Lets get Behind Romney

[Avatar4321]

First step in being trustworthy is being sane.

That gives Romney a leg up over at least part of the field.

Democrats will never admit that he has that leg up over Obama.

 

[GHook93]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Cain is a 10fold better fit!

If we don't elect Cain we will miss out big time!

 

[jgarden]

It's not about beating Obama, it's about electing someone we can trust to do the right things rather than cave in and I'm sorry but Mitt is far from being that person. If it's all about beating Obama then you're part of the problem and that is a sad platform to run off.

Anybody who thinks Romney is very different from Obama will be sorely disappointed if he wins. It's not even because of the Obamacare/Romneycare issue, which I highly doubt will be resolved if Romney wins with a straight up repeal.

I doubt the man will do anything different from Bush, or Obama. Just like McCain was no different from them, and Perry is no different from them. These people will do nothing to change the country, what is needed is drastic changes soon .....

I'd rather have four years of Marxist Obama not getting what he wants then 4 years of socialist lite Romney getting it. Did you learn nothing from the eight disastrous years of the W administration?

Romney can't win the GOP nomination without the support of The Tea Party - and most of them consider him to be nothing better than a "Democrat in sheeps clothing!"

I agree that Romney is the one and only Republican candidate capable of appealing to America's political center and beating Obama, BUT when "push-comes-to-shove," the present conservative crowd is more interested in remaining ideologically "pure" than winning.

 

[Inthemiddle]

when "push-comes-to-shove," the present conservative crowd is more interested in remaining ideologically "pure" than winning.[/b]

I think this is also true of the far liberal population as well. The REAL problem is that it's starting to seem like both camps are the far sides of the spectrum are increasingly stubborn when it comes to pushing their hopes of extremist candidates.

I read an article not long ago suggesting that the US populace seems to be starting to favor a more Westminster style of legislature, with a "government" that runs the show and an "opposition." Maybe it's time the US starts considering a restructuring of our government?

 

[francoHFW]

No, and it's the Pubs that are NO COMPROMISE, radical, and believe so many lies from a propaganda machine. Everyone in the WORLD beside pub dupes is aghast. ty

 

[Inthemiddle]

^^^ Case and point.

 

[jgarden]

when "push-comes-to-shove," the present conservative crowd is more interested in remaining ideologically "pure" than winning.

I think this is also true of the far liberal population as well. The REAL problem is that it's starting to seem like both camps are the far sides of the spectrum are increasingly stubborn when it comes to pushing their hopes of extremist candidates.

I read an article not long ago suggesting that the US populace seems to be starting to favor a more Westminster style of legislature, with a "government" that runs the show and an "opposition." Maybe it's time the US starts considering a restructuring of our government?

There is no "far liberal" counterpart that is even a distant 2nd to matching the power and political influence of The Tea Party!

The Tea Party are Republicans in name only, whose current "arranged marriage" to the GOP is strictly one of political "convenience."

Tea Party seats in the House has allowed the Republican Party to assume control of the House - but in name only.

To create the illusion of a majority in the House, the GOP has paid the price of allowing this conservative splinter group an opportunity to exert power and influence far out of proportion to its limited numbers.

The Tea Party's refusal to follow John Boehner's leadership during the debt-limit debate, until their terms were met, is a graphic example that it is not just a conservative wing of the Republican Party, but has emerged as a 3rd political party with its own identity!

 

[JoeB131]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Romney would be about the fastest way to lose, really.

yes, let's nominate the race-baiting flip-flopper with the crazy religion, because nothing gets people on board faster than another out of touch millionaire who can't tell you how many mansions he owns.

 

[JoeB131]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

He's a Mormon. The base of the GOP will never get behind a Mormon. See 2008 GOP ticket if you don't believe me....

I think we're over that, look at the polls.

Beating Obama is the overriding obsession.

actually, polls show 22% won't vote for a Mormon.

I know I won't. Ever.

 

[JoeB131]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

He's a Mormon. The base of the GOP will never get behind a Mormon. See 2008 GOP ticket if you don't believe me....

Obama is a black man. Once upon a time it was said that the country would never get behind a black man.

It was once said that the country would never get behind a Catholic.

I like Romney, I hope he gets the nomination. Just read this morning that he's pulled back out in front of the pack, with Perry taking a nosedive. I'm not a big fan of Obama. But I think it's silly to say that the country is "over" if he get's reelected. That's like all the liberal wing nuts in 2004 saying the same about Bush getting re-elected.

There's a major difference between Mormonism and Catholicism. At the time JFK was (barely) elected in 1960, Catholics were the biggest denomination in the US. So for every extreme Protestant who wouldn't vote for a "Papist", there was a Catholic willing to step up to the plate and vote for him. The distribution of electoral votes benefitted JFK as well.

There are only about 6 million Mormons in this country, and most of them are concentrated in Utah and Nevada. There are about 100 million Baptists and Evangelicals, most of whom consider Mormons as heretics. They could nudge states like Florida, Virginia, Missouri, the Carolinas into Obama's camp.

But it gets worse. Part of the reason Romney has pulled ahead of Perry is because he's done some serious race baiting over immigration issues.

Now, the thing is, as you say, Perry has nosedived, but he hasn't lost ground to Romney. Romney is still at the same 25% or less he's been at for the last year. Perry's loss has been Herman Cain's gain.

But the fact is, Hispanics will remember that Romney wanted to deny their kids college while he was happy to let them work for slave wages trimming his bushes. So this guy won't screw it up for the GOP for this election, but probably the next few.

 

[Seawytch]

You're just still upset because you won't see a Palin / Obama debate.

Oh come on. Anyone who loves comedy was fantasizing about an Obama/Palin debate.

 

[Seawytch]

The mainstream conservative spin begins. "Pick Romney, he ain't so bad" is their meme. Why are mainstream Republicans pushing Romney? Because he's a corporate tool, of course. The banks LOVE him. He's their kind of guy...he ships jobs overseas too.

 

[JoeB131]

The mainstream conservative spin begins. "Pick Romney, he ain't so bad" is their meme. Why are mainstream Republicans pushing Romney? Because he's a corporate tool, of course. The banks LOVE him. He's their kind of guy...he ships jobs overseas too.

There's some truth to that.

I think the GOP has always been this alliance between the monied classes who fund campaigns (and get most of what they want) and average folks who don't like the morals and ethics being pushed by the left. So what you do get is people voting for someone who says "Jesus" convincingly, and then proceeds to act on none of their concerns, while doing the bidding of corporations.

The thing I found telling was in 2008, when Mike Huckabee surged and the monied class absolutely panicked. They tried to get behind Romney, but no one was buying then, (or now, for that matter), and when that didn't work, they got behind McCain.

 

[Liability]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Uhhhmmm. No.

Application denied.

The point of the primaries is to pick the best possible candidate, not JUST the one who you imagine has the "best chance" to knock the other side's incumbent out of the box.

If push comes to shove, I'll support Gov. Romney. But he is not my preference.

He does rank higher than Huntsman or Dr. Paul, though. Even then, it's a close call.

 

[Full-Auto]

The mainstream conservative spin begins. "Pick Romney, he ain't so bad" is their meme. Why are mainstream Republicans pushing Romney? Because he's a corporate tool, of course. The banks LOVE him. He's their kind of guy...he ships jobs overseas too.

Romney? Me. NEVER.......

Bombshell: Cain and Romney Tied in New Poll - Daniel Doherty

 

[Rocko]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Uhhhmmm. No.

Application denied.

The point of the primaries is to pick the best possible candidate, not JUST the one who you imagine has the "best chance" to knock the other side's incumbent out of the box.

If push comes to shove, I'll support Gov. Romney. But he is not my preference.

He does rank higher than Huntsman or Dr. Paul, though. Even then, it's a close call.

I like Romney more than Huntsman, Paul, and that other libertarian idiot.

Newt is the best guy for the job, but he can't win a general, and niether can Cain, Perry, or Bachman.

What should we do? Give up the whitehouse to a dangerous Marxist, because the candidate we have, that is the only one that can win, isn't conservative enough?

Administrations that have failed historically, have done the most damage in the second term, George W. Bush included...

The difference between first term Obama and second term Obama, is in his second term he's going to try and do only what he wants, because he won't need to worry about another election.

 

[Rocko]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Cain is a 10fold better fit!

If we don't elect Cain we will miss out big time!

Conservatives will elect him, but so-called independent won't.

We don't know enough about his political skills, to say he'd be able to hold his own with media traps, and Obama.

He's made some stupid foriegn policy remarks...He's to risky to bet on at this point.

I like the guy, but i'm being pragmatic.

 

[Rocko]

It's not about beating Obama, it's about electing someone we can trust to do the right things rather than cave in and I'm sorry but Mitt is far from being that person. If it's all about beating Obama then you're part of the problem and that is a sad platform to run off.

Anybody who thinks Romney is very different from Obama will be sorely disappointed if he wins. It's not even because of the Obamacare/Romneycare issue, which I highly doubt will be resolved if Romney wins with a straight up repeal.

I doubt the man will do anything different from Bush, or Obama. Just like McCain was no different from them, and Perry is no different from them. These people will do nothing to change the country, what is needed is drastic changes soon .....

I'd rather have four years of Marxist Obama not getting what he wants then 4 years of socialist lite Romney getting it. Did you learn nothing from the eight disastrous years of the W administration?

Romney can't win the GOP nomination without the support of The Tea Party - and most of them consider him to be nothing better than a "Democrat in sheeps clothing!"

I agree that Romney is the one and only Republican candidate capable of appealing to America's political center and beating Obama, BUT when "push-comes-to-shove," the present conservative crowd is more interested in remaining ideologically "pure" than winning.

The tea party is all about beating Obama, even if it means getting behind Romney.

 

[Full-Auto]

It's not about beating Obama, it's about electing someone we can trust to do the right things rather than cave in and I'm sorry but Mitt is far from being that person. If it's all about beating Obama then you're part of the problem and that is a sad platform to run off.

I'd rather have four years of Marxist Obama not getting what he wants then 4 years of socialist lite Romney getting it. Did you learn nothing from the eight disastrous years of the W administration?

Romney can't win the GOP nomination without the support of The Tea Party - and most of them consider him to be nothing better than a "Democrat in sheeps clothing!"

I agree that Romney is the one and only Republican candidate capable of appealing to America's political center and beating Obama, BUT when "push-comes-to-shove," the present conservative crowd is more interested in remaining ideologically "pure" than winning.

The tea party is all about beating Obama, even if it means getting behind Romney.

I disagree. I will not vote for a liberal of either party.

 

[konradv]

It's all about beating Obama. Romney is the candidate by default, but if Obama is reelected, the country is over.

Uhhhmmm. No.

Application denied.

The point of the primaries is to pick the best possible candidate, not JUST the one who you imagine has the "best chance" to knock the other side's incumbent out of the box.

If push comes to shove, I'll support Gov. Romney. But he is not my preference.

He does rank higher than Huntsman or Dr. Paul, though. Even then, it's a close call.

I like Romney more than Huntsman, Paul, and that other libertarian idiot.

Newt is the best guy for the job, but he can't win a general, and niether can Cain, Perry, or Bachman.

What should we do? Give up the whitehouse to a dangerous Marxist, because the candidate we have, that is the only one that can win, isn't conservative enough?

Administrations that have failed historically, have done the most damage in the second term, George W. Bush included...

The difference between first term Obama and second term Obama, is in his second term he's going to try and do only what he wants, because he won't need to worry about another election.

So your answer to a "dangerous Marxist" comes from a list of dangerous Nazis?!?! PLEEEEEEASE!!!