and said he was trying to “do better and work harder.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dailymail.com ...
Nobody on FR should have made that mistake, we were very active in covering Romney’s record here.
Many social conservatives make abortion the crucial issue and when a candidate does likewise, they flock to him.
I’m not sure who has higher negatives Gingrich or his supporters, but thanks for ending the discussion.
So I guess it's Romney for you then, since he is the only one who hasn't been a "Congresscritter" during the past 25 years. Is that correct?
Saying something absurd doesn’t get any more reasonable by doubling down and saying it over again in different terms.
Supporting argumentation is the generally accepted method of resolving such disagreements.
Social conservatives rightly view abortion as the quintessential issue of legitimate governance, and make no excuses for doing so. Republicans who do not treat is so are only one step away from becoming those they purport to oppose.
“The radically pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, anti-gun Romney is far to the left of McCain.
Romney has been anti-Republican all of his life.”
thats horsecrap.I live in Ma. and he was anti gay marriage, anti ilegal, and tried to get the death penalty reinstated in the state.He’s more republican than George Bush ever was.
With majoritys in both houses.
He had to deal with a 90% Nancy Pelosi type legislature in Ma.
He’ll be a good President with somebody in the house on his side for a change.
I'm not a perfectionist: I just want it done right!
(rolling eyes)
The only reason anyone cared about Huckabee was because of abortion.
Likewise, Santorum.
Oh sorry.
I see doubling-down and repeating in different terms *IS* argumentation to you....
LOL, Romney had illegals working for him for 10 years, then the media busted him for it, the media found out a year later that the illegals were STILL working at his house making it 11 years, Romney was always pro-immigration and amnesty.
Romney despised conservatives and registered independent during the Reagan years and did not vote for Reagan, Romney was anti-Jesse Helms and anti-contract with America, Bishop Romney donated to and fund raised as a Democrat and for Planned Parenthood.
Governor Romney gave us homosexual marriage.
“”I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. 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.
As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.”””
Sincerely,
W. Mitt Romney
It’s gonna take one hell of reply for you to be anything other than just plain wrong, TShaunK.
Really? You think economic conservatism is “nothing but greed and avarice”?
Private property and the rule of law is nothing but greed and avarice?
How about limited government? Is that consistent with conservatism or nothing but allowance for licentiousness?
A man who only cares about money and is socially liberal and immoral, is greedy and wicked.
But wave the red flag of abortion to single issue social conservatives and they fall for it everytime.
For sure. Same on the liberal side. The funny thing is, a President does not have the power to overturn Roe v Wade. It is the proverbial carrot that the politicians dangle.
One doesn't need to care only about money to be a fiscal conservative for limited government.
Is fiscal conservatism just greed in your mind?
Is limited government compatible with what you consider to be “conservatism”?
Are people left free from unconstitutional government intrusion consistent with your brand of social conservatism?
You were taking a poster to task for this.
“”Conservatism without “Social Conservatism” is nothing but “greed and avarice.”””
So I posted this to you.
“”A man who only cares about money and is socially liberal and immoral, is greedy and wicked.””
It is true.
Amen to that. Fred dropped out too soon. Bob
Amen to the fact that no one should have not known that Romney was to the left of McCain and Huckabee?
And....
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.